New Microbes and New Infections: A real journal, but not a prominent one. It claims an impact factor of 4, meaning that its articles are not cited much in other articles.
The inclusion of Peter McCullough as an author is questionable. I don't know why the French researchers would have included him, as he has already demonstrated that he is a quack with respect to Covid treatment. Baylor University, his former employer, will not allow him to claim any affiliation with the university because of his antivax and Covid misinformation efforts.
The article itself acknowledges (in the Discussion) that most random control trials (RCTs) of hydroxychloroquine show no benefit. It then goes on to say that their methodology was flawed, their sample sizes too small, etc. And then it says that observational studies do show a benefit. The problem is that observational studies are highly prone to bias, making them a good reflection of what the study authors want to find but not such a good representation of the facts. The suggestion that all of the other studies showing no benefit to HC should reanalyze their data is unprofessional. If one study shows a result different from all of the other studies, it is what is called an "outlier." There are various reasons studies might be outliers. An outlier should not be interpreted as the definitive source of any scientific information.
Finally, this study was not a study of HC. It was a retroactive review of outcomes of patients who received HC and azithromycin. It is doubtful that the patients would have benefited from HC, as they did not have malaria. However, viral infections often cause people to get bacterial infections, so the antibiotic azithromycin could have had a therapeutic effect. But maybe not, it's hard to tell in a retrospective observational study.
Re: The inclusion of Peter McCullough as an author is questionable.
Why? Dr. McCullough is a practicing Phycisian and Cardiologist who has experience treating Covid patients with Hydroxychloroquine. He maintains a medical practice in Dallas, and has published lots ( perhaps hundreds) of articles in medical journals and has received numerous awards.
He is Fellow of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. He is also a member of the American Society of Echocardiography and the American Society of Nephrology.
That he is not now affiliated with Baylor University because of his antivax stance does not disqualify him from studying about his medical observations when treating patients.
I would not dismiss him as some sort of quack just like that.
RE:The article itself acknowledges (in the Discussion) that most random control trials (RCTs) of hydroxychloroquine show no benefit.
I direct you to the REASONS for the RCTs and their limitations. It says
[QUOTE]
Both trials should be considered as late treatment trials as the randomization occurred upon hospital admission, including as an ICU patient. Both suffer from significant methodological problems, as the HCQ doses during the first 24 h (2400 mg) were four times higher than the highest recommended dose of 600 mg. Mortality was no different between the treatment and control groups, but a careful review of the causes of mortality in the two groups would be worth investigating.
[END QUOTE]
Other RCTs they investigated suffer from small sample size, were underpowered and reach inaccurate conclusions, but as a whole serve as a reference for policy makers.
However, in the large sample sizes. Here is what the study observes:
[QUOTE]
several large observational retrospective studies published in the literature, including a total of 47,516 patients report a benefit of using HCQ on the mortality of COVID-19 patients.
The number of patients involved in these studies largely overweighs the number of patients included in RCTs.
Interestingly, these observational studies report that HCQ is associated with survival and the effect is greater in early treatment.
[END QUOTE]
I also direct you to the CONCLUSION of the article.
It says:
“Overall, this study represents the largest single-center study evaluating HCQ-AZ in the treatment of COVID-19. Similarly, to other large observational studies, it concludes that HCQ would have saved lives.”
You may disagree with its conclusions, but this article makes this conclusion even as it acknowledges the limitations of this study ( many such medical articles do that as well. )