This is a useful result, but it's not what we've really been wondering. The question of whether HCQ, possibly in combination with antibiotics or zinc and administered early in the infection, reduces the likelihood of getting a serious case.
The Minnesota study has some methodological issues, as well as not enough patients, that made it impossible to draw conclusions about this.
Hopefully, future RCT studies will illuminate this as well. Unless the Lancet paper has poisoned the source of candidates for the study enough that it will be impossible to recruit patients.
They have yet to publish the results on whether it benefits patients during the early onset of symptoms. [1]
Is hydroxychloroquine paired with zinc in the two studies? That has been the central claim of people supporting hydroxychloroquine this entire time and so far I've yet to see them used together in an early treatment / preventative study in the US (perhaps they've done so in Europe or China?).
[1] "A separate U trial is examining whether it benefits patients after early onset of symptoms, but results haven’t been published."
https://www.startribune.com/anti-malaria-drug-in-u-of-m-tria...
https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje...
One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.