Version 234
"Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 62% [52‑70%] improvement for the 36 early treatment studies. Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies. The 15 mortality results shows 72% [57‑81%] lower mortality, and the 15 hospitalization results shows 41% [28‑52%] improvement...
74% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of results as good or better for an ineffective treatment is 0.017.
Negative meta analyses of HCQ generally choose a subset of trials, focusing on late treatment, especially trials with very late treatment and excessive dosages.
No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% effective and available. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, which may be significantly more effective...
HIGHLIGHTS
HCQ reduces risk for COVID-19 with very high confidence for mortality, hospitalization, cases, viral clearance, and in pooled analysis; however increased risk is seen with very low confidence for ventilation.
We show traditional outcome specific analyses and combined evidence from all studies, incorporating treatment delay, a primary confounding factor in COVID-19 studies.
Real-time updates and corrections, transparent analysis with all results in the same format, consistent protocol for 57 treatments."