However, a day after its publication over 50 clinicians from across the world raised questions about the trial method and authenticity of the data that the researchers used to conclude about the dangers of the drug.
Several countries including India who were doing the HCQ trial were in a spot after this study came out, but continued with their trial. The chief investigators of the Recovery Trial in the United Kingdom, Peter Hornby and Martin Landray who have data on 10,000 patients of HCQ also went ahead with their trial of the drug. “We saw no cogent reason to suspend recruitment for safety reasons,” said Peter Sandercock, chairman of the Recovery Trial. He said the hazard ratio for 28-day mortality in the trial’s current data, the trial’s primary outcome, varied significantly from that in the non-randomized assessment reported in The Lancet.
Some of the objections to the Lancet study were that the authors did not adhere to standard practices in the machine learning and statistics community, they did not release their code or data and quoted implausible ratios of chloroquine to hydroxychloroquine use in some continents. For example, the study said in Australia 49 received chloroquine and 50 received hydroxychloroquine, but clinicians pointed out that chloroquine is not readily available in Australia and administration requires authorization from the Therapeutic Goods Administration to do so. Following this open letter Lancet had to issue a clarification short of retraction, which also questioned the role of the firm Surgisphere, which provided the data for the trial.
“Important scientific questions have been raised about data reported in the paper by Mandeep Mehra et al—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis—published in The Lancet on May 22, 2020”, wrote Lancet editors.
As the race for Covid-19 treatment rages on, researchers have been striving to get that magic bullet that is easily available and affordable to patients.
