Abstract
Background Recruitment into randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prevention of COVID-19 is being threatened by a widespread conviction that HCQ is not effective for prevention. In the absence of an updated systematic review, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials that study the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19.
Methods and Findings A search of PubMed, Embase, and medRxiv with expert consultation found four completed randomized trials: two pre-exposure prophylaxis trials and two post-exposure prophylaxis trials. We obtained or calculated the risk ratio of COVID-19 diagnosis for assignment to HCQ versus no HCQ (either placebo or usual care) for each trial, and then pooled the risk ratio estimates. The risk ratio estimated for each of the individual trials were 0.74 (95% CI 0.50-1.10), 0.95 (0.25, 3.64), 0.83 (95% CI: 0.58-1.18), and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.35-1.37). The pooled risk ratio estimate was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.61-0.99). All four trials found a similar rate of adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups.
Discussion A pooled analysis of these randomized trials cannot rule out a moderate reduction of COVID-19 risk after assignment to HCQ. Yet the findings from the randomized trials were widely interpreted as definite evidence of lack of effectiveness of HCQ, simply because they were not “statistically significant”. Completion of the ongoing trials is needed to generate more precise estimates of the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19.
Background
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is not an effective treatment for established COVID-19 (1-3). Several ongoing studies will help determine whether HCQ is a viable option for prophylaxis of COVID-19. However, recruitment into these studies (some of them carried out by the authors of this report) is being threatened by a widespread conviction that HCQ is not effective for prevention. In the absence of an updated systematic review, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials that study the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19 either before known exposure to an infected individual (pre-exposure prophylaxis) or after known exposure to an infected individual (postexposure prophylaxis).
Methods and Findings
A search of PubMed, Embase, and medRxiv, together with expert consultation, identified four completed randomized trials of prophylaxis with HCQ as of September 30, 2020 (4-7): two pre-exposure prophylaxis trials (4-5) and two post-exposure prophylaxis trials (6-7). For each of the completed trials, we obtained or calculated the risk ratio of COVID-19 diagnosis (as defined by each trial protocol) for assignment to HCQ versus no HCQ (either placebo or usual care) among PCR-negative individuals at baseline. We then pooled the risk ratio estimates using a fixed effect approach and two types of random effects approaches (8-9). We reported the random effects approach that resulted in the wider 95% confidence interval.
The two pre-exposure prophylaxis trials were double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials that included healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to patients with COVID-19. In the first one (available as a preprint) (4), the risk of COVID-19 was 5.9% (58 total cases, 11 confirmed by PCR) among 989 participants assigned to HCQ (two 400 mg doses on day 1, followed by 400 mg either once or twice weekly for 12 weeks) and 7.9% (39 total cases, 6 confirmed by PCR) among 494 participants assigned to placebo. The risk difference can be calculated as -2.0% (95% CI -4.8 to 0.8) and the risk ratio can be calculated as 0.74 (95% CI 0.50-1.10). In the second trial (5), the risk of COVID-19 was 6.3% (4 cases confirmed by PCR) among 64 participants assigned to HCQ (three 200 mg doses daily for 8 weeks) and 6.6% (4 cases confirmed by PCR) among 61 participants assigned to placebo. The risk difference can be calculated as -0.3% (95% CI -8.9, 8.3) and the risk ratio can be calculated as 0.95 (95% CI 0.25-3.64).
The two post-exposure prophylaxis trials included asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. The first one was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (6) in which the risk of COVID-19 diagnosis (largely based on compatible symptoms) was 11.8% in 414 contacts assigned to HCQ (800 mg. on day 1, 600 mg. daily for four days) and 14.3% in 407 contacts assigned to placebo. The risk difference was -2.4% (95% CI: -7.0 to 2.2) and the risk ratio can be calculated as 0.83 (95% CI: 0.58-1.18). The second one (available as a preprint) (7) was an open-label, cluster-randomized trial in which the COVID-19 risk (based on confirmed PCR) was 3.0% in 958 contacts assigned to HCQ (800 mg. on day 1, 400 mg. daily for six days) and 4.3% in 1042 contacts assigned to usual care. The risk ratio (adjusted for age, gender, region, and time of exposure) was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.35-1.37); the corresponding risk difference cannot be directly calculated from the data provided.
The time from exposure to initiation of prophylaxis was relatively long in the two post-exposure prophylaxis trials: in one trial, about a third of participants were enrolled 4 days after exposure (none was enrolled later) (6); in the other, about 10% of participants were enrolled 7 or more days after exposure (7). For comparison, post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV is recommended in the first 6-72 hours after the exposure (10-11).
The Figure shows the risk ratio estimates from each of the trials and the pooled estimates. The pooled risk ratio estimate was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.61-0.99) using either a fixed effect or a random effects approach. All four trials found a similar rate of serious adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups, which were low (4-7).
Risk ratio estimates of COVID-19 risk for hydroxychloroquine vs. no hydroxychloroquine in randomized trials of pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, pooled and by study.
Discussion
When considered together, the available randomized trials yield a point estimate of an approximately 20% lower risk of COVID-19 for assignment to HCQ compared with no HCQ among PCR-negative individuals at randomization. Any effect between a 50% reduction in risk and no reduction in risk is highly compatible with the data from these trials.
Because our pooled estimate is imprecise, we will need additional studies in order to make strong causal inferences about the prophylactic effect, if any, of HCQ. Unfortunately, recruitment for those studies is being impeded by incorrect interpretations of the available randomized trial evidence. The individual findings from the 4 completed trials have been widely (and incorrectly) portrayed as definite evidence of the lack of effectiveness of HCQ, simply because they were not “statistically significant”. Thus, the common confusion between the concepts “no effect” and “no statistical significance” have led many to conclude that HCQ has no prophylactic effect (which may be a true but premature conclusion) when we can only conclude that the effect estimate is still too imprecise (12).
Our pooled estimates are based on the design and analytic choices made by the investigators of each trial. We encourage these investigators to coordinate future analyses with standardized outcome definitions that correct for differences in length of follow-up and time since exposure, and that adjust for losses to follow-up and other deviations from protocol. We also encourage the authors of living systematic reviews to update their findings frequently when, as in this case, public opinion interferes with the generation of the very evidence that will feed their systematic review.
In summary, pending final publication of two of them, these randomized trials cannot rule out a moderate reduction of COVID-19 risk after assignment to HCQ. Completion of the ongoing trials is needed to generate more precise estimates of the potential effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19.
Data Availability
Data used in the analysis are publicly available
Acknowledgments
We thank Prof. Sander Greenland for technical advice and Prof. Richard Riley for constructive feedback on estimation methods for random-effects meta-analysis.
Footnotes
An additional clinical trial was added to the meta-analysis
