[blueash]

This is a valuable addition to the discussion. This report is from the same French group as the previous combination treatment study and includes some of the same patients. Their results are interesting but careful review of their patient selection should be done.

While these are hospitalized patients I believe that the great majority of them would not be hospitalized in this country. The authors used a severity of disease score on admission.

The NEWS score was calculated based on the following
parameters: age, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, temperature, systolic blood pressure, pulse rate and level of consciousness

You can see the scoring system HERENovel coronavirus infection during the 2019–2020 epidemic: preparing intensive care units—the experience in Sichuan Province, China
92% of their patients were in the low risk [NEWS 0 to 4] category. Only 15% of the patients had a fever. Only 15% ever needed oxygen.

So this is a much less ill group of patients than we would hospitalize. The authors compare their results to reports out of China noting that the Chinese patients took a median of 12 days to resolve fever. In these French patients hardly any had fever.

Additionally there is this sentence

For patients with pneumonia and NEWS score≥5 [medium risk], a broad spectrum antibiotic (ceftriaxone) was added

So the sicker patients got an additional potent antibiotic. There was no control group. The clearance of virus both by RNA detection by PCR and by direct viral culture was impressive. But again this is clearance in a low grade illness group. This data needs to be replicated in a sicker population and it must have a control group.

If you are trying to prove that mildly ill Covid patients get better more quickly with a particular treatment, take the time to randomize similar mildly ill Covid patients to not get treatment. It is unclear why these doctors didn't do that as they had plenty of patients and plenty of time. Perhaps they felt it was unethical to withhold treatment as they clearly believe they have a tool to improve outcome. But their failure to include a control group will certainly cloud their conclusions and thus slow the adoption of this therapy. A properly done study would have been a much more powerful proof or refutation of their treatment approach. The plural of anecdote is not evidence. It is anecdotes.