Hydroxychloroquine Versus COVID-19: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis =============================================================================== * Amir Shamshirian * Amirhossein Hessami * Keyvan Heydari * Reza Alizadeh-Navaei * Mohammad Ali Ebrahimzadeh * Roya Ghasemian * Elham Aboufazeli * Hananeh Baradaran * Keyvan Karimifar * Aida Eftekhari * Danial Shamshirian ## Abstract **Background** Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major global issue with rising the number of infected individuals and mortality in recent months. Among all therapeutic approaches, arguments have raised about hydroxychloroquine efficacy in treatment of COVID-19. We aimed to overcome the controversies regarding effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of COVID-19, using a systematic review and meta-analysis. **Methods** A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and medRxiv pre-print database using all available MeSH terms for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine. Two authors selected and assessed the quality of studies independently using related checklists. Data have been extracted from included studies and analyzed using CMA v. 2.2.064. heterogeneity was also assessed using *I*-squared test. **Results** Seven studies including four clinical trials and three observational studies have entered into the study. The results of meta-analysis of clinical trials showed that there were no significant differences between patients who received the standard treatment with HCQ regimen and the patients that received the standard treatment without HCQ (RR: 1.44, 95% CI, 0.80-2.59). CT-Scan findings improved in 59% (95% CI 0.15-0.92) and nasopharyngeal culture following RT-PCR resulted negative in 76% (95% CI 0.56-0.89) of patients received hydroxychloroquine. Meta-analysis of observational studies showed 75% (95% CI, 0.54-0.88) of patients were discharged from the hospital, 34% (95% CI, 0.07-0.14) admitted to intensive care unit and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.03-0.83) have expired. **Conclusion** This study indicated no clinical benefits regarding HCQ for treatment of COVID-19 patients. However, further large clinical trials should be taken into account in order to achieve more reliable findings. Keywords * Pandemic * 2019-nCoV * Coronavirus Outbreaks * SARS-CoV-2 ## Introduction A novel coronavirus emerged from Wuhan, China, in December 2019 has named respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and declared as a pandemic by World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020 (1). According to Worldometer metrics, this novel virus has been responsible for approximately 1,955,648 infections and 123,436 death worldwide up to April 14, 2020. Although a few months have passed since the onset of the new challenging disease, there is still no specific preventive and therapeutic approach in this regard. Therefore, the quarantine approach, personal hygiene, and social distancing are the basic protective measures against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) according to WHO advise for the public (2). Moreover, according to the high volume of ongoing research regarding this pandemic issue, many controversies are arising daily among different fields of sciences, which has confronted a ***“pandemic”*** with an ***“infodemic”*** (e.g. *Will coronavirus survive airborne? Is COVID-19 transmitted vertically in pregnancy? Should everyone be wearing masks? How long can the virus survive on surfaces? Is it possible to get COVID-19 for a second time?* And etc.). In this regard, one of the hottest controversies is the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) efficacy for the COVID-19 patients. While, several studies are talking about hopeful effects of HCQ against SARS-CoV-2 infection for both prevention and treatment (3-5), others tries to come up with neutral or even harmful effects of this drug for such patients, when there is no ample evidence (6). It is unavoidable that all these controversies affect the patient’s outcome significantly. Hence, we carried out this rapid systematic review and meta-analysis in order to overcome the controversies regarding efficacy of HCQ against COVID-19. ## Method ### Search Strategy The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed for study design, search protocol, screening and reporting. A systematic search was performed *via* databases of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Google Scholar (intitle) as well as preprint database of medRxiv up to April 5, 2020. Moreover, gray literature and references of eligible papers was considered for more available data in this regard. The search strategy included all MeSH terms and free keywords found for COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and hydroxychloroquine. There was no time/location limitation in this search. ### Criteria study selection Two researchers (A.H and K.H) have screened and selected the papers independently and discussed to solve the disagreements with the third-party. Studies met the following criteria included into meta-analysis: 1) studies were clinical trials or observational; and 2) studies reported the effects of HCQ in COVID-19 patients. Studies were excluded if they were: 1) animal studies, reviews, case reports, and *in vitro* studies; 2) duplicate publications; and 3) insufficient for calculating of desired parameters. ### Data extraction & quality assessment Two researchers (A.Sh and A.H) have independently evaluated quality assessment of the studies and extracted data from selected papers. The supervisor (D.Sh) resolved any disagreements in this step. Data extraction checklist included the name of the first author, publication year, a region of study, number of patients, number of controls, mean age, treatment choice, treatment dosage, treatment duration, adverse effects, radiological results, culture status and mortality. The Jadad scale, ROBINS-I tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklists were used to value the selected randomized clinical trials, non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies respectively in relation to various aspects of the methodology and study process. Risk-of-bias plots has been created through *robvis* online tool (7). ### Data analysis Statistical analysis was performed using CMA v. 2.2.064 software. To assess the heterogeneities, we used the I-square (*I**2*) test. According to the studies heterogeneity, we pooled results using a random-effects model. For publication bias evaluation, Egger’s and Begg’s tests was done. ## Results ### Study selection process Databases search resulted in 54 papers. Eleven duplicated papers have been excluded and after first step screening, five papers were assessed for eligibility. Finally, five papers entered into qualitative synthesis, of which three studies entered into the meta-analysis. PRISMA flow diagram for the study selection process presented in Figure 1. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F1) Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for the study selection process ### Study characteristics Out of Six studies entered into meta-analysis, three studies were clinical trial and three were observational, of which, HCQ arms of the clinical trials has been combined with observational studies for effect size meta-analysis. The studies’ sample size ranged from 11 to 62 including 139 participants. Characteristics of studies entered into meta-analysis presented in Table 1. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/T1) Table 1. Characteristics of studies entered into meta-analysis ### Quality assessment According to quality assessment using Jadad, ROBINS and NOS checklists, all studies earned the minimum eligibility score and entered into the meta-analysis. Summary of risk of bias presented in Fig. 2. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F2) Figure 2. Summary of risk of bias ### Publication bias Begg’s (*p*=0.29627) and Egger’s (*p*= 0.115) tests demonstrated no significant publication bias between clinical trials. The funnel plot for publication bias of trials presented in Fig. 3. ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F3) Figure 3. Funnel plot asymmetry for publication bias between clinical trials ### Meta-analysis results for clinical trials The meta-analysis of risk ratios (RR) showed that there were no significant differences between case group, who received the standard treatment with HCQ regimen and the control group that received the standard treatment without HCQ (RR: 1.44, 95% CI, 0.80-2.59) (Fig. 4) ![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F4) Figure 4. Forest plot for pooling risk ratios CT-Scan improvement was observed in 59% of cases (95% CI, 0.15-0.92) and 52% of control group (95% CI, 0.37-0.66). Nasopharyngeal culture resulted negative in RT-PCR evaluation for 76% of HCQ group (95% CI, 0.56-0.89) and 57% of control group (95% CI, 0.01-0.99). Mild adverse effects were observed patients of HCQ group (0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.46). Forrest plots has been presented in Fig. 5. ![Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F5.medium.gif) [Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F5) Figure 5. Forest plot for pooling cases and controls parameters in clinical trials ### Meta-analysis results for observational studies (Fig. 6) In observational nature studies, meta-analysis showed that 75% (95% CI, 0.54-0.88) of patients were discharged from the hospital, whereas 3% (95% CI, 0.00-0.14) of patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and 1% (95% CI, - 0.00-0.08) have been expired. Also, nasopharyngeal culture resulted negative in RT-PCR evaluation for 61% of patients (95% CI, 0.23-0.89) and CT-Scan improvement has been observed in 59% of COVID-19 (95% CI, 0.15-0.92). ![Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F6.medium.gif) [Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/20/2020.04.14.20065276/F6) Figure 6. Forest plot for pooling parameters of observational studies ## Discussion Recent investigations indicated that high concentration of cytokines in the plasma called cytokine storm would be related to the severe COVID-19 patients. In this situation, medications transposition is a critical need to find effective anti-inflammatory agents in order to decrease the cytokines and pro-inflammatory factors production (14). In this regard, HCQ has been known as an effective anti-inflammatory agent for a long time (since the 1950s), especially in autoimmune disorders (15). Besides, outcome of a new experimental study conducted by Liu *et al*. has been mentioned in the title of their publication as follows: “*Hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine, is effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro*”. This also has been investigated and resulted the same in the *in vitro* study of Yao *et al*. (16). In addition, Pagliano *et al*. in their letter to the editor of *Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID)* journal, have been recommended the use of HCQ as pre/post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection for health care staffs exposed to the virus in contaminated environments (17). In contrast, Maurizio Guastalegname and Alfredo Vallone are claiming about uselessness and even harmful effects of HCQ against COVID-19 in their letter to the editor in the above journal (6). They actually believe that, while the pathogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 is still unknown, we should be caution regarding the treatment decision, which has been proved through *in vitro* base studies in order to avoid dire paradoxical consequences like what has happened in treatment of *Chikungunya Virus* infection with chloroquine (18). Moreover, Molina *et al*. have followed 11 patients with HCQ + azithromycin regimen and concluded no clinical benefit and reasonable anti-viral activity in this regard (11). In addition, pre-print of a Quasi-Randomized Comparative Study conducted in Detroit, Michigan, has been indicated not only no clinical benefits for HCQ, but even increased need for urgent respiratory support (*p*=0.013) (19). Also, H.J. Kim *et al*. in their opinion publication *for the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance* pointed at the shortage of HCQ following a sudden high demand after Gautret and colleagues’ publication on 20 March 2020 (10). They also referred to that HCQ is a crucial treatment choice for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis disorders, who get into trouble in finding HCQ in this critical time (20). Authors recommend that scientific communities have to be very cautious and do not rush in decision when there is no ample evidence for the subject, especially in such critical situations, which can lead to irreparable consequences. In fact, even if the efficacy of HCQ is confirmed, the world will be facing a new issue for both COVID-19 and rheumatic disorders patients: “*Shortage of Hydroxychloroquine*”. In this case, we carried out the present systematic review in order to reach at a clear result regarding taking or not-taking HCQ. In this study, although the risk ratio was higher than 1, there were no significant difference between HCQ arm who received 400-600 mg HCQ daily regimen and standard treatment arm. However, more cases in the HCQ group presented the improvement in CT-Scan results and negative swap culture in compare to control group. While the analysis results did not indicate a considerable performance for HCQ regimen, due to the small number of studies with small sample size it is too early to reach at a reliable decision. Therefore, the urgent need arises for comprehensive randomized controlled trials in order to investigate the efficacy and safety of HCQ consumption in COVID-19 patients. In this regard, searching clinical trials registry databases such as WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Clinicaltrials.gov, Center Watch, Chinese Clinical Trials Registry, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN), EU Clinical Trials Register, OpenTrials and Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, resulted in more than 100 registered trials regarding efficacy, safety and prophylaxis potency of HCQ in COVID-19 patients. Hence, in the near future, results of these trials will help the medical communities to reach at a general opinion regarding utilization of HCQ as a pre/post exposure as well as treatment choice for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that carried out a meta-analysis for investigating the role of HCQ in COVID-19 patients. However, after releasing outcomes of under way clinical trials, an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on this subject could conclude the reliable result with full confidence. ## Conclusion This study indicated no clinical effectiveness regarding role of HCQ for treatment of COVID-19 patients. However, further large clinical trials should be taken into account in order to achieve more reliable findings. ## Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in data bases mentioned in the search strategy. ## Conflict of interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. ## Funding None. * Received April 14, 2020. * Revision received April 14, 2020. * Accepted April 20, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.Organization WH. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. Geneva: WHO; 2020. 2. 2.Organization WH. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public. 2020. 3. 3.Pourdowlat G, Panahi P, Pooransari P, Ghorbani F. Prophylactic Recommendation for Healthcare Workers in COVID-19 Pandemic. J Advanced Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2020. 4. 4.Colson P, Rolain JM, Lagier JC, Brouqui P, Raoult D. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as available weapons to fight COVID-19. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020:105932. 5. 5.Zhou D, Dai SM, Tong Q. COVID-19: a recommendation to examine the effect of hydroxychloroquine in preventing infection and progression. he Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2020. 6. 6.Guastalegname M, Vallone A. Could chloroquine /hydroxychloroquine be harmful in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment? Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2020. 7. 7.McGuinness LA. robvis: An R package and web application for visualising risk-of-bias assessments. 2019. 8. 8.Chen Jun LD, LIU Li, LIU Ping, XU Qingnian, XIA Lu, LING Yun, HUANG Dan, SONG Shuli, ZHANG Dandan, QIAN Zhiping, LI Tao, SHEN Yinzhong, LU Hongzhou. A pilot study of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of patients with common coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). 2020;49(1):-. 9. 9.Chen Z, Hu J, Zhang Z, Jiang S, Han S, Yan D, et al. Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial. 2020:2020.03.22.20040758. 10. 10.Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, Hoang VT, Meddeb L, Mailhe M, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020:105949. 11. 11.Molina JM, Delaugerre C, Goff JL, Mela-Lima B, Ponscarme D, Goldwirt L, et al. No Evidence of Rapid Antiviral Clearance or Clinical Benefit with the Combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Infection. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses. 2020. 12. 12. Philippe Gautret, Jean-Christophe Lagier, Philippe Parola, Van Thuan Hoang, Line Meddeb, Jacques Sevestre, et al. Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: an observational study. IHU Méditerranée Infection. 2020;27(1). 13. 13.al. MMe. Early treatment of 1061 COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, Marseille, France. Bibliovid. 2020. 14. 14.Rolain JM, Colson P, Raoult D. Recycling of chloroquine and its hydroxyl analogue to face bacterial, fungal and viral infections in the 21st century. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007;30(4):297–308. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.05.015&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17629679&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F04%2F20%2F2020.04.14.20065276.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000250158200002&link_type=ISI) 15. 15.Detert J, Klaus P, Listing J, Höhne-Zimmer V, Braun T, Wassenberg S, et al. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with inflammatory and erosive osteoarthritis of the hands (OA TREAT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:412. 16. 16.Yao X, Ye F, Zhang M, Cui C, Huang B, Niu P, et al. In Vitro Antiviral Activity and Projection of Optimized Dosing Design of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clin Infect Dis. 2020. 17. 17.Pagliano P, Piazza O, De Caro F, Ascione T, Filippelli A. Is Hydroxychloroquine a possible post-exposure prophylaxis drug to limit the transmission to health care workers exposed to COVID19? Clin Infect Dis. 2020. 18. 18.Roques P, Thiberville SD, Dupuis-Maguiraga L, Lum FM, Labadie K, Martinon F, et al. Paradoxical Effect of Chloroquine Treatment in Enhancing Chikungunya Virus Infection. Viruses. 2018;10(5). 19. 19.Barbosa J, Kaitis D, Freedman R, Le K, Lin X. Clinical outcomes of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 : a quasi-randomized comparative study. Bibliovid. 2020. 20. 20.Kim AHJ, Sparks JA, Liew JW, Putman MS, Berenbaum F, Duarte-García A, et al. A Rush to Judgment? Rapid Reporting and Dissemination of Results and Its Consequences Regarding the Use of Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Annals of internal medicine. 2020.