A controversial , highly influential bailiwick touting the drug hydroxychloroquine as a intervention for covid-19 — one that aid set in motion month of inquiry and failed clinical trials — has now been acutely criticize within the pages of the same scientific diary that published it . The newpost - publication peer reviewhighlights a variety of serious defect in the discipline and conclude that the authors were “ full irresponsible ” in how they presented their findings .
The original newspaper , authored by a team of research worker in France , waspublishedin late March in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents . It was said to involve 20 hospitalise patients with confirmed covid-19 who were treated with hydroxychloroquine , some of whom were also given the antibiotic azithromycin . liken to a control grouping of patients , the study claimed , citizenry on hydroxychloroquine had lower point of the virus on average or empty the infection more quickly ; the addition of azithromycin was colligate with even faster recovery .
Though there had been earlier , promising trials of hydroxychloroquine to treat covid-19 elsewhere in the world , the French study sparked massive scientific and political interest in the drug . President Trump himself tweetedabout the studythe day after it total out , foretell the combination therapy as a “ game changer ” for the pandemic . shortly after , the U.S. administration and others , including the World Health Organization , announced that they would start large - exfoliation trials to try out out Plaquenil and the related to drug chloroquine .
Didier Raoult seen speaking with journalists at his IHU medical institute in Marseille, France on 1 January 2025.Photo: Christophe Simon (Getty Images)
But it was n’t long before other scientistsbeganto elevate questions about the study , how it was carry out , and the scientist who conducted it , specially the senior author , a medico and microbiologist name Didier Raoult . Though Raoult had genuinely contributed to significant research in the yesteryear , he and his lab were alsopreviously accusedof glaring errors and actus reus in their published work , with one episode leading to a year - foresightful ban from a prominent microbiology diary . Once his hydroxychloroquine study began make waves , investigator unearthed other so-called examples of data fakery in some of his early inquiry .
Since then , the grounds that Plaquenil could help oneself with covid-19 , peculiarly knockout case , has mostly ( but not altogether ) been lacking . The WHOendedits clinical trial of Plaquenil last month after data point showed no material benefit , while other countries such as the U.S. have stoppedrecommendingits economic consumption . But that still leaves the written report that commence it all .
Though the newspaper did go through equal revaluation , that summons too was impair with unfavorable judgment , after it came to light that one of Raoult ’s Centennial State - authors , Jean - Marc Rolain , was also the editor in chief - in - chief of the journal where it was print . On April 3 , the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy , which supervise the journal , statedthat the study did not take on their “ gestate standard ” for publishing but that Rolain was not found to have played a part in the peer reexamination process .
Though post - publication compeer reexamination are n’t common practice , they ’ve started to acquire more attention as a way to rectify many of the problems and gap that arise with the received process . In this case , the study was post - go over by Frits Rosendaal , a clinical epidemiologist at the Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands .
Rosendaal ’s scathing recap echoes many of the same criticisms made by outside scientist following the study ’s publishing . In fussy , he condemns the decisiveness by Raoult ’s team to turn out from the field of study ’s final results six patients who took Plaquenil , include four whose consideration worsened , one of whom eventually pall during the written report period ( none in the control radical died ) . There were also other inconsistencies , such as auxiliary material advert that a bit of asymptomatic patients were included for study while the study ’s actual spoken language claimed that it was an testing of hospitalized patients ( mass without symptom are unlikely to have been hospitalized for covid-19 ) .
These and other problems with the datum were enough to make the report “ nearly if not completely uninformative , ” Rosendaal wrote . The to a fault rose-colored whole tone of the paper in promoting Plaquenil as a covid-19 discourse is not only unfounded , he bring , “ but , give the desperate need for a intervention for Covid-19 , coupled with the potentially serious side - effects of hydroxychloroquine , fully irresponsible . ”
Another newpaper , also published in the same journal yesterday , similarly criticizes the French study , take note that “ this trial has several major methodological issues , including the designing , outcome measure and the statistical analysis . ”
Though it seems like the major fallout from this research has come and go , with most country no longer enthusiastic about Plaquenil and other drug that have shown promise for treating covid-19 now usable , its repercussions may lallygag far longer .
There are still die - hard supporters of the drug , including President Trump . harmonize to the Washington Post , Trump and members of his governing body arepushingfor the Food Drug Administration to once again empower the drug as an emergency brake discussion for covid-19 , following aquickly criticizedstudy ( and non - clinical visitation ) published last workweek that bump some grounds for its benefit . Raoult himselfcontinuesto base by his enquiry and promote the drug , claiming in former June that he had successfully treated over 3,700 people .
It ’s unclear at this percentage point whether the post - review article of Raoult ’s workplace will lead to any further action on the part of the diary . Neither the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy nor Elsevier , which co - publishes the journal , responded to a request for comment from Gizmodo .
Update 2025-03-07 :
An Elsevier spokesman told Gizmodo in an e-mail that there are no plan to retract the March Plaquenil study . He place to an editorial recentlypublishedby senior officer of the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy , in which they explain their decision not to withdraw the paper .
They write : “ We believe , in addition to the grandness of sharing observational datum at the height of a pandemic , a rich public scientific public debate about the paper ’s finding in an candid and transparent fashion should be made available . ”
COVID-19ScienceTrump
Daily Newsletter
Get the best technical school , science , and culture news in your inbox daily .
tidings from the future , delivered to your present .
You May Also Like
