Influential hydroxychloroquine Covid-19 study finally withdrawn

Widely contested research that wasted time and potentially endangered people during the pandemic is finally dead in the ground. This week, the publisher of a scientific journal retracted an influential study it claimed showed the drug hydroxychloroquine could treat covid-19, after years of criticism over the study’s design and analysis.

Elsevier released its putting away of the study on Tuesday, citing concerns about how it was conducted and whether patients were properly recruited into it. The study sparked huge interest in hydroxychloroquine’s potential to treat covid-19, with even President Trump endorsing its use. However, many experts were skeptical of the study’s findings, and subsequent studies have failed to replicate its results.

Hydroxychloroquine, or HCQ, has long been a valuable drug, once commonly used to treat acute malaria infections and more commonly these days to treat symptoms of autoimmune diseases such as lupus. Based on laboratory studies, some scientists have also speculated that the drug may have broad antiviral effects, possibly allowing it to be repurposed as a treatment for covid-19.

The now retracted small study published in International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents in March 2020 seemed to reinforce that hunch. It found that people given HCQ had lower levels of the virus on average or cleared the infection faster; those who also took the antibiotic azithromycin seemed to recover even faster.

The findings led to a surge in interest in the drug. A day after the study was released, President Trump distinguished combination therapy as a ‘game changer’ for the pandemic. The US government and other organizations announced soon after that they would begin large-scale trials testing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

It didn’t take long for other scientists raise concerns about the study, its methodology, and its authors—particularly lead author Didier Raoult, a physician and microbiologist—concerns that have since been widely confirmed.

Elsevier staff, along with outside experts, conducted an investigation into the study after numerous complaints from other scientists. The team identified several potential ethical lapses. It is unclear whether any of the patients participating in the study were included in the study before approval was given, for example. Patients may also have been given azithromycin without proper authorization. And while some of the authors defended their findings, three authors told Elsevier they had concerns “regarding the presentation and interpretation of the results” and that they no longer wanted their names on the paper. At least ten other documents authored by Raoul have has also been withdrawn from Elsevier this year.

Perhaps the most damaging legacy of this research is the futile wild goose chase it set in motion. As a result, millions of covid-19 patients have been dosed with HCQ, but the majority of studies failed to show it was of some use; some studies have even found that it lifts people up risk of death from heart problems. Despite this research, many people continued to advocate for HCQ and others suspected covid-19 treatments (including Robert F. Kennedy Jrwho may soon run the Department of Health and Human Services). Importantly, this fervent support for HCQ may have convinced some people to refuse appropriate care for their covid-19 infections.

Scientists managed to find other, older drugs that were actually effective against covid-19, especially the steroid dexamethasone. Thanks to these drugs and innovations like vaccines, Covid-19 is now much less of a threat to public health. But the anti-scientific attitude that many HCQ proponents have expressed in its defense is unfortunately very much alive and well.