7/11 Late treatment study
et al., Critical Care, 24:418, 2020, doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03117-9 (Peer Reviewed)
Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: an opportunistic retrospective analysis
Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: an opportunistic retrospective analysis
Retrospective 80 ICU patients, 22 SOC, 20 lopinavir/ritonavir, 38 HCQ. 28 day mortality 24% (HCQ) versus 41% (SOC), a 41% decrease, but not statistically significant due to very small sample sizes. No statistically significant differences found for treatment escalation, ventilator-free days, viral load, or mortality. Authors consider treatment escalation more important than mortality, for unknown reasons.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. For an individual study the most serious outcome may have a smaller number of events and lower statistical signficance, however this provides the strongest evidence for the most serious outcomes when combining the results of many trials.
Lecronier et al., 7/11/2020, retrospective, France, Europe, peer-reviewed, baseline oxygen requirements 100.0%, 25 authors, HCQ vs. control.
risk of death, 42.0% lower, RR 0.58, p = 0.24, treatment 9 of 38 (23.7%), control 9 of 22 (40.9%).
risk of treatment escalation, 6.0% lower, RR 0.94, p = 0.73, treatment 15 of 38 (39.5%), control 9 of 22 (40.9%).
risk of viral+ at day 7, 15.0% lower, RR 0.85, p = 0.61, treatment 19 of 26 (73.1%), control 12 of 14 (85.7%).
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. For an individual study the most serious outcome may have a smaller number of events and lower statistical signficance, however this provides the strongest evidence for the most serious outcomes when combining the results of many trials.
