the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Good Quality Paper Demonstrates Strong Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine. Mortality rate cut in half!

Posted by Jeff Id on July 3, 2020

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

A new study of over 2000 hospitalized patients reveals that Hydroxychloroquine works very well in treatment of COVID.  The reason I’m so excited about this one is because unlike the poor studies that I’ve written about already, this study controlled the dosages, use the correct levels of HCQ and Azythromycin per other studies, and matched patients to each other by their own health situations.  This matching of health condition is the proper method to control the confounding factors in a situation where testing cannot be double-blind.  The health of the patient is what the frustratingly fake studies didn’t correct for, but certain political pressures made them popular.

This is absolutely the most conclusive research produced to date by anyone, due mostly to the quality of the approach.  No one has published this quality level of work on HCQ on humans prior to this.

HCQ reduced deaths by half from the untreated patients.

Of note, this was a very large study:

The results of this study demonstrate that in a strictly monitored protocol-driven in-hospital setting, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In this study, among one of the largest COVID-19 hospital patient cohorts (n = 2,541) assembled in a single institution, overall in-hospital COVID-19 associated mortality was 18.1% reflecting a high prevalence of co-morbid conditions in COVID-19 patients admitted to our institution.

And Safe:

To mitigate potential limitations associated with missing or inaccurate documentation in electronic medical records, we manually reviewed all deaths to confirm the primary mortality outcome and ascertain the cause of death. A review of our COVID-19 mortality data demonstrated no major cardiac arrhythmias; specifically, no torsades de pointes that has been observed with hydroxychloroquine treatment.

My bold of course.  That means that HCQ is still not dangerous folks!!

Look at this powerful result:

The Cox regression result for the two propensity matched groups (Table 4) indicates that treatment with hydroxychloroquine resulted in a mortality hazard ratio decrease of 51% (p = 0.009). The resulting Kaplan-Meier survival curves within the propensity matched setting displayed significantly better survival in the hydroxychloroquine treated group, with the enhanced survival persisting all the way out to 28 days from admission (Fig. 2).



I found it very interesting that the Azythromycin didn’t work as well in combination with HCQ but it did better by itself than no treatment.  I also found it a little overly deferential in its recognition of the bad papers which others have produced, but those who know me probably aren’t surprised by that.

I want to thank all of these researchers who did their job so well.  Saving lives the right way.

Samia Arshad, Paul Kilgore, Zohra S. Chaudhry, Gordon Jacobsen, Dee Dee Wang, Kylie Huitsing, Indira Brar, George J. Alangaden, Mayur S. Ramesh, John E. McKinnon, William O’Neill, Marcus Zervos, Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force<ce:author-group id=”aug0010″>, Varidhi Nauriyal, Asif Abdul Hamed, Owais Nadeem, Jennifer Swiderek, Amanda Godfrey, Jeffrey Jennings, Jayna Gardner-Gray, Adam M Ackerman, Jonathan Lezotte, Joseph Ruhala, Raef Fadel, Amit Vahia, Smitha Gudipati, Tommy Parraga, Anita Shallal, Gina Maki, Zain Tariq, Geehan Suleyman, Nicholas Yared, Erica Herc, Johnathan Williams, Odaliz Abreu Lanfranco, Pallavi Bhargava, Katherine Reyes, Anne Chen

Well done!

10 Responses to “Good Quality Paper Demonstrates Strong Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine. Mortality rate cut in half!”

  1. Anonymous said

    Just hit Fox news

  2. Jeff id said

    Just hit fox news

  3. Jeff id said

    Just hit fox news.

  4. […] Source: Good Quality Paper Demonstrates Strong Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine. Mortality rate cut in half! […]

  5. […] Reposted from the Air Vent […]

  6. […] Reposted from the Air Vent […]

  7. Phil Clarke said

    Hmmm. The mean age of the no-drug cohort is 71, the mean age of the HCQ cohort was just 53. In the US population as a whole mortality amongst those in their seventies is roughly 5 times that in the fifty-somethings.

    That’s the kind of confounding factor you remove in a randomised trial, which this was not. They claim to have adjusted for age but their HR reduction of just 2.6 for age >65 seems to me both a little crude and a little small.

    • Jeff Id said

      You cannot NOT give medication to folks right now. Double blind is not possible. This is simply the finest effort you can make without harming folks and the results are stark.

      a little this or little that has little meaning when you cut deaths by half on the sickest people being hospitalized.

  8. Phil Clarke said

    ” …confounding by severity or indication (Kyriacou and Lewis, 2016) is likely. While there was a hospital
    treatment protocol in place, unmeasured clinical factors likely influenced the decision not to treat
    16.1% of patients, in a center where 78% received treatment. These factors are often difficult to
    capture in an observational study. Were the decision to withhold treatment related to poor
    prognosis (e.g. palliative intent), it stands to reason that patients receiving neither
    hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin would have the highest mortality. Indeed, the non-treated
    group had an overall mortality that was higher than the rate of admission to the ICU (26.4% vs.
    15.2%), suggesting that many patients were not considered appropriate for critical care. Such
    being the case, their care may have differed in other substantive ways that was also associated
    with death (e.g. terminal illness or advanced directives limiting invasive care)”

    In other words, for those who were not given any treatment, it is not known WHY they were not treated, which makes the use of this subset as a ‘control group’ slighty problematic.

    • Jeff Id said

      “, which makes the use of this subset as a ‘control group’ slighty problematic.”

      See all that means is that the results might be BETTER than reported because the untreated folks were less sick. I read your comment days ago but the 4th is too much fun to hang out at blogs correcting people. Calling this ‘problematic’ is a big problem for me. There is a broken mindset in the public of eternal negativity. YOUR comment is problematic because it doesn’t make that case. It simply says problematic.

      Beyond your not explaining of ‘problematic’. I actually don’t agree with you on this at all. The whole purpose of the study was to take people with the most equivalent confounding factors and compare them. This did that and found such a strong result that we now know with incredible certainty that HCQ works the same in humans as it did in vitro. What I don’t understand is why this is a result that people don’t see.

      I put the paper right there. Linked important parts. Explained in layman’s terms and still, ‘problematic’. It is not problematic, it is absolutely the best thing you can do right now and it effing works.

      Very frustrating comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: