The research that raised hopes for a treatment for COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic has now been published. officially revoked According to the scientific journal that published it.
Hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug that is also approved for use in some autoimmune diseases, was tested in a study of 36 coronavirus patients published in March 2020 in the International Journal of Antibiotics. It was first introduced to the world as a potential treatment. Elsevier, which owns the magazine, announced the formal withdrawal on Tuesday.
“Concerns have been raised regarding this article, relating to its compliance with Elsevier’s Publication Ethics Policy and the appropriate conduct of research involving human participants. “Concerns have also been raised by the article’s methodology and three of the authors themselves,” the lengthy retraction statement reads in part.
It is the most cited retracted paper related to COVID-19, and the second most cited retracted paper of any type, according to . journal nature.
The initial publication of this research sparked a frenzy of excitement about the drug’s potential. US Food and Drug Administration Emergency use authorization issued The idea is to stockpile it and distribute it to specific patients hospitalized with the coronavirus. President Donald Trump announced: take prophylacticallyand drug prescriptions increased According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of deaths increased from 1,143 in February 2020 to 75,569 in March 2020.
Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said in July 2020: I believed He argued that by not approving the drug for use in the treatment of COVID-19, “tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying needlessly.”
And Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, suggested that the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 is being “censored and politicized.” Story of July 2020 on his Children’s Health Defense website. “This also includes concerns for biopharmaceutical companies looking to profit from new drugs and COVID-19 vaccines.” moderna “The vaccine co-developed by NIAID makes continuing to use older drugs that are no longer on patent an attractive option,” the article said.
The study’s retraction ends a long period of criticism that began soon after its publication, including its unusually short review time and small sample size.
Elsevier said other issues with the data included six patients being removed from the study after it began, with results that changed the study’s positive conclusions. pointed out At the time, Dutch microbiologist Elisabeth Bick Posted in X On Tuesday, it announced that the study had been “finally” retracted. Elsevier also could not confirm whether patients gave fully informed consent to treatment with the antibiotic azithromycin as part of the study.
The lead author, Didier Laoult, is a French virologist who founded and directed a research hospital known as the Institute of Infectious Diseases of the Mediterranean University Hospital (IHU). controversial person;28 of his co-authored studies have now been retracted. According to science. What he faced was disciplinary hearing He was forced to resign from the IHU over the recommendation of hydroxychloroquine for the new coronavirus. He has also rejected climate change, fears of infectious diseases, and Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Hydroxychloroquine has also been linked to serious side effects, including cardiac arrest, heart rhythm problems, liver failure, and kidney damage. 2020 FDA Alert About the use of this drug in the treatment of coronavirus outside the hospital.
“The dark page in new coronavirus research has finally been turned,” he said. statement Published this week by the French Society of Pharmacological Therapeutics. “This highly controversial study became the basis of a global scandal. Publicity of its results led to the overprescription of hydroxychloroquine to millions of patients, resulting in millions of patients being overprescribed. took unnecessary risks that could have resulted in thousands of avoidable deaths. It also resulted in a huge waste of resources and hundreds of unnecessary research projects. Research for effective treatments is being harmed.”
More information about the coronavirus:
This story was originally Fortune.com
