@PFIZE®baba
HCQ for
COVID-19 : real-time meta analysis of 253 studies
100% of the 29 early treatment studies report a
positive effect (13 statistically significant in isolation).
•Random effects
meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported shows
66% improvement for the 29 early
treatment studies (RR 0.34 [0.24-0.49]). Results are similar after
exclusion based sensitivity analysis : 67% (RR 0.33 [0.24-0.44]), and after
restriction to 20 peer-reviewed studies : 65% (RR 0.35 [0.25-0.47]). Restricting
to the 6 RCTs shows 46% improvement
(RR 0.54 [0.33-0.86]). Restricting to the 13 mortality results shows 75% lower
mortality (RR 0.25 [0.16-0.40]).
•Late treatment is
less successful, with only 70% of the 171 studies reporting a positive effect.
Very late stage treatment is not effective and may be harmful, especially when
using excessive dosages.
•The probability
that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 253 studies
to date is estimated to be 1 in 1 quadrillion (p = 0.00000000000000083).
•87% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of
this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.0037.
•There is
substantial evidence of bias towards
publishing negative results. 82% of prospective studies report positive
effects, and only 72% of retrospective studies do. Studies from North America are
3.3 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of
the world combined, p = 0.0000000084.