Correspondence justifying ICMR& #39;s guideline for using #HCQ for prophylaxis in healthcare workers, in @TheLancet by AIIMS medicine department. My first thought: "They& #39;re the experts, so there must be some good science behind it!" To convince myself, I dig a little deeper
1/n
Ref 4: open-label, non-randomized trial. 26 received HCQ (but 6 lost to follow up), 16 controls. Adjusted for age and sex. NO DATA ON CO-MORBIDITIES. Result-HCQ led to significant reduction of viral carriage ar D6. Azithromycin if added more efficient. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996?via%3Dihub
2/n">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a...
Counter-evidence: study published in @TheLancet two days back. 671 hospital, 6 continents. 81k control group. 3k received HCQ, 6k HCQ + Azithro. Controlled for comorbidities. HCQ and HCQ + Azithro independently associated w/ inc risk of mortality and ventricular arrhythmia.
3/n
Three references used to justify the use of HCQ. Even if we ignore the fact that none of them were for pre-exposure prophylaxis, all three suffer major major methodological flaws. There is increasing evidence that HCQ does more harm than good when used for treatment.
6/n
Conclusion: I still can& #39;t wrap my head around why HCQ prophylaxis is recommended. But, I& #39;m just a student. The experts at my institute say otherwise
So, when not long from now I& #39;ll have COVID-19 duties, will I be taking HCQ? I don& #39;t know. I hope I& #39;m less confused then.
8/n
End.
You can follow @Mudit_Agrwal.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: