Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Author:

Di Stefano LeonORCID,Ogburn Elizabeth L.ORCID,Ram Malathi,Scharfstein Daniel O.ORCID,Li Tianjing,Khanal Preeti,Baksh Sheriza N.ORCID,McBee NicholORCID,Gruber Joshua,Gildea Marianne R.,Clark Megan R.,Goldenberg Neil A.ORCID,Bennani YussefORCID,Brown Samuel M.,Buckel Whitney R.ORCID,Clement Meredith E.,Mulligan Mark J.ORCID,O’Halloran Jane A.,Rauseo Adriana M.ORCID,Self Wesley H.,Semler Matthew W.ORCID,Seto ToddORCID,Stout Jason E.ORCID,Ulrich Robert J.ORCID,Victory Jennifer,Bierer Barbara E.ORCID,Hanley Daniel F.ORCID,Freilich DanielORCID,

Abstract

Background Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. Methods We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. Results Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76–1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). Conclusions The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Funder

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences

American Australian Association

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation

Intermountain Heart and Lung Foundation

Intermountain Office of Research

CTSA/Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Sandoz

Duke University School of Medicine

Bassett Research Institute

Brigham and Women’s Hospital

Publisher

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

Subject

Multidisciplinary

Reference77 articles.

1. Rello J on behalf of the International Task Force on COVID‐19. COVID‐19: interim guidance on management pending empirical evidence;KC Wilson;From an American Thoracic Society‐led international task force,2020

2. Hydroxychloroquine proves ineffective in hamsters and macaques infected with SARS-CoV-2;K Rosenke;bioRxiv,2020

3. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial;P Gautret;Int J Antimicrob Agents,2020

4. Use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and dexamethasone among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States: a retrospective cohort study;HB Mehta;Ann of Intern Med,2021

5. Effect of high vs low doses of chloroquine diphosphate as adjunctive therapy for patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection: a randomized clinical trial;MGS Borba;JAMA Netw Open,2020

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3