Commentary on "Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open label non-randomized clinical trial" by Gautret et al.

Q2 Medicine Journal of market access & health policy Pub Date : 2020-05-13 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20016689.2020.1758390
Mondher Toumi, Samuel Aballea
{"title":"Commentary on \"Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open label non-randomized clinical trial\" by Gautret et al.","authors":"Mondher Toumi, Samuel Aballea","doi":"10.1080/20016689.2020.1758390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The results of a clinical trial comparing hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin to the standard of care for the treatment of COVID-19 were recently published by Philippe Gautret et al. This study provides outstanding results for the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin over the standard of care, but the evidence was deemed insufficiently robust to warrant a public health decision to widen the use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. We provide a scientific critical review of the Gautret et al. publication, put the results in the context of the current knowledge, provide an evaluation of the validity of the results (from a methodologic perspective), and discuss public health implications. The study has a number of limitations, including small sample size, lack of comparability between patients in active treatment and control arms, lack of blinding, use of interim analyses without controlling for the risk of type 1 error, use of analysis in the per-protocol population instead of the intention-to-treat population, and inconsistencies between the study protocol and article. However, none of these observations is of a nature to reverse the conclusions. The study brings useful knowledge consistent with available evidence and clinical practice from China and South Korea, which could have prompted quicker policy decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":73811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of market access & health policy","volume":"8 1","pages":"1758390"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/73/5e/ZJMA_8_1758390.PMC7269042.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of market access & health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2020.1758390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The results of a clinical trial comparing hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin to the standard of care for the treatment of COVID-19 were recently published by Philippe Gautret et al. This study provides outstanding results for the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin over the standard of care, but the evidence was deemed insufficiently robust to warrant a public health decision to widen the use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. We provide a scientific critical review of the Gautret et al. publication, put the results in the context of the current knowledge, provide an evaluation of the validity of the results (from a methodologic perspective), and discuss public health implications. The study has a number of limitations, including small sample size, lack of comparability between patients in active treatment and control arms, lack of blinding, use of interim analyses without controlling for the risk of type 1 error, use of analysis in the per-protocol population instead of the intention-to-treat population, and inconsistencies between the study protocol and article. However, none of these observations is of a nature to reverse the conclusions. The study brings useful knowledge consistent with available evidence and clinical practice from China and South Korea, which could have prompted quicker policy decision-making.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于 Gautret 等人撰写的 "羟氯喹和阿奇霉素治疗 COVID-19:开放标签非随机临床试验结果 "的评论。
菲利普-高特雷(Philippe Gautret)等人最近发表了一项临床试验的结果,该试验比较了羟氯喹联合或不联合阿奇霉素治疗 COVID-19 的标准疗法。这项研究提供了羟氯喹和阿奇霉素联合疗法优于标准疗法的出色结果,但该研究的证据被认为不够有力,不足以支持扩大羟氯喹用于治疗 COVID-19 的公共卫生决策。我们对 Gautret 等人的出版物进行了科学的批判性评论,将结果置于现有知识的背景下,对结果的有效性进行了评估(从方法学的角度),并讨论了对公共卫生的影响。该研究存在一些局限性,包括样本量小、积极治疗组和对照组患者之间缺乏可比性、缺乏盲法、使用中期分析而未控制1型误差风险、使用按方案人群而非意向治疗人群进行分析,以及研究方案与文章之间的不一致。不过,这些意见都不足以推翻研究结论。该研究提供了与中国和韩国现有证据和临床实践相一致的有用知识,本可促进更快地做出政策决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessing the Value of Further Investment in R&D Using Mixed Methods: A Case Study of Biosensor-Integrated Arteriovenous Grafts. Managing Pharmaceutical Costs in Health Systems: A Review of Affordability, Accessibility and Sustainability Strategies. Operational Efficiency of Public Hospitals in Greece During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparative Analysis Using DEA and AHP Models. Gatekeeping or Provider Choice for Sustainable Health Systems? A Literature Review on Their Impact on Efficiency, Access, and Quality of Services. Technology Assessment vs. Technology Appraisal-How to Strengthen the Science/Value Dichotomy with EU HTA?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1