Update Alert: Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine for the Treatment or Prophylaxis of COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hernandez AV
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7377263 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7472719 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7596739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as: an antiviral treatment on death and time to clearance of the virus from clinical samples and recovery in people with COVID‐19; a prophylactic treatment on prevention of COVID‐19 in people at risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 exposure; a prophylactic treatment on prevention of COVID‐19 in people who have been exposed to SARS‐CoV‐2.
| S-EPMC7177204 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGiven the current lack of an approved and effective treatment or vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), repositioning old drugs for use as an antiviral treatment is an interesting strategy because knowledge about these drugs' safety profile, posology, and drug interactions is already known. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, widely used as antimalarial and autoimmune disease drugs, have recently been reported as a potential broad-spectrum antiviral drug.BackgroundThe in vitro antiviral activity of chloroquine has been identified since the late 1960s. However, antiviral mechanisms of chloroquine remain speculative. Several clinical trials have been conducted to test the efficacy and safety of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19-associated pneumonia. The quality of the studies and the outcomes are evaluated in this systematic review and meta-analysis.Review resultsLiterature review revealed 23 clinical studies. Only 9 of 23 studies were randomized controlled trials. Of nine randomized controlled trials, only study by Skipper et al. was deemed to be at low risk of bias. All studies evaluated variedwith different outcomes. Mechanical ventilation and virological clearance were the only common outcomes evaluated in more than two studies. Virological clearance odds ratio (OR) was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.57-2.73; Chi2 = 0.83; I2 = 0%). GRADE quality of evidence was downgraded by three levels to very low due to concerns about the risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. For mechanical ventilation, OR was 1.09 (95% CI 0.80-1.50; Chi2 = 0; I2 = 0). GRADE quality of evidence was downgraded by two levels to low due to concerns about the risk of bias and imprecision. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for these two outcomes.ConclusionAs per the available evidence, based on our review, we conclude that hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine has not shown to be beneficial when used for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.How to cite this articleShetty RM, Namachivayam A. Evidence for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine in the Treatment of COVID-19. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(4):441-452.
| S-EPMC8138637 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8094389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesIn this moments, of extreme gravity in which we find ourselves, and in the uncertainty face about the most effective treatment against COVID-19 disease and with the aim of find the evidence that support the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine use recommendation to treat COVID-19 disease, a systematic review of published studies and RCT studies publishes until April 28, 2020 was carried out.Material and methodsA systematic search was carried out in PubMed with the keywords COVID-19 and their synonyms and hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine. The data selection and extraction was elaborated by two researchers, independently. The results were discussed with a Primary Care physicians clinical group and the results were synthesized using GRADE methodology.ResultsA good quality systematic review was found that includes articles with a high risk of bias. And 8 EC launched that will produce results beyond May 2020.ConclusionsAlthough the conclusions of the systematic review generate a low confidence in the results, and the clinical variables that show benefit are intermediate variables, the side effects are acceptable and could be minimized with the use of QT lengthening risk tools, so it is could make a weak recommendation in favor of the use of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in patients with mild-moderate stage COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7837044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging viral infection causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have garnered unprecedented attention as potential therapeutic agents against COVID-19 following several small clinical trials, uncontrolled case series, and public figure endorsements. While there is a growing body of scientific data, there is also concern for harm, particularly QTc prolongation and cardiac arrhythmias. Here, we perform a rapid narrative review and discuss the strengths and limitations of existing in vitro and clinical studies. We call for additional randomized controlled trial evidence prior to the widespread incorporation of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine into national and international treatment guidelines.
| S-EPMC7184359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo assess efficacy and safety of chloroquine (CQ)/hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treatment or prophylaxis of COVID-19 in adult humans.Materials and methodsMEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and two pre-print repositories (bioRxiv, medRxiv) were searched from inception to 8th June 2020 for RCTs and nonrandomized studies (retrospective and prospective, including single-arm, studies) addressing the use of CQ/HCQ in any dose or combination for COVID-19.ResultsThirty-two studies were included (6 RCTs, 26 nonrandomized, 29,192 participants). Two RCTs had high risk, two 'some concerns' and two low risk of bias (Rob2). Among nonrandomized studies with comparators, nine had high risk and five moderate risk of bias (ROBINS-I). Data synthesis was not possible. Low and moderate risk of bias studies suggest that treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 with CQ/HCQ may not reduce risk of death, compared to standard care. High dose regimens or combination with macrolides may be associated with harm. Postexposure prophylaxis may not reduce the rate of infection but the quality of the evidence is low.ConclusionsPatients with COVID-19 should be treated with CQ/HCQ only if monitored and within the context of high quality RCTs. High quality data about efficacy/safety are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC7351664 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8252022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine belong to the aminoquinoline drugs. Studies revealed that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine shows antagonism activity against COVID-19 under laboratory conditions. ARDS and ALI are conditions that occur in patients with COVID-19 as the main pathological complications of cytokine storm. Inflammasomes play a key role in the pathogenesis of many diseases associated with destructive inflammation. NLRP3 inflammasome has been shown to play a key role in the pathogenesis of viral diseases. The possible role of NLRP3 inflammasome inhibitors in the treatment of COVID-19 has been considered. We surveyed the potential inhibitory effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on inflammasome. Studies indicate that one of the possible anti-inflammatory mechanisms of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine is inhibition of the activity of NLRP3 inflammasome.
| S-EPMC7792551 | biostudies-literature