Immortal time bias: Follow-up began on admission date. For those treated, then, follow-up includes time PRIOR TO TREATMENT INITIATION. Thus, HCQ patients had to survive long enough to be treated, and HCQ+AZT patients had to survive perhaps even longer to be treated.

2/
Confounding by indication: Treated patients were clearly sicker than non-treated patients. This would tend to bias in the opposite direction of the immortal time bias. So, we have the battle of competing biases. Do they cancel out? Who knows?

3/
Timing of covariate measurement relative to treatment initiation: It is unclear WHEN time-varying factors like labs were measured relative to treatment. If variables measured after treatment initiation are adjusted for, could bias results in unpredictable ways.

4/
Missing data- There is a ton of missing data (like >50% missing for some labs). It appears that this dealt with using missing data indicators, which is known to be biased.

5/
Maybe the healthcare community should never have started using HCQ+/- Azithro. That would be reasonable because we never had strong evidence that the drugs work.

However, if you are using these drugs, this study is not a reason to change your practice.
You can follow @Miano81.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: