This is the paper that has been lauded all over the place as evidence for that HQ and CHQ are a "cure" in COVID-19. Let me start by saying that scientists and clinicians are grappling with a virus they've known about for 3 months, so the evidence is changing daily. Advice and evidence will continue to evolve and this will be confusing and sorry, that sucks, but that's the way it is.
So to this paper. There is a good thread here from Dr. Gaetan Burgio which takes a critical l...ook at the paper. Go there for more detail.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1241201751916568576.html
I just want to say one thing, as someone who does qRT-PCR routinely and reviews papers as part of my job.
The outcome of drug treatment, and therefore success, was measured as changes to viral load. The researchers measured viral load in controls and treated patients by qRT-PCR.
Except when they didn't, as indicated by the pink highlights on the screenshot. D = days after treatment regime began and the numbers (although not explained) are probably the signal of the viral RNA (ie, the Ct for the sample).
ND = the PCR was NOT DONE.
So, the researchers didn't do PCR on many of the samples from the control patients AND concluded that the controls had less virus by the end of the trial. This is because they didn't even measure it. This is why there are no error bars on the graphs. This is why they should have done a blinded trial.
PS: I can't find what "POS" means in the screenshot. It has been suggested that they did a qualitative analysis of the PCR product (ie ran it on a gel) but this is not in the methods that I can see.
Tl;dr this is BAD science and, as a reviewer, I would not have accepted this study for publication.
NB: The authors admit to limitations, "Our study has some limitations including small sample size, limited long-term outcome follow-up, and dropout of six patients from the study, however in the current context, we believe that our results should be shared with the scientific
community." I don't agree with this. They know everyone is desperate for treatment and to release incomplete, dubious data is not helpful.
Also NB: the data in the screenshot is *hidden* in the supplementary data.
Link to the paper https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/…/Hydroxychloroquine…
IF I HAVE GOT SOMETHING WRONG HERE, PLEASE SHOUT. Gaetan claims the POS means the product was run on a gel, but I can't find where he got that info from.