RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.09.29.20203869
DO 10.1101/2020.09.29.20203869
A1 García-Albéniz, Xabier
A1 Amo, Julia del
A1 Polo, Rosa
A1 Morales-Asencio, José Miguel
A1 Hernán, Miguel A
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2020.09.29.20203869.abstract
AB Background Recruitment into randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prevention of COVID-19 has been adversely affected 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 A search of PubMed and medRxiv with expert consultation found ten completed randomized trials: seven pre-exposure prophylaxis trials and three 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.Results The pooled risk ratio estimate of the pre-exposure prophylaxis trials was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.58-0.91) when using either a fixed effect or a standard random effects approach, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-1.00) when using a conservative modification of the Hartung-Knapp random effects approach. The corresponding estimates for the post-exposure prophylaxis trials were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.71-1.16) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.54-1.55). All trials found a similar rate of serious adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups.Discussion A benefit of HCQ as prophylaxis for COVID-19 cannot be ruled out based on the available evidence from randomized trials. However, the “not statistically significant” findings from early prophylaxis trials were widely interpreted as definite evidence of lack of effectiveness of HCQ. This interpretation disrupted the timely completion of the remaining trials and thus the generation of precise estimates for pandemic management before the development of vaccines.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was not fundedAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData used in the analysis are publicly available