Expression of concern regarding the notice of retraction of the article “Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment for COVID-19: results from an open-label, non-randomized clinical trial.”
Authors: Philippe Brouqui & Didier Raoult*
Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/tc8hk_v2
Abstract: In January 2025, a retraction notice was published relating to our article that reported on a preliminary prospective clinical trial and, for the first time, better clearance of the SARS-CoV2 viral load in patients treated for at least three days with 200 mg of hydroxychloroquine three times a day. In the spirit of open science, we herein provide a point-by-point response to this retraction notice so that readers can make up their own minds.
Read more on the preprint article https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/tc8hk_v2
Following this preprint article we decided to send the article to IJAA for publication
Below is the answer of the editor of the journal : Everyone will make its own conclusion !
Ms. Ref. No.: IJAA-D-25-00743
Title: Expression of concern regarding the notice of retraction of the article “Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment for COVID-19: results from an open-label, non-randomized clinical trial.”
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
Dear Professor BROUQUI,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.
Comments on your submission have now been received. You will see that some major criticisms have been made and they are advising against publication of your work. Unfortunately, based on the comments, we regret we are unable to consider your paper any further for publication in the IJAA.
We thank you for choosing the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents as a potential venue for publishing your work and we hope that you will continue to consider our journal for future submissions.
Yours sincerely,
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
Comments:
In this long correspondence two of the eighteen authors of the retracted paper express concern about the retraction decision. In my opinion these two authors have not provided a valid rebuttal for the decision that the paper be retracted. In this correspondence that authors have not explained how a study that commenced on 6th March 2020 could have been completed and a manuscript written and submitted by 20th March that had been meaningfully agreed by all eighteen authors. I accept that in the early months of the pandemic there was an unprecedented urgency to publish scientific data that could save lives. However, the extremely rushed report of this small study of treatment of only a small number of potentially eligible patients (26/228 according to the correspondence), raised a number of scientific concerns that remain.
SIC!