Read on Twitter
This article from @ThePrintIndia says The Lancet observational study was on treatment, but the ICMR is recommending HCQ as prophylaxis, and so they are not comparable https://theprint.in/health/icmr-lancet-hcq-study-arent-at-odds-one-is-on-preventing-covid-other-about-treating-it/428922/">https://theprint.in/health/ic...
But what the article doesn& #39;t mention is that when ICMR began prescribing the drug as prophylaxis, there were zero RCTs showing the drug& #39;s prophylactic efficacy (this continues to be the case today)
So, ICMR basically began prescribing the drug as prophylaxis based on conflicting evidence from RCTs *for treatment.
So, for an article that claims to explore nuances (which I appreciate), it is surprising that it missed the nuance that there are no prophylaxis RCTs today.
To conclude: comparing the ICMR& #39;s observational study with The Lancet& #39;s observational study (which, btw, seems to have several flaws https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/25/hydroxychloroquine-update/)">https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/2... is a strawman argument.
The real question is: what are RCTs of HCQ prophylaxis saying? And the answer is: there are none, yet.
