Read on Twitter
1. I figured you'd roll out the NIH/VA "study," riddled w/flaws & shortcomings:
-Retrospective, not Randomized Controlled Trial.
-Small study.
-Not peer reviewed.
-Was of already-hospitalized pts, which many clinicians feel is already too late
(cont)
-Retrospective, not Randomized Controlled Trial.
-Small study.
-Not peer reviewed.
-Was of already-hospitalized pts, which many clinicians feel is already too late
(cont)
2.
-Doesn't include the time lapsed between onset of symptoms & administration of HCQ
-Stated that more severely diseased individuals were more likely to receive HCQ treatment
-14% of the comparator group presented with lymphopenia, vs 25% & 31% of the 2 HCQ groups
(cont)
-Doesn't include the time lapsed between onset of symptoms & administration of HCQ
-Stated that more severely diseased individuals were more likely to receive HCQ treatment
-14% of the comparator group presented with lymphopenia, vs 25% & 31% of the 2 HCQ groups
(cont)
3.
-CRP was higher in HCQ+Az (25% over 69mg/L) vs. 16% in HCQ-only vs. 10% in No HCQ. Complicating factor.
-Sicker patients assumed to have received the HCQ treatment
-"Severe disease" in HCQ group versus...unknown clinical status in non-HCQ (what kind of "study" was this?)
-CRP was higher in HCQ+Az (25% over 69mg/L) vs. 16% in HCQ-only vs. 10% in No HCQ. Complicating factor.
-Sicker patients assumed to have received the HCQ treatment
-"Severe disease" in HCQ group versus...unknown clinical status in non-HCQ (what kind of "study" was this?)
