THE AUTHOR REPLIES

A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available

BACKGROUND

Comments in PubMed are usually short papers for supporting or refuting claims, or discussing methods and findings in original articles. This study aims to explore whether they can be used as a quick and reliable evidence appraisal instrument for promoting research findings into practice, especially in emergency situations such as COVID-19 in which only missing, incomplete or uncertain evidence is available.

METHODS

Evidence-comment networks (ECNs) were constructed by linking COVID-19-related articles to the commentaries (letters, editorials or brief correspondence) they received. PubTator Central was used to extract entities with a high volume of comments from the titles and abstracts of the articles. Among them, six drugs were selected, and their evidence assertions were analysed by exploring the structural information in the ECNs as well as the sentiment of the comments (positive, negative, neutral). Recommendations in WHO guidelines were used as the gold standard control to validate the consistency, coverage and efficiency of comments in reshaping clinical knowledge claims.

RESULTS

The overall positive/negative sentiments of comments were aligned with recommendations for/against the corresponding treatments in the WHO guidelines. Comment topics covered all significant points of evidence appraisal and beyond. Furthermore, comments may indicate the uncertainty regarding drug use for clinical practice. Half of the critical comments emerged 4.25 months earlier on average than the guideline release.

CONCLUSIONS

Comments have the potential as a support tool for rapid evidence appraisal as they have a selection effect by appraising the benefits, limitations and other clinical practice issues of concern in existing evidence. We suggest as a future direction an appraisal framework based on the comment topics and sentiment orientations to leverage the potential of scientific commentaries supporting evidence appraisal and decision-making.

The Rise and Fall of Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine as Compassionate Therapy of COVID-19

The emergence and rapid spread of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has posed a serious challenge to global public health in 2020. The speed of this viral spread together with the high mortality rate has caused an unprecedented public health crisis. With no antivirals or vaccines available for the treatment of COVID-19, the medical community is presently exploring repositioning of clinically approved drugs for COVID-19. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have emerged as potential candidates for repositioning as anti-COVID-19 therapeutics and have received FDA authorization for compassionate use in COVID-19 patients. On March 28, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19. However, it was later revoked by the FDA on June 15, 2020, after analyzing the emerging scientific data from ongoing clinical trials. Similarly, the World Health Organization (WHO) also conducted a Solidarity trial of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, lopinavir, and ritonavir. However, on May 23, 2020, the executive body of the "Solidarity trial" decided to put a temporary hold on the HCQ trial. On June 17, 2020, the WHO abruptly stopped the Solidarity trial of HCQ. The current review strives to examine the basis of compassionate use of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19 in terms of literature evidence, establishing the antiviral efficacy of these drugs against corona and related viruses. Furthermore, the review presents a critical analysis of the clinical trial findings and also provides an insight into the dynamically changing decision on the authorization and withdrawal of HCQ as anti-COVID-19 therapy by the U.S. FDA and the WHO. Ultimately, our study necessitates an evidenced-based treatment protocol to confront the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and not the mere observational study that mislead the public healthcare system, which paralyzes the entire world.

Concerns About the Special Article on Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in High-Risk Outpatients With COVID-19

In May 2020, the Journal published an opinion piece by a member of the Editorial Board, in which the author reviewed several papers and argued that using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) + azithromycin (AZ) early to treat symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in high-risk patients should be broadly applied. As members of the Journal's Editorial Board, we are strongly supportive of open debate in science, which is essential even on highly contentious issues. However, we must also be thorough in our examination of the facts and open to changing our minds when new information arises. In this commentary, we document several important errors in the manuscript, review the literature presented, and demonstrate why it is not of sufficient quality to support scale up of HCQ + AZ, and then discuss the literature that has been generated since the publication, which also does not support use of this therapy. Unfortunately, the current scientific evidence does not support HCQ + AZ as an effective treatment for COVID-19, if it ever did, and even suggests many risks. Continuing to push the view that it is an essential treatment in the face of this evidence is irresponsible and harmful to the many people already suffering from infection.