A publisher of the Trump-acclaimed hydroxychloroquine study said it was “a complete failure.”
The publisher of the French study, which found that hydroxychloroquine could help treat coronavirus patients, now says the newspaper “did not meet standards.”
President Donald Trump has praised the study in tweets and during his daily press conferences as a game changer.
But in one pronunciation published online, the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC) has addressed several new problems with the research.
Officials say they found that the researchers excluded data from patients who did not respond well to treatment and did not clarify what they meant when they said patients were “cured virologically.”
A small-scale French study said hydroxychloroquine (file image) could shorten the duration of coronavirus in patients
President Donald Trump has praised the drug – in combination with azithromycin, an antibiotic – a pending game changer. Pictured: Trump speaks about the corona virus in the White House on April 8
The medical association that published the study now says that it “does not meet the Society’s expected standard,” because researchers had not included data on six of the 26 patients who “left” the study and explained what “healed virologically.” meant. Pictured: One of the study’s principal investigators, Professor Didier Raoult
The study was first published online March 20 in ISAC’s journal, the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.
Researchers at the Méditerrannée Infection University Hospital Institute in Marseille, France, had 20 patients use hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin, an antibiotic.
They found that the combination was related to ‘reduction / disappearance of the viral load in COVID-19 patients’.
The team started with 26 patients, but according to the study, six were “lost in follow-up during the study because treatment was stopped prematurely.”
Three out of six ended up in intensive care, a fourth patient died, one stopped treatment after nausea, and the latter did not have the virus.
In the US, there are more than 435,000 confirmed cases of the virus and more than 14,000 deaths
“While ISAC recognizes the importance of helping the scientific community by quickly publishing new data, it cannot come at the cost of reducing scientific research and best practices,” Andreas Voss, the association’s president, wrote in a statement. statement.
He then noted that one of the study’s authors, Jean-Marc Rolain, is editor-in-chief of the journal in which it was published.
“Despite some online suggestions about the reliability of the article’s peer review process, the process complied with industry peer review rules,” Voss wrote.
“Given his role as editor-in-chief of this magazine, Jean-Marc Rolain was not involved in the peer review of the manuscript and has no access to peer review information.”
Voss did not immediately respond to DailyMail.com’s request for comment.
Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics in the public health department at NYU School of Medicine, called the study “pathetic,” especially because the results of the six patients who were deleted [were not factored into the study’s final conclusions.]
‘I think [the research is] based on a pathetic study in which six out of 26 patients lost, “Caplan told DailyMail.com.
“It was hiding data. It was withdrawn because it was a farce. ‘
Trump has said that people “ have nothing to lose ” by trying the drug, but Caplan disagrees because of dangerous side effects.
Studies in Sweden and Japan [of the drug] are closed because[patients[continuedtohaveattacks”hesaid[patients[kepthavingseizures’hesaid[patiënten[bleefaanvallenkrijgen’zeihij[patients[kepthavingseizures’hesaid
“It was approved for 20-year-olds who went on safari; it was not approved for 74-year-olds with pneumonia. ‘
Another concern ISAC said to have with the paper is “the lack of a better explanation of the inclusion criteria.”
The authors wrote in the study that 100 percent of the patients taking both drugs were “Virologically cured” compared to 57.1 percent of patients who just used hydroxychloroquine and 12.5 percent who did not use either.
However, the researchers never fully explained what “virologically cured” meant.
.