Widely disputed research that wasted time and potentially endangered people during the pandemic is finally dead in the ground. This week, a scientific journal’s publisher retracted an influential study that claimed to show the drug hydroxychloroquine could treat covid-19, following years of criticism over the study’s design and analysis.
Elsevier issued its retraction of the study on Tuesday, citing concerns about how it was conducted and whether patients were properly recruited into it. The study sparked massive interest into the potential of hydroxychloroquine for treating covid-19, with even President Trump supporting its use. Many experts were skeptical about the study’s findings, however, and subsequent studies failed to replicate its results.
Hydroxychloroquine, or HCQ, has long been a valuable medication, once commonly used to treat acute malaria infections and more often these days to treat symptoms of autoimmune disorders like lupus. Based on lab studies, some scientists had also speculated that the drug could have a broad antiviral effect, possibly allowing it to be repurposed as a treatment for covid-19.
The now-retracted small study, published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents in March 2020, seemed to bolster this hunch. It found that people given HCQ had lower levels of the virus on average or cleared the infection more quickly; those who also took the antibiotic azithromycin appeared to recover even quicker.
The findings led to a surge of interest in the drug. A day after the study was published, President Trump touted the combination therapy as a “game changer” for the pandemic. The U.S. government and other organizations announced soon after that they would start large-scale trials to test out hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.
It didn’t take long for other scientists to raise concerns about the study, its methodology, and its authors—particularly senior author Didier Raoult, a physician and microbiologist—concerns that have since been widely validated.
Elsevier’s staff, along with outside experts, conducted an investigation into the study, following numerous complaints from other scientists. The team identified several potential ethical lapses. It’s not clear whether any of the patients involved in the study were enrolled in the study before approval was granted, for instance. The patients may have also been given azithromycin without proper permission. And while some of the authors did defend their findings, three authors told Elsevier that they had concerns “regarding the presentation and interpretation of results” and that they no longer wanted their names on the paper. At least ten other papers authored by Raoult have also been retracted by Elsevier this year.
Perhaps the most damaging legacy of this study is the futile wild goose chase it set in motion. Millions of covid-19 patients were dosed with HCQ as a result, but the vast majority of studies failed to show it had any benefit; some studies even found that it raised people’s risk of dying from heart issues. Despite this research, many people continued to advocate for HCQ and other suspicious covid-19 treatments (including Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who may soon run the Department of Health and Human Services). Importantly, this fervent support for HCQ may have convinced some people to turn down proper care for their covid-19 infections.
Scientists were able to find other, older drugs that were actually effective for covid-19, particularly the steroid dexamethasone. Thanks to these drugs and innovations like vaccines, Covid-19 is now much less of a public health threat. But the anti-science attitude that many backers of HCQ expressed in its defense is, unfortunately, very alive and well.
Read the full article here
