%0 Journal Article %A Oliver James Hulme %A Eric-Jan Wagenmakers %A Per Damkier %A Christopher Fugl Madelung %A Hartwig Roman Siebner %A Jannik Helweg-Larsen %A Quentin F. Gronau %A Thomas Benfield %A Kristoffer Hougaard Madsen %T A Bayesian reanalysis of the effects of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on viral carriage in patients with COVID-19 %D 2020 %R 10.1101/2020.03.31.20048777 %J medRxiv %P 2020.03.31.20048777 %X Gautret and colleagues reported results of a non-randomised open-label case series which examined the effects of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on viral load in the upper respiratory tract of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) patients. The authors report that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had significant virus reducing effects, and that dual treatment of both HCQ and azithromycin further enhanced virus reduction. These data have triggered speculation whether these drugs should be considered as candidates for the treatment of severe COVID-19. However, questions have been raised regarding the study’s data integrity, statistical analyses, and experimental design. We therefore reanalysed the original data to interrogate the main claims of the paper. Here we apply Bayesian statistics to assess the robustness of the original paper’s claims by testing four variants of the data: 1) The original data; 2) Data including patients who deteriorated; 3) Data including patients who deteriorated with exclusion of untested patients in the comparison group; 4) Data that includes patients who deteriorated with the assumption that untested patients were negative. To ask if HCQ monotherapy is effective, we performed an A/B test for a model which assumes a positive effect, compared to a model of no effect. We find that the statistical evidence is highly sensitive to these data variants. Statistical evidence for the positive effect model ranged from strong for the original data (BF+0 ∼11), to moderate when including patients who deteriorated (BF+0 ∼4.35), to anecdotal when excluding untested patients (BF+0 ∼2), and to anecdotal negative evidence if untested patients were assumed positive (BF+0 ∼0.6). To assess whether HCQ is more effective when combined with AZ, we performed the same tests, and found only anecdotal evidence for the positive effect model for the original data (BF+0 ∼2.8), and moderate evidence for all other variants of the data (BF+0 ∼5.6). Our analyses only explore the effects of different assumptions about excluded and untested patients. These assumptions are not adequately reported, nor are they justified in the original paper, and we find that varying them causes substantive changes to the evidential support for the main claims of the original paper. This statistical uncertainty is exacerbated by the fact that the treatments were not randomised, and subject to several confounding variables including the patients consent to treatment, different care centres, and clinical decision-making. Furthermore, while the viral load measurements were noisy, showing multiple reversals between test outcomes, there is greater certainty around other clinical outcomes such as the 4 patients who seriously deteriorated. The fact that all of these belonged to the HCQ group should be assigned greater weight when evaluating the potential clinical efficacy of HCQ. Randomised controlled trials are currently underway, and will be critical in resolving this uncertainty as to whether HCQ and AZ are effective as a treatment for COVID-19.Warning There have been reports of people self-administering chloroquine phosphate (intended for treatment of disease in aquarium fish), which has led to at least one death and one serious illness. We state that under no circumstances should people self-administer hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine phosphate, azithromycin, or anything similar-sounding, or indeed any other drug, unless approved by a medical doctor. The FDA has issued a specific warning: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/fda-letter-stakeholders-do-not-use-chloroquine-phosphate-intended-fish-treatment-covid-19-humansCompeting Interest StatementDr. Benfield reports grants from Pfizer, grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, grants from Simonsen Foundation, grants and personal fees from GSK, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Siebner reports personal fees from Sanofi Genzyme, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Elsevier publishers, and royalties from Springer publishers, outside the submitted work; All other authors declare no competing interestsClinical TrialThis is a reanalysis of a trial that was registered with the EudraCT number 2020-000890-25 Funding StatementThe project was an ad hoc reanalysis project with no formal funding.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data and analysis scripts as well as figures are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/5dgmx/ https://osf.io/5dgmx/ %U https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/28/2020.03.31.20048777.full.pdf