Dataset Information

Safety and Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:During the initial phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, there was an unfounded fervor surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ); however, recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended against routine use of HCQ outside of study protocols citing possible adverse outcomes. Methods:Multiple databases were searched to identify articles on COVID-19. An unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was used to calculate the safety and efficacy of HCQ on a random effect model. Results:Twelve studies comprising 3,912 patients (HCQ 2,512 and control 1400) were included. The odds of all-cause mortality (OR: 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.58 - 3.13, P value < 0.00001) were significantly higher in patients on HCQ compared to patients on control agent. The response to therapy assessed by negative repeat polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 0.50 - 6.75, P = 0.36), radiological resolution (OR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.47 - 8.36, P value = 0.36) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.34 - 4.33, P value = 0.76) were identical between the two groups. Overall, four times higher odds of net adverse events (NAEs) were observed in the HCQ group (OR: 4.59, 95% CI 1.73 - 12.20, P value = 0.02). The measures for individual safety endpoints were also numerically lower in the control arm; however, none of these values reached the level of statistical significance. Conclusions:HCQ might offer no benefits in terms of decreasing the viral load and radiological improvement in patients with COVID-19. HCQ appears to be associated with higher odds of all-cause mortality and NAEs.

SUBMITTER: Ullah W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7430873 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety and Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ullah Waqas W M Abdullah Hafez H Roomi Sohaib S Sattar Yasar Y Almas Talal T Narayana Gowda Smitha S Saeed Rehan R Mukhtar Maryam M Ahmad Ammar A Oliver Tony T Alraies M Chadi MC Haas Donald C DC Fischman David L DL

Journal of clinical medicine research 20200704 8

<h4>Background</h4>During the initial phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, there was an unfounded fervor surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ); however, recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended against routine use of HCQ outside of study protocols citing possible adverse outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Multiple databases were searched to identify articles on COVID-19. An unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was used to calculate the safety an ...[more]

PMID: 32849936

Similar Datasets

Project description:Repurposed drugs like hydroxycloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are being tested for potential therapeutic role in COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of HCQ and CQ in COVID-19. Using PubMed, EMBASE, medRxiv, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, electronic search was carried out to identify relevant articles till June 2020 with re-evaluation in last week of November 2020. Observational and interventional clinical studies comparing efficacy of CQ or HCQ to standard management or other drug/s for SARS-CoV-2 infection patients were included. Cochrane review manager version 5.3 was used for synthesis of meta-analysis results. For randomized controlled trials, risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment tool, version 2.0 (ROB-2). ROBINS-I was used for quality assessment of observational studies. Overall evidence quality generated by review was graded as per GRADE Recommendation. A total of 903 studies were screened. Nineteen studies were included in synthesis of meta-analysis with total of 4,693, 1,626, and 6,491 patients in HCQ/CQ, HCQ/CQ + AZ and control groups, respectively. HCQ/CQ treatment was associated with significantly increased rates of virological cure (OR = 2.08, 95%CI = 1.36-3.17; P = 0.0007) and radiological cure (OR = 3.89, 95%CI = 1.35 - 11.23; P = 0.01) compared to control. HCQ/CQ had no difference in unadjusted mortality rate (unadjusted OR = 0.98 95% CI = 0.70-1.37, P = 0.89, random effect model) and adjusted hazard ratio for mortality (adjusted HR = 1.05, 95%CI = 0.86--1.29; P = 0.64). However, a significant increase in odds of disease progression (OR = 1.77, 95%CI = 1.46-2.13; P < 0.00001) and QT prolongation (OR = 11.15, 95%CI = 3.95-31.44; P < 0.00001) was noted. The results with HCQ/CQ and azithromycin combination were similar to HCQ/CQ mono-therapy. In the light of contemporary evidence on effectiveness of HCQ/CQ, judicious and monitored use of HCQ/CQ for treatment of COVID-19 patients is recommended in low to middle income countries with emphasis on no mortality benefit. Registration number of Systematic review. Register in PROSPERO database: cRD42020187710.

Project description:The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality worldwide and an effective treatment is needed. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have shown in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 which causes the disease, but the evidence from in vivo studies so far has been inconclusive.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19.Data sourcesWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) for all articles published between 01 January 2020 to 15 September 2020 on CQ/HCQ and COVID-19 using a predefined search protocol; without any language restrictions. A search of grey literature repositories (New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature and Open Grey), and pre-publication server deposits (medRxIV and bioRxIV) was also performed.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCT) which compared CQ/HCQ to standard supportive therapy in treating COVID-19 were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted from original publications by four independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effect models. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): The primary prespecified efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any adverse effect attributed to use of CQ/HCQ.ResultsEight RCTs were included and pooled in the mortality meta-analysis (6,592 unique participants; mean age = 59.4 years; 42% women). CQ/HCQ did not show any mortality benefit when compared to standard supportive therapy (Pooled Relative Risk [RR] 1.07; 95% CI = 0.97-1.18; I2 statistic = 0.00%). Sensitivity and sub-group analyses showed similar findings. Any adverse event was significantly higher in patients randomized to CQ/HCQ (RR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.53-4.12; n = 1,818 patients), but the risk of developing severe adverse event was not statistically significant (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.53-1.86; n = 6,456 patients).Conclusions and relevanceEvidence from currently published RCTs do not demonstrate any added benefit for the use of CQ or HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Project description:Convalescent plasma is currently being used in the treatment of COVID-19. Recommendations regarding use convalescent plasma in COVID-19 requires systematic summaries of available evidence. We searched the databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistomonikos, Medrxiv and Biorxiv. Title/abstract screening, full text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two reviewers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. GRADE tool was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Twenty two studies were found eligible for inclusion: nine randomized controlled trials and thirteen cohort studies. Low certainty evidence from eight RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on mortality at 28 days (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18). Low certainty evidence from thirteen cohort studies showed a reduction in mortality at 28 days (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82). The pooled OR for clinical improvement was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.34) representing low certainty evidence. Evidence from three RCTs showed inconclusive effect of CP on the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.98). Four cohort studies reporting unadjusted estimates suggested a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation with convalescent plasma (OR 0.80 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, low certainty). Pooled estimates from 2 RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on the proportion of patients with nondetectable levels of virus in nasopharyngeal specimens on day 3 (OR 3.62, 95% CI 0.43, 30.49, very low-quality evidence). The present review reports uncertain estimates on the efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of COVID-19. There is low certainty evidence of a possible reduction in mortality and mechanical ventilation, a faster viral clearance and the absence of any serious adverse events. However, its efficacy for these outcomes requires evidence from good quality and adequately powered randomized controlled trials.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12288-021-01417-w.

Dataset Information

Safety and Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Safety and Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure