Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Hydroxychloroquine use and progression or prognosis of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Zang, Yanxiang; Han, Xuejie; He, Meijiao; Shi, Jing; Li, Yue.
  • Zang Y; Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 23 Youzheng Street, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China.
  • Han X; Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 23 Youzheng Street, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China.
  • He M; Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 23 Youzheng Street, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China.
  • Shi J; Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 23 Youzheng Street, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China.
  • Li Y; Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 23 Youzheng Street, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China. ly99ly@vip.163.com.
Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol ; 394(4): 775-782, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-746149
ABSTRACT
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been implicated in antiviral activity in vitro against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there is still controversy about whether HCQ should be used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients due to the conflicting results in different clinical trials. To systematically assess the benefits and harms of HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. Data sources were systematically searched from Pubmed, Biorxiv, ChiCTR, Clinicalrials.gov , and the Cochrane library of RCTs for studies published from inception to June 1, 2020, to obtain any possible inclusion. This meta-analysis of inclusion criteria was directed on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Pooled studies by the title and abstract were screened and removed in the light of meta-analysis by two reviewers. Seven studies involving 851 participants with COVID-19 were eligible for analysis. There was no significant difference in RT-PCR negative conversion between HCQ group and standard treatment (ST) group (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.77-1.59, P = 0.591). The rate of exacerbated pneumonia on chest CT in HCQ group was lower than that in ST group (RR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.20-0.94, P = 0.035). There was no statistical difference in progressed illness between the HCQ group and the ST group (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.18-2.43, P = 0.530). Death (RR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.26-2.93, P = 0.003) was distinctly different in HCQ group compared with ST group in the treatment of COVID-19. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no robust evidence to support prescribing HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Antiviral Agents / COVID-19 Drug Treatment / Hydroxychloroquine Type of study: Diagnostic study / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: English Journal: Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol Year: 2021 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Antiviral Agents / COVID-19 Drug Treatment / Hydroxychloroquine Type of study: Diagnostic study / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: English Journal: Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol Year: 2021 Document Type: Article