RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The Role of Hydroxychloroquine in the Age of COVID-19: A Periodic Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.04.14.20065276
DO 10.1101/2020.04.14.20065276
A1 Shamshirian, Amir
A1 Hessami, Amirhossein
A1 Heydari, Keyvan
A1 Alizadeh-Navaei, Reza
A1 Ebrahimzadeh, Mohammad Ali
A1 Yip, George W.
A1 Ghasemian, Roya
A1 Sedaghat, Meghdad
A1 Baradaran, Hananeh
A1 Yazdi, Soheil Mohammadi
A1 Aboufazeli, Elham
A1 Jafarpour, Hamed
A1 Dadgostar, Ehsan
A1 Tirandazi, Behnaz
A1 Karimifar, Keyvan
A1 Eftekhari, Aida
A1 Shamshirian, Danial
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/24/2020.04.14.20065276.abstract
AB 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 (HCQ) efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis overcome the controversies regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19.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 up to July 19, 2020. Studies focused on the effectiveness of HCQ with/without azithromycin (AZM) in confirmed COVID-19 patients were entered into the study. Two researchers have independently evaluated quality assessment of the studies and abstracted data for data extraction. Extracted data were analyzed using CMA v. 2.2.064. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared (I2) test, and fixed/random-effects model was used when appropriate for pooling of studies.Results Out of 26 studies entered into our systematic review, 21 studies including 14 comparative studies with control group and seven observational studies containing 103,486 participants have entered into the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis on comparative studies indicated no significant clinical effectiveness (negative in RT-PCR evaluation) for HCQ regimen in the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to control group (RR: 1.03, 95% CI, 0.79-1.34). The same result was observed for the combination of HCQ+azithromycin (RR: 1.26, 95% CI, 0.91-1.74). No significant differences were found for both HCQ (RR: 0.92, 95% CI, 0.72-1.16) and HCQ+AZM (RR: 1.72, 95% CI, 0.86-3.42) mortality rate; however, mortality was affected by age differences according to meta-regression analysis (P<0.000001). No substantial difference was observed for disease exacerbation (RR: 1.23, 95% CI, 0.65-2.30) between HCQ group and controls. Also, radiological findings significantly improved in the HCQ group (OR: 0.32, 95% CI, 0.11-0.98). Odds of known HCQ adverse effects (diarrhea, vomiting, blurred vision, rash, headache, etc.) occurred in the HCQ regimen group was approximately 3.5 times of control group (OR: 3.40, 95% CI, 1.65-6.98), but no substantial differences were found regarding intubation odds between HCQ group and control group (OR: 2.11, 95% CI, 0.31-14.03). Meta-analysis indicated no significant prophylactic effects for HCQ (OR: 0.40, 95% CI, 0.04-3.65)Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no clinical benefits regarding HCQ treatment with/without azithromycin for COVID-19 patients. Although mortality rate was not significantly different between cases and controls, frequency of adverse effects was substantially higher in HCQ regimen group. However, due to that most of the studies were non-randomized and results were not homogenous, selection bias was unavoidable and further large randomized clinical trials following comprehensive meta-analysis should be taken into account in order to achieve more reliable findings. Also, it is worth mentioning that if this work does not allow to quantify a “value” of the HCQ, it allows at least to know what is not the HCQ and that it would be prudent not to continue investing in this direction.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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.YesThe data that support the findings of this study are openly available in data bases mentioned in the search strategy.