Replies to post #281683 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Bill B]

Jas, the Oxford HCQ study completed recently was mind boggling. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so absurd. From the VA study to the Lancet study to the Oxford study this has been nothing short of criminal.

[sts66]

HCQ has shown no benefit in real RCT's, and the FDA withdrew it's EUA a few days ago. From Bill's reply to you I found this link on the UK's RECOVERY trial, which halted it's HCQ arm, probably part of the FDA's decision:

https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-investigators-of-the-randomised-evaluation-of-covid-19-therapy-recovery-trial-on-hydroxychloroquine-5-june-2020-no-clinical-benefit-from-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19

‘A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes.

To the stats guys here, if R-IT had any result with [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10), how would it have been viewed? I think I know the answer - if CI crosses 1 or p > 0.05 you've proven nothing, the result could be due to chance - but in this case they ignored how stats are properly interpreted - why?