You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Science & Technology
French Doctor Didier Raoult Cites ‘Scientific Misconduct' in Recent VA Study on Hydroxychloroquine; Two Major Flaws
2020-04-24
[Red State] The Veterans Health Administration released the results of a study on the efficacy of the drug hydroxychloroquine on patients being treated for COVID-19. The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Health and the University of Virginia. Researchers found that not only did the drug show no benefit, it may have actually caused harm. Study results can be viewed in the medRxiv online depository.

Researchers included data from 368 COVID-19 patients. 97 were treated with hydroxychloroquine, 113 were administered a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and 158 received “standard supportive management” for COVID-19. Here’s what they found:
The two primary outcomes analyzed in the study were death and the need for ventilation.

About 28 percent who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11 percent of those getting routine care alone.

About 22 percent of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival.

Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine, either.

The researchers said, “In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs.”

Researchers did not track side effects but noted hints that hydroxychloroquine might have damaged other organs. The drug has long been known to have potentially serious side effects, including altering the heartbeat in a way that could lead to sudden death.
This was not a peer-reviewed study.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Veterans Affairs issued a statement by email to Fox News which read, “This was not a clinical trial. It is simply an analysis of retrospective data regarding hospitalized patients. The findings should not be viewed as definitive because the analysis doesn’t adjust for patients’ clinical status and showed that hydroxychloroquine alone was provided to VA’s sickest COVID-19 patients, many times as a last resort.”

Sounds pretty grim considering the promising results we’ve seen from other studies.
Posted by:g(r)omgoru

#22  It was a retrospective report, an observation, not a controlled study. There were NO control groups, no patient tracking, no criteria for selection bias or anything else. They simply pulled the charts for everyone at that particular hospital with a COVID-19 diagnosis within an arbitrary 30 day period. It was largely composed of males, over 65, and with multiple commodities. And the hospital was giving the medication as a "last resort", rather than sooner as has been done in the real clinical trials and previous treatments.

In other words, its scientifically invalid, and so poorly thought out that there are no viable conclusions to draw from it other than the VA has had trouble treating patients too late.
Posted by: Marilyn Tojo7566   2020-04-24 23:01  

#21  was the medicine only given as a last chance effort for the sickest persons who were dying. That was what it was officially approved for. Were the 'control' patients the less sick ones who were to whom the medicine was not considered needed?
Posted by: daniel    2020-04-24 21:59  

#20  Good info. Thanks Marilyn.
Posted by: Besoeker   2020-04-24 16:51  

#19  The mechanism by which hydroxyquinoline supposedly works is to reduce the ability of the virus to replicate quickly, so that it slows the damage to something the body can handle, giving the immune system time to recover and work properly. Giving it after ARDS sets in would have ZERO effect, because the damage is already done and its the immune response of a cytokine storm, SIRS (Look it up), DIC and organ failure that kill the patient, not the virus itself.

This study is like saying that having a fire department is useless because your house burned down even though you called 911. When actually your kitchen was on fire and you waited until it spread to other rooms to call.
Posted by: Marilyn Tojo7566   2020-04-24 16:31  

#18  Gorb, the too little, too late or too much is the story of care at the VA hospitals I have used.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike   2020-04-24 12:11  

#17  Sorry to hear, Whiskey Mike, but I am not surprised. I, too, know of someone who would rather drive one hour to a VA facility and deal with a doctor he knows and trusts, rather than visit a closer VA facility.
Posted by: Clem   2020-04-24 12:10  

#16  Sadly, I think comments #15 and #16 are correct. The VA is my primary care provider. The quality of care is mixed. One doctor won't take calls or respond to written inquiries. In the same hospital, my other doctor calls me at home, checks up on me, and chats weekly. Night and day, in adjacent offices. It also depends on which VA hospital you use. If I had been using the closer one, I would likely be dead. By driving 3X as far, I live. Seemed like a worthwhile trade off.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike   2020-04-24 12:04  

#15  VA is an absolute disgrace. And that word isn't strong enough.
Posted by: Clem   2020-04-24 11:23  

#14  OK so the VA says its bad. This is the same VA stat told our Korean vets asbestos was safe, told our Viet Nam vets Agent Orange could never cause cancer, told our Desert Storm vets that Desert Storm syndrome was all in their heads, Told us the Anthrax vaccine was safe, told the Afghan vets that burn pits were healthy, and lastly that PTSD was a be existing mental condition. Now I am supposed to believe these guys on this? Their batting average shows to bet the opposite.

Me thinks whoever released this report needs to be removed from any government position.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2020-04-24 11:21  

#13  "[Scientific] Misconduct"? At the VA? NOOOOO, say it ain't so!
Posted by: Clem   2020-04-24 11:15  

#12  They gave the HQC too late.

And probably too much.
Posted by: gorb   2020-04-24 11:00  

#11  The findings should not be viewed as definitive because the analysis doesn’t adjust for patients’ clinical status and showed that hydroxychloroquine alone was provided to VA’s sickest COVID-19 patients, many times as a last resort

These aren't findings unless by 'findings', you mean here is some data we found laying on the floor so we, like, analyzed it and stuff. It will get endless play on the Orange Man Bad news channels, which is to say pretty much all of them.
Posted by: SteveS   2020-04-24 10:59  

#10  
Posted by: Warthog   2020-04-24 10:18  

#9  Thomas Dolby knows more about 'science'...
Posted by: Raj   2020-04-24 08:49  

#8  They gave the HQC too late.
Ingraham translates: “The later you take HCQ, the worse the outcome will be.”

The second problem: “Incomprehensibly, the ‘untreated group’ actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases,
but results did not reflect that, almost like they wanted the "study' to fail.

This is science?
Posted by: Bobby   2020-04-24 08:46  

#7  Did you need to ask? Some animals are more equal than others.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2020-04-24 08:24  

#6  ^ yes.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2020-04-24 08:22  

#5  Are VA studies of equal quality to VA care in general?
Posted by: Raj   2020-04-24 08:15  

#4  it was a useless study, as the VA statement makes clear

the only reason it was published was that publishing was required since they got grants.
Posted by: lord garth   2020-04-24 07:13  

#3  The first major flaw is that President Trump even uttered its name. The second is that it probably saved lives, when clearly people were supposed to die so internationalism and 'global cooperation' could be promoted.
Posted by: Dron66046   2020-04-24 05:21  

#2  Researchers found that not only did the drug show no benefit, it may have actually caused harm. Study results can be viewed in the medRxiv online depository.

This must account for the extremely high demand for the relatively inexpensive hydroxychloroquine. Keep up the good work Dr. Raoult.
Posted by: Besoeker   2020-04-24 05:07  

#1  A clinical test can be designed to fail (usually it's to succeed regardless).
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2020-04-24 05:00  

00:00