I certainly agree with @US_FDA that HCQ should be reserved for use in properly designed adequately powered RCTs rather than used based on belief in absence of evidence. Multiple well-designed RCTs are underway.
-
-
Show this thread
-
But, frankly i'm disturbed by the number of highly health literate people (including some regulators) who look at observational studies and pronounce that the evidence in already in. Importantly, the ongoing RCTs have independent data monitoring committees.
Show this thread -
These committees look at the data and determine whether the balance of benefits and risks to the participants has reached a threshold to either continue or stop the trial. There are multiple ongoing trials so many committees are looking at high quality data.
Show this thread -
I'm sure they are looking more intensively with all the publicity. But even the large Lancet study concluded that RCTs are needed to answer the question of potential benefits weighed against risks. Collaboration among DMCs would probably be a good thing.
Show this thread -
We have seen many examples of wrong answers from observational treatment comparisons. The methodology of non-randomized real world evidence is improving, but none of the published studies have been able to meet quality measures for design for causal inference.
Show this thread -
And best have all concluded: RCTs are needed. So, let's get a definitive answer from RCTs asap rather than jumping to conclusions one way or another. Random assignment is a gift for which we should be grateful as we seek truth.
Show this thread -
Finally, none of this implies that i know whether HCQ is beneficial (or net detrimental) for COVID-19. I will be happy if it is beneficial and sad for patients of not, but i will be happy for biomedical science if we get a definitive answer, positive or negative.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Olivier laquiche
End of conversation
-
-
-
RCTs consume resources and should therefore be evidence-based. There is zero evidence to support expending resources on HCQ trials.
-
There is good evidence. Particularly on studied that used zinc, which is how it works. Studies that did not use zinc, which is most, are useless. We need studies of early intervention used in conjunction with zinc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.