A controversial 2020 study that claim the malaria drug Plaquenil evidence hope for treating COVID-19 has been abjure , after sparking widespread critique from scientist ever since its publication .
The study was originally publish online in theInternational Journal of Antimicrobial Agentson March 20 , 2020 . With a small sample size of just 36 total participants , the trial had involved treat 20 COVID-19 patient with 600 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine , a drug best known as an antimalarial drug . Some of the patients were also give the antibiotic azithromycin .
Based on the results , the authors concluded that Plaquenil was “ significantly associated with viral load simplification / disappearing in COVID-19 patient role ” and that this positive result was improved further by append azithromycin into the mixture .
cogitate back to March 2020 . COVID-19 had only been formally declare a pandemic towards the beginning of that calendar month . Travel restriction , social distancing orders , and lockdowns were only just beginning in most places , and there was still a immense amount that scientists and the ecumenical public alike did not know about this unexampled disease .
Against that backdrop , this study emerge , claiming that a chintzy and pronto useable drug might be one of the answers hoi polloi had been desperately searching for . Almost immediately , thehypearound hydroxychloroquine bring off , including from then ( and presently - to - be ) USPresident Donald Trump .
However , almost as quickly , scientific criticism of the study also commence rolling in .
The small sample size of it was an immediate red flag for many , as was the strikingly dissipated turnaround from entry of the initial manuscript to online issue – with a submission escort of March 16 , it appear that the full publication process must have been make out within just four day , which anyone who ’s ever tried to get a paper put out will clamber to believe .
Prominent microbiologist and science integrity advocate Elisabeth Bik was quick to put down out concern about the cogitation on her blog , Science Integrity Digest .
“ On the same day as the preprint appeared , 16 March , the ms was submitted to the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents , where it was accept within a day , on 17 March , and published online on 20 March . That suggest that equal review was done in 24h , an implausibly fast meter , ” Bik save on March 24 , 2020 .
Other concerns flag included suspicions around the timeline between attaining honorable approving and really commencing the written report , the fact that the run was not randomized – considered by many to be the gold standard for clinical trials – and the removal of four treated patient from the net dataset , three of whom were escalated to intensive forethought and one of whom died .
As the disputation take to task on , other studiesinvestigated the potential of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID discussion andfailed to see any benefit . But set out the genie back into the feeding bottle try impossible;stockpilingof the drug get in several US nation , and President Trump continued to be avocal proponentof its use . Even when theFDA warnedin April of the risk of heart round freakishness in patients being treated with hydroxychloroquine off - label , excitement around the drug did n’t fully dissipate .
You ’ll still bump hoi polloi today who claim , against all useable evidence , that the drug is a nostrum against COVID-19 . The now - abjure study was not the only one fueling the ballyhoo , but it was the most highly bring up . In fact , it ’s now become the 2d most - reference newspaper ever to be pull back , as you may see on the leaderboard maintained byRetraction Watch .
It ’s also the 28thretracted report for aged author Didier Raoult , a now - retired microbiologist who worked at Marseille ’s L’Institut Hospitalier Universitaire Méditerranée Infection .
In a translatedstatement , the Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique said , “ [ The abjuration ] must tick the beginning of a broad questioning of the work post out under the supervising of Professor Didier Raoult , in particular on hydroxychloroquine . This work is mistrust of not respecting honorable and scientific standards and is , for some , the guinea pig of ongoing effectual proceedings . ”
After years of critique , include a2023 letterraising serious concerns about methodological flaws in the study and an editorial conflict of interest ( one of the co - authors was also editor in chief - in - honcho of the diary ) , the journal finally issued a lengthy recantation notice . It detail numerous defect and inconsistencies , and corroborate that three of the authors themselves also flagged event .
“ This is improbably good news , ” Bik toldNature News . “ This paper should never have been publish – or it should have been retract straightaway after its publication . ”
