And yet:
Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Abstract
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not associated with worsening disease and safe. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting. It was also found to be overall effective in inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse events were found. HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe.
There is a need for effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), with or without azithromycin (AZ), has been found to have efficacy as a treatment for COVID-19 in some studies [ 1, 2], while other studies have not shown efficacy [ 3, 4]. While we do not prescribe HCQ to typical patients, we do treat various forms of inflammatory arthritis in patients prescribed HCQ by outside providers. Some physicians have stated that HCQ has greater efficacy if provided earlier in the course of the disease [ 5, 6]. Several studies showing negative efficacy have been withdrawn as a result of methodologic problems [ 7].
We hypothesized that HCQ clinical studies would show the agent to have significant efficacy more often than not for COVID-19, and that efficacy would be greater if HCQ was provided earlier in the disease course. We also hypothesized that some studies that failed to show efficacy would be biased against positive efficacy and that no unbiased studies would show worsening. Finally, we hypothesized that HCQ would be found to be safe.
Go to:
MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We included reports with HCQ alone as well as in combination with AZ and/or zinc. We excluded reports that studied chloroquine. While chloroquine has shown efficacy, it has a worse adverse effects profile than HCQ. For this reason, and because HCQ is inexpensive and widely available, we believe that future treatment will and should focus on HCQ. It was thus our priority to examine HCQ as fully as possible. We excluded reports that only examined HCQ as a means to decrease transmission of coronavirus because our focus was on demonstrated clinical efficacy. Reports were analysed for efficacy, type of study, time of intervention with HCQ during the COVID-19 disease course and adverse events. Our final search was performed 3 August 2020.
Go to:
ResultsA total of 43 reports were found that examined HCQ treatment for COVID-19 patients. Twenty-five reported positive clinical efficacy from providing HCQ to for COVID-19 patients; 15 showed no improvement with HCQ and three showed worse clinical results in patients who received HCQ.
Eleven studies in our review examined HCQ efficacy in patients in the outpatient or ‘day hospital’ setting; all reported positive results [ 8]. However, in two of the studies [ 9, 10], the positive results, while clinically important (decreased risk of hospitalization and improvement in symptom resolution), were not statistically significant.
We found 32 reports of HCQ treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Of these 32 reports of hospitalized patients, 14 reported good results, 15 reported no improvement and three reported worse results. Fourteen studies reported the time during treatment during which HCQ was initiated. In nine studies, HCQ was administered within 48 hours of admission. In six [ [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]] of these nine, improvement was noted. In three, no improvement was noted [ 3, 17, 18]. In five studies, HCQ was administered more than 48 hours after admission or in the intensive care unit (ICU). In two [ 19, 20] of these five improvement was noted. In three it was not [ [21], [22], [23]]. In 18 studies, the time of administration was not specified.
Seven of the 43 total studies [ 12, 17, 20, [24], [25], [26], [27]] were chartless retrospective studies that used only billing codes. These studies all allowed initiation of HCQ treatment at times that differed with initiation of the control treatment, with HCQ presumably being chosen at the physician's discretion in worsening patients who were more in need of treatment. All such studies were thought to exhibit selection bias against a positive result. Four additional studies [ 9, 10, 15, 16] had positive trends towards efficacy that did not reach statistical significance. In one study [ 22], 8% of the treatment group was untreated but not excluded from the treatment group calculations. In addition, the median level of treatment was only 67% of the specified treatment. Nineteen of the 43 reports were preprints or otherwise not peer reviewed. Twenty-four of the articles were from peer-reviewed journals. Of the 11 outpatient reports, all of which reported positive results, seven were peer reviewed and four were not. Of the 32 hospitalization reports, 17 were peer reviewed and 15 were not. Overall, 12 (50%) of the 24 peer-reviewed reports and 11 (58%) of 19 non–peer reviewed reports showed positive efficacy.
Some studies provided HCQ alone; some included the addition of AZ and/or zinc. No difference in outcome was observed with the addition of AZ ( Table 1), although all of the outpatient studies that provided AZ had positive results. There were no deaths reported as a result of HCQ, AZ or zinc treatment. Increased QTc was seen but not torsades de pointes (TDP). Adverse events that were thought to be likely due to HCQ treatment were not life threatening. No permanent sequelae were described. Adverse events are listed in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4. Table 5 provides a comparison of study treatments, settings and results.
Table 1
Study results by time of treatment initiation
Time of treatment initiationNo. of studies showing clinical improvementNo. showing no improvement% improved vs. total studies|
| Outpatienta | 11 | 0 | 100 | | Within 48 hours after hospitalizationa | 6 | 3 | 67 | | After 48 hours of hospitalization; or in ICU | 2 | 3 | 40 | | Nonspecified inpatient studies | 8 | 10 | 44 | | Total | 27 | 16 | 63 |
Open in a separate window
ICU, intensive care unit.
aBoth outpatient and hospitalization within 48 hours groups each had two studies that trended towards positive results but without statistical significance. Here studies with good results are grouped.
Table 2
Studies showing positive results with HCQ used to treat COVID-19
StudyNo. of patients and treatmentsTotal HCQ dosePeer reviewedStudy typeCase severityTreatment initiationAEsResults|
| Ahmad 2020 [ 28] | 54 total patients; all receiving HCQ + AZ | Average 3700 mg | No | Retrospective case series | High-risk long-term care facility patients | NA | 1 seizure; HCQ discontinued, with no report regarding HCQ was likely cause | 44% reduction in hospitalization in study patients compared to similar patient population | | Arshad 2020 [ 12] | 2541 total patients: 1202 receiving HCQ, 783 receiving HCQ + AZ, 1202 receiving AZ = 1202; usual care = 409 | 2800 mg | Yes | Retrospective observational study (chartless) | Hospitalized patients | Average 1 day after hospitalization, with 91% receiving treatment within 48 hours | 1 prolonged QT interval on ECG | 8.1% mortality for entire cohort, with 13.5% mortality for HCQ alone vs. 20.1% HCQ + AZ vs. 22.4% just AZ vs. 26% mortality for usual care | | Ashraf 2020 [ 29] | 100 total patients, all receiving oseltamivir, 94 receiving HCQ, 60 receiving LPV/r, 12 receiving ribavirin | 400 mg/d for 5–14 days | No | ‘Comprehensive report’ (retrospective observational study) | Hospitalized patients, 15 critically ill, 85 non–critically ill | NA | None reported | HCQ associated with better clinical outcomes | | Bernaola 2020 [ 30] | 1645 total patients, 1498 receiving HCQ ± AZ | NA | No | Retrospective observational study | Hospitalized patients | NA | None reported | Only prednisone or HCQ associated with decrease in mortality after propensity score matching; only HCQ was associated with improvement in mortality before propensity matching | | Carlucci 2020 [ 31] | 932 total patients, 411 received HCQ + AZ + Zn, 521 receiving HCQ + AZ | 2400 mg | No | Retrospective observational study | Hospitalized patients | NA | None reported | Addition of Zn to regimen was associated with decreased mortality, hospice or ventilator rates; effect driven by noncritical patients | | Chen 2020 [ 11] | 62 total patients, 31 receiving HCQ, 31 receiving usual care | 2000 mg | No | Prospective randomized clinical trail | Hospitalized patients, severe and critical infections excluded | 1 day after hospitalization | 1 rash, 1 headache; no severe AEs reported | Time to clinical recovery, body temperature recovery and cough remission time was significantly shorter in HCQ group; 4 patients whose disease progressed to severe illness were all in usual care group | | Davido 2020 [ 13] | 132 total patients, 52 receiving HCQ + AZ | 5800 mg average | Yes | Retrospective observational study | Hospitalized patients | Average 0.7 days after hospitalization | 1 prolonged QT interval on ECG | Reduction in unfavourable outcome in patients receiving HCQ + AZ, especially patients with elevated lymphocyte or CRP levels | | de Novales 2020 [ 32] | 164 total patients, 123 receiving HCQ, 34 receiving usual care | Average total 3600 mg | No | Retrospective cohort study | Hospitalized patients, 83 mild cases, 38 moderate, 35 severe | NA | None reported | 22.2% death rate in HCQ group vs. 48.8% in usual treatment group; 1.8 × high mean cumulative survival in mild group vs. 1.4 × in moderate vs. 1.6 × in severe (statistically significant in mild group) | | Esper 2020 [ 8] | 636 total patients, 412 receiving HCQ + AZ, 224 receiving usual care | 3200 mg | No | Prospective observational study | Outpatient telemedicine visits | Average 5.2 days since symptom onset | 2 serious: maculopapular rash, severe pruritus | Hospitalization rate of 1.9% in treatment group and 5.4% in control group; lower hospitalization rates (1.17% vs. 3.2%) for patients who began treatment before day 7 of symptoms vs. after day 7 of symptoms | | Gautret 1 2020 [ 33] | 36 total patients, 20 receiving HCQ, 16 receiving usual care | 6000 mg | Yes | Prospective open-label nonrandomized clinical trial | ‘Day hospital’ patients; included 8 asymptomatic cases | NA | None reported | 70% of HCQ patients had virus clearance after 6 days via nasal swab PCR vs. 12.5% in control group | | Gautret 2 2020 [ 34] | 80 total patients, all receiving HCQ | 6000 mg | Yes | Prospective uncontrolled observational study | ‘Day hospital’ patients with mild infections | NA | 2 nausea/vomiting, 4 diarrhoea, 1 blurred vision after 5 days' treatment; none required treatment discontinuation | 65 had favourable outcome, 15% required oxygen therapy, 1 ICU admission, 1 death; positive PCR test results for 83% on day 7, 93% on day 8, 100% by day 12 | | Guerin 2020 [ 2] | 88 total patients, 34 receiving usual care, 34 receiving AZ, 20 receiving HCQ + AZ | Average total 5100 mg | Yes | Retrospective cohort analysis | Outpatients with mild/moderate COVID-19 | Day after symptoms for 36 patients, within 15 days for the rest | No serious AEs; 5 minor events including urticaria, headache, nausea, vomiting | AZ alone and HCQ + AZ both associated with significant improvement in recovery time compared to usual care (9.2, 12.9 and 25.8 days respectively) | | Kim, JW 2020 [ 35] | 65 total patients, 31 receiving LPV/r, 24 receiving HCQ; 26.5% of HCQ patients also receiving AZ | Minimum 2800 mg | Yes | Retrospective cohort study | Hospitalized patients | Average 7 days before initiation of therapy | 1 respiratory failure, 1 shock in HCQ group (likely from COVID-19, not treatment) | Slower virus clearance in HCQ group compared to LPV/r group but equivalent time to symptom remission | | Kim, MS 2020 [ 36] | 97 total patients, 22 receiving HCQ ± AZ, 35 receiving LPV/r, 40 receiving usual care | 200 mg twice daily, duration not reported | No | Retrospective cohort study | Moderate hospitalized patients | NA | No serious AEs reported; 20 abdominal/GI | HCQ treatment associated with improved virus clearance, shorter hospital stays and quicker resolution of cough | | Lagier 2020 [ 37] | 3737 total patients, 3119 receiving HCQ + AZ, 618 receiving usual care | 6000 mg | Yes | Retrospective observational study | Hospitalized patients and patients seen at ‘day-care hospital’ | 1 day after testing positive | 12 QT prolongation on ECG requiring discontinuation of HCQ; 3 QTc > 500 ms; no torsades de pointes or sudden deaths | HCQ + AZ associated with decreased risks of ICU transfer, extended hospitalization and risk of death | | Million 2020 [ 6] | 1061 patients, all receiving HCQ + AZ | 6000 mg | Yes | Retrospective observational study | Hospitalized patients and patients seen at ‘day-care hospital’ | Within 2 days after testing positive | 25 mild and 0 serious AEs reported | 4.6% poor clinical outcome (death, transfer to ICU, hospitalization for =10 days); 20 of 21 repeat nasal swabs were negative by day 15 after treatment | | Monforte 2020 [ 1] | 539 total patients, 197 receiving HCQ, 94 receiving HCQ + AZ, 92 receiving usual care | NA | Yes | Retrospective study, not randomized | Hospitalized patients | NA | None reported | 27% mortality rates with HCQ, 23% with HCQ + AZ and 51% with usual care; mechanical ventilation rates of 4.3% in HCQ, 14.2% in HCQ + AZ and 26.1% with usual care. After adjusting for confounders, HCQ + AZ associated with 66% reduction in risk of death compared to usual care | | Sbidian 2020 [ 38] | 4642 total patients, 623 receiving HCQ, 227 receiving HCQ + AZ | NA | No | Retrospective cohort study (chartless) | Hospitalized patients | NA | None reported | No difference in mortality rate found in HCQ vs. usual care after regression analysis; discharge rates significantly higher in HCQ group | | Scholz 2020 [ 39] | 141 total patients, all receiving HCQ, AZ, Zn | 2000 mg | No | Retrospective case series | Outpatient cases | Average 4.8 days after symptom onset | No serious AEs reported | Hospitalization rates in treated patients 84% less than community control; decreased risk of mortality | | Xue 2020 [ 14] | 30 total patients, 15 receiving HCQ within 7 days of hospitalization, 15 after 7 days | Minimum 2000 mg | Yes | Retrospective cohort study | Hospitalized patients | Either before 7 days or after 7 days of hospitalization | None reported | Earlier treatment with HCQ resulted in faster recovery than later; and lower rates of mechanical ventilation and ICU transfer | | Yu 2020 [ 20] | 568 total critically ill (ventilated, septic shock, ICU/organ failure) COVID-19 patients, 48 patients receiving HCQ, 520 usual care | Average total 3400 mg | Yes | Retrospective cohort study | Hospitalized patients, all critically ill (including ICU patients, ventilated or in septic shock) | NA | None reported | 18.8% death rate in HCQ group vs. 45.8% in usual care group; Cox regression analysis showed significantly decreased mortality risk in HCQ group; showed significant decrease in IL-6 after HCQ application; no change in control group | | Yu 2020 letter to editor [ 19] | 2882 total patients, 278 receiving HCQ | Average total 3400 mg | Yes | Retrospective cohort study (chartless) | Hospitalized patients | Median 10 days after hospitalization | None reported | HCQ group associated with reduced levels of IL-6 as well as with improvement in albumin, troponin I, BNP; reduction in mortality rates in COVID-19 patients with cardiac injury treated with HCQ | | Zelenko 2020 [ 5] | 1450 total patients, all receiving HCQ, AZ, Zn | 2000 mg | No | Retrospective report | Outpatient treatment | NA | Nausea or diarrhoea in 10%; no serious AEs | No comparison to control group; 2 deaths, 6 hospitalizations, 4 intubations |
Open in a separate window
AZ, azithromycin; BNP, B-type natriuretic peptide; AE, adverse event; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; CRP, C-reactive protein; ECG, electrocardiogram; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; ICU, intensive care unit; IL-6, interleukin 6; LPV/r, lopinavir/ritonavir; NA, not applicable; Zn, zinc.
Table 3
Studies showing no improvement with HCQ used to treat COVID-19
StudyNo. of patients and treatmentsTotal HCQ dosePeer reviewedStudy typeCase severityTreatment initiationAEsResults|
| An 2020 [ 21] | 226 total patients, 31 receiving HCQ, ± AZ at physician discretion | Average 3400 mg | No | Retrospective nonrandomized cohort study | Hospitalized patients; targeting ‘mild to moderate cases’ | Average 6.7 days after diagnosis | No SAEs reported | After propensity score matching and Cox regression, analysis found that HCQ was not associated with better clinical outcomes like virus clearance, length of hospital stay or duration of symptoms | | Cavalcanti 2020 [ 4] | 667 total patients, 217 receiving HCQ + AZ, 221 receiving HCQ, 229 receiving standard care | 5600 mg twice daily | Yes | Prospective randomized controlled trial | Hospitalized with mild/moderate cases | NA (provides time to group assignment, not time to treatment initiation) | 30 reports of increased QTc, 6 reports of arrhythmia | No significant difference in 15-day outcome between HCQ, HCQ + AZ, usual care | | Geleris 2020 [ 17] | 1446 total patients, 70 intubated initially, 811 receiving HCQ, | Average 3200 mg | Yes | Retrospective cohort (chartless) | Hospitalized patients | Within 24 hours after hospitalization | None reported | No significant difference between HCQ receipt and intubation or death, ± AZ also no change | | Giacomelli 2020 [ 40] | 172 patients, 43 receiving HCQ + LPV/r within 5 days of symptoms and 129 after 5 days of symptoms | 2000–8000 mg (200 mg twice daily for 5–20 days) | No | Retrospective nonrandomized cohort study | Hospitalized patients | Either before or after 5 days of symptoms | Increase in hepatic enzymes, nausea and diarrhoea reported, attributed to LPV/r | No difference between groups in mortality rates after adjusting for comorbidities | | Ip 2020 [ 24] | 2512 total patients, 1914 receiving HCQ, 59% of HCQ patients receiving AZ | 2600 mg | No | Retrospective cohort study (chartless) | Hospitalized patients not discharged home within 24 hours | NA | Prolonged QTc or arrhythmia reported in 134 patients, cardiomyopathy in 20 patients; does not comment on whether these were treatment-related AEs | No significant difference between HCQ and standard care group; 30-day mortality for standard care was 0.2, vs. any HCQ 0.2, vs. HCQ + AZ 0.18 | | Kalligeros 2020 [ 41] | 108 total patients, 36 receiving HCQ ± AZ, 72 receiving usual care | NA; 5 days' treatment with HCQ but dosage not provided | Yes | Retrospective cohort study | Hospitalized patients | NA | 2 QTc prolongation, 1 altered mental status, 0 torsades de pointes | After regression analysis, no significant improvement in mortality rates, hospitalization duration or time to clinical improvement | | Lopez 2020 [ 23] | 29 total patients, all receiving HCQ + AZ, 17 patients with on-target HCQ levels, 12 patients with HCQ below target levels | 4400 mg | Yes | Retrospective cohort study | ICU patients | NA | 7 abnormal ECG; all discontinued treatment | No significant difference in 15-day mortality rate or discharge from ICU for patients reaching HCQ level goals and not | | Mahevas 2020 [ 16] | 29 total patients (all receiving HCQ + AZ), 17 patients with on-target HCQ levels, 12 patients with HCQ below target levels | 600 mg/d, duration not provided | No | Retrospective cohort study | Hospitalized patients requiring oxygen therapy | Within 48 hours after hospitalization | 8 patients discontinued HCQ due to ECG changes; 1 QTc > 500 ms | No statistically significant difference in poor clinical outcomes; 20.5% of patients who received HCQ transferred to ICU or died within 7 days, 22.1% for control; 2.8% of patients in HCQ group died within 7 days vs. 4.6% control; ARDS in 27.7% of HCQ group vs. 24.1% control | | Mallat 2020 [ 3] | 34 total patients, 21 receiving HCQ | 4800 mg | No | Retrospective observational study | Hospitalized patients, with ICU and ventilator patients excluded | Within 2 days after hospitalization; median administration of HCQ at 0 days from hospitalization | None reported | Hospital stay longer for HCQ group vs. standard care but NS. Main outcome: time to negativity longer for HCQ patients 17 days vs. 10 days for non-HCQ patients. Also showed no improvement in inflammatory markers/lymphopenia in HCQ group | | Mitja 2020 [ 9] | 353 total patients, 169 receiving HCQ, 184 receiving usual care | 3200 mg | Yes | Prospective randomized controlled trial | Outpatients | Average 3 days from symptom onset to treatment initiation | No treatment-related SAEs; multiple reports of nausea vomiting, headache | No difference in virus clearance, no improvement in risk of hospitalization compared to control group | | Molina 2020 [ 42] | 11 total patients, all receiving HCQ + AZ | 6000 mg | Yes | Prospective noncontrolled trial | Hospitalized patients with moderate to severe infections | NA | 1 QT prolongation; HCQ discontinued | Nasopharyngeal swabs still positive in 8/10 after treatment 5–6 days after treatment. Clinical results: 1 death, 2 ICU admissions | | ORCHID trial [ 43] | 470 total patients | 2400 mg | No | Prospective randomized controlled blinded study | Hospitalized patients | NA | None reported | No data yet released; trial arm stopped for ‘lack of efficacy’ | | Paccoud 2020 [ 15] | 89 total patients, 38 patients receiving HCQ, 46 receiving with standard care | 6000 mg | Yes | Retrospective cohort study | Hospitalized patients | Within 2 days after hospitalization | 6 AEs reported: 2 QTc prolongation, 1 each cytopenia, paresthesia, headache diarrhoea | No significant difference in risk for long hospital admission, ICU admission or death between HCQ group and standard of care group | | Rosenberg 2020 [ 18] | 1438 total patients, 735 receiving HCQ + AZ, 271 receiving HCQ alone, 211 receiving AZ alone, 221 receiving usual care | NA | Yes | Retrospective cohort study | Hospitalized patients | Median 1 day after admission for HCQ; median 0 days after admission for AZ | 194 arrhythmia in patients receiving HCQ; 120 QT prolongations. No effort to determine if AEs were treatment related | Mortality 22.5% for HCQ + AZ, 18.9% HCQ alone, 10.9% for AZ alone, 17.8% for neither drug. Differences between groups NS | | Singh 2020 [ 25] | 3372 total patients, 1125 receiving HCQ, 799 HCQ + AZ, 2247 receiving usual care | NA | No | Retrospective cohort study (chartless) | Hospitalized patients | NA | None reported | After propensity score matching, no significant difference in mortality rates between patients treated with HCQ and usual care | | Skipper 2020 [ 10] | 423 total patients, 212 receiving HCQ, 211 receiving placebo | 3800 mg | Yes | Prospective randomized controlled trial | Outpatients | Within 4 days of symptoms | Multiple reports of abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea; no SAEs related to treatment reported. | No statistically significant improvement of symptom severity between HCQ and placebo group; no statistically significant difference in hospitalization/mortality between the two groups | | Tang 2020 [ 44] | 150 total patients, 75 receiving HCQ, 75 receiving usual care | 12?400 or 18?000 mg (average 15?200) | Yes | Prospective open-label randomized, controlled trial | Hospitalized patients, 148 patients with mild to moderate infections, 2 with severe infections | NA | 2 serious AEs reported: 1 report of blurred vision, 1 report of thirst. Both transient and self limited | Only results on ‘negative conversion’ presented: 2 negative results 24 hours apart. Conversion rate in 28-day experimental group 85.4%, control group 81.3% (NS) |
Open in a separate window
AE, adverse event; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; AZ, azithromycin; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; ECG, electrocardiogram; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; ICU, intensive care unit; LPV/r, lopinavir/ritonavir; NS, not statistically significant; SAE, severe adverse event.
Table 4
Studies that showed worse results with HCQ used to treat COVID-19
StudyNo. of patients and treatmentsTotal HCQ dosePeer reviewedStudy typeCase severityTreatment initiationAEsResults|
| Horby 2020 [ 22] | 4686 total patients, 1561 receiving HCQ, 3155 receiving usual care, 17% receiving HCQ + AZ | 8800 mg | No | Prospective randomized controlled trial | Hospitalized patients | Average 3 days after hospitalization | 1 torsades de pointes (patient recovered without need for intervention) | No significant difference in 28-day mortality (25.7% HCQ, 23.5% usual care). HCQ group had worse discharge and ventilation rates compared to usual care. No difference in arrhythmia rates | | Magagnoli 2020 [ 26] | 807 total patients, 198 receiving HCQ, 214 received HCQ + AZ | Median 2000 mg | Yes | Retrospective cohort study (chartless) | Hospitalized patients | NA | None reported | Mortality risk higher in HCQ group, no significant difference in chance of mechanical ventilation between groups | | Rivera 2020 [ 27] | 2186 total patients, 538 receiving HCQ ± AZ, 1321 receiving usual care, 327 receiving other medications | NA | Yes | Retrospective observational study (chartless) | Hospitalized patients | NA | None reported | After multivariable logistic regression, HCQ alone was associated with no improvement in mortality vs. usual care; HCQ in combination with other medication was associated with increase in mortality |
Open in a separate window
AZ, azithromycin; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; NA, not applicable.
Table 5
Comparison of treatments, settings and results
CharacteristicPositive resultsNo changeNegative results|
| Outpatient | 9 | Treatments: | 2 | Treatments: | 0 | Treatments: | | HCQ: 2 | HCQ: 2 | HCQ: | | HCQ + AZ: 7 | HCQ + AZ: | HCQ + AZ: | | HCQ ± AZ: | HCQ ± AZ: | HCQ ± AZ: | | HCQ + antivirals: | HCQ + antivirals: | HCQ + antivirals: | | Hospitalized, treated within 48 hours | 4 | Treatments: | 5 | Treatments: | 0 | Treatments: | | HCQ: 2 | HCQ: 3 | HCQ: | | HCQ + AZ: 1 | HCQ + AZ: | HCQ + AZ: | | HCQ ± AZ: 1 | HCQ ± AZ: 2 | HCQ ± AZ: | | HCQ + antivirals: | HCQ + antivirals: | HCQ + antivirals: | | Hospitalized, treated after 48 hours; or in ICU | 2 | Treatments: | 2 | Treatments: | 1 | Treatments: | | HCQ: 2 | HCQ: | HCQ: | | HCQ + AZ: | HCQ + AZ: 1 | HCQ + AZ: | | HCQ ± AZ: | HCQ ± AZ: 1 | HCQ ± AZ: 1 | | HCQ + antivirals: | HCQ + antivirals: | HCQ + antivirals: | | Administration time not reported in relation to hospitalization | 8 | Treatments: | 8 | Treatments: | 2 | Treatments: | | HCQ: 1 | HCQ: 2 | HCQ: | | HCQ + AZ: 1 | HCQ + AZ: 1 | HCQ + AZ: | | HCQ ± AZ: 5 | HCQ ± AZ: 4 | HCQ ± AZ: 2 | | HCQ + antivirals: 1 | HCQ + antivirals: 1 | HCQ + antivirals: |
Open in a separate window
Values recorded in this table are the number of studies that achieved the designated result.
AZ, azithromycin; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; ICU, intensive care unit.
Go to:
DiscussionThis review found four important results. The first is that HCQ appears to be consistently effective for the treatment of COVID-19 when provided early in the course of disease in the outpatient setting, and it is generally more effective the earlier it is provided. The second is that overall, in most studies, HCQ exhibits efficacy against COVID-19. The third is that there are no unbiased studies showing a negative effect of HCQ treatment of COVID-19. The fourth is that HCQ appears to be safe for the treatment of COVID-19 when used responsibly.
Timing of HCQ provisionIt was striking that 100% of the 11 studies which provided HCQ early in the disease on an outpatient basis showed positive results. In two of the studies [ 9, 10], the benefit was only a trend. However, the effects were clinically important. In the study of Mitjà et al. [ 9], resolution of symptoms was decreased from 12 to 10 days; in that of Skipper et al. [ 10], the rate of hospitalization was decreased by 60%. It is likely that if the studies had higher power, statistical significance would have been reached. In the 32 other studies, HCQ was provided on an inpatient basis in patients with more advanced disease. The studies were divided into early, late and ICU administration. Early provision—within 48 hours of admission—showed 67% (6/9) of the studies to have positive efficacy. Later provision—after 48 hours' admission or in the ICU—found positive efficacy in 40% (2/5). Thus, from 100% for early outpatient, to 67% for early hospital to 40% for later hospital provision, there appears to be a relationship with time of initiation of treatment, with better results observed the earlier HCQ is provided.
Overall efficacyTwenty-three (53%) of the 43 studies showed a definite positive effect of HCQ vs. COVID-19. However, if negatively biased studies are removed and the clinically important positive trends from underpowered studies are moved to the positive efficacy group, then the ratio changes to 28 positive vs. nine with no effect, resulting in a 75% ratio of positive to nonpositive HCQ studies. Interestingly, none of the no-effect studies showed a clear trend towards worsening.
Randomized controlled trialsOf the seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), two [ 9, 10] were in the outpatient early treated group. As described above, both these studies had clinically important trends towards positive results, although results were underpowered and did not reach statistical significance. The other five RCTs were performed in hospitalized patients later in the disease course, where the efficacy of HCQ seems to be less. There was one positive [ 11], three no-effect [ 4, 43, 44] and one negative effect [ 22] studies. The negative effect study, however, was biased, as described below, such that any negative or no-effect result would not be valid. Thus, both RCTs with early treatment showed positive results; one of three hospitalized patients had a positive result, consistent with the general finding of better results with earlier HCQ provision.
Negative effect studiesThree studies had data that seemed to show worse outcomes with HCQ. However, all had significant biases. Further, all were reported in hospitalized patients, when results with HCQ are less good. Two [ 3, 16] of the three studies were well-done studies that were nonetheless constrained by being chartless hospitalization studies that only used billing codes at particular time points to evaluate patients but had no information regarding events between these time points within their hospital course which led to initiation of treatment. Both studies were retrospective. Patients were not randomized to treatment with HCQ vs. other care. Rather patients apparently received HCQ at the discretion of the physician. The time of administration of HCQ to the patients who received it was not specified during hospitalization. This introduces selection bias in both studies regarding treatment with HCQ for sicker patients who were faring worse after admission, and who presumably would be more likely to have treatment vs. no treatment selected by their physician. Attempting to normalize comorbidities did not correct this bias because the clinical progress of COVID-19 infection is not well predicted by preexisting comorbidities. This selection bias means that patients whose condition worsened after admission, and who are thereby more likely to have worse outcomes, would be overrepresented in the HCQ treatment group. For this reason, negative results from the treatment arm of these studies are not valid because outcomes are moved negatively. A positive effect, however, would have validity because it could only occur despite the negative selection bias, not because of it.
The third study showing worse results with HCQ was a highly powered non–peer reviewed study whose primary outcome of 28-day mortality actually showed no difference between the HCQ-treated group and the usual treatment group. Two of the secondary results did just barely reach significance regarding the negative results [ 22]. However, the reporting of results was flawed: 8% of the patients in the treatment group did not receive HCQ at all, and the median number of days of treatment for all treated patients was only 6 out of a prescribed 9. These facts mean that less than half of patients received the full treatment regimen, or even two thirds of the full treatment regimen, with one in 12 receiving no treatment at all. However, these outcomes in untreated and undertreated patients were grouped with the fully treated patient outcomes. If HCQ has any positive effect, which we believe is well established, then this undertreatment would invalidate their borderline negative secondary results. In addition, treatment was initiated more than 48 hours after admission—a time point that our aggregate data has shown to have a high incidence of no-effect results. The study was not blinded, introducing a potential undertreatment bias towards patients who were known by the staff to be treated with HCQ. This study most reasonably is actually a no-effects study, which is common in already hospitalized patients (such as these) treated more than 48 hours after admission.
Adverse eventsSome clinicians fear that the increased QTc observed in the electrocardiogram results of some patients treated with HCQ or AZ indicates a predisposition to TDP and then death from ventricular fibrillation. We found no such deaths; nor did we find death from any cause related to HCQ treatment. Indeed, we found only one case of TDP at all, which resolved spontaneously without treatment and without sequelae. This is consistent with our prior study showing an absence of TDP mortality with HCQ treatment [ 45]. All of the adverse events which seemed attributable to HCQ treatment in the 43 studies were side effects known to occur with HCQ. These included nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, stomach pain, headache, rash, dizziness, itching and blurred vision. In all cases, there was no indication of persistence of symptoms after discontinuing HCQ therapy. HCQ has been used with good safety for more than 50 years; the relatively minor adverse events seen in these studies is consistent with this good safety profile.
Strengths and weaknessesA strength of this study is the large number of cohorts. A further strength is the critical methodologic study analysis, which to our knowledge has not heretofore been attempted for COVID-19. One weakness is the heterogeneity of study designs, which made it hard to compare results across studies. A perceived weakness of the study could be that our review includes reports made outside the peer-reviewed literature. Several studies, reporting both improvement and no efficacy with the provision of HCQ, included in our review are either preprints or preliminary results of larger trials. Because of the unprecedented and time-sensitive nature of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) global pandemic, the scientific community has shared data and studies on a level unseen before this emergency. We believe that these reports hold valuable information and decided to include them, regardless of their publication venue. In addition, we found that both the peer-reviewed and non–peer-reviewed reports showed a similar breakdown between studies showing efficacy vs. not, so bias was therefore not introduced.
SignificanceOur findings have substantial societal global importance because there have been numerous edicts either preventing HCQ provision for the treatment of COVID-19 or limiting it to the inpatient setting, which we believe have unintentionally resulted in many unnecessary deaths. Our findings showing efficacy and safety of HCQ against COVID-19 indicate that HCQ should be freely available to patients and physicians who choose to use it. It should especially be freely available to be provided on an outpatient basis before hospitalization, where it appears to be more effective and where early fears of fatal heart arrhythmias have been shown to be unfounded [ 45]. This is particularly important because of the other drugs to have demonstrated efficacy, remdesivir has shown no significant benefit in a recent study [ 46]. Remdesivir is also expensive and not widely available. Dexamethasone has only been shown to be effective in critically ill hospitalized patients [ 47]. Convalescent plasma has shown benefit [ 48], but even this is not well validated, and plasma is not available in large numbers of doses. Thus, HCQ, with proven efficacy and safety, a cost of 37 cents per pill and thus a total treatment cost of under $20 [ 49], vs. $3100 for remdesivir [ 50], as well as wide supply-chain availability, would appear to be the best COVID-19 treatment option available, and it needs to be widely promoted as such. Unfortunately, the controversies surrounding HCQ have resulted in physicians being afraid to prescribe it for reasons which have nothing to do with medicine and in patients being afraid to take it as a result of spurious reports of danger or fears that it is not effective. We hope that our study findings will disabuse the medical community of these misapprehensions about efficacy and validate that it is both efficacious and safe—and needs to be freely prescribable.
We do not believe that randomized controlled studies are necessary before HCQ is authorized for general use because the efficacy seen in studies already performed indicates that control patients in such studies might die unnecessarily, and because the time delay to perform any such study would cause yet more deaths by preventing HCQ use when it is most needed: immediately! Our study has shown that good evidence of efficacy exists and that there is no safety, cost or supply reason to not treat now. Unnecessary death from delayed treatment is too high a price to pay for greater certainty of knowledge. Many may have already died unnecessarily as a result of inaccurate HCQ information. It is imperative that we do not further add to the COVID-19 death toll by refusing to prescribe HCQ.
Go to:
ConclusionsHCQ has been shown to have consistent clinical efficacy for COVID-19 when it is provided early in the outpatient setting; in general, it appears to work better the earlier it is provided. Overall, HCQ is effective against COVID-19. There is no credible evidence that HCQ results in worsening of COVID-19. HCQ has also been shown to be safe for the treatment of COVID-19 when responsibly used.
Virological and clinical cure in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Sarma P, Kaur H, Kumar H, Mahendru D, Avti P, Bhattacharyya A, Prajapat M, Shekhar N, Kumar S, Singh R, Singh A, Dhibar DP, Prakash A, Medhi B.J Med Virol. 2020 Jul;92(7):776-785. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25898. Epub 2020 May 3.PMID: 32297988 Free PMC article.
COVID-19 Pandemic - A Narrative Review of the Potential Roles of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine.
de Barros CM, Almeida CAF, Pereira B, Costa KCM, Pinheiro FA, Maia LDB, Trindade CM, Garcia RCT, Torres LH, Diwan S, Boralli VB.Pain Physician. 2020 Aug;23(4S):S351-S366.PMID: 32942793 Review.
The Outcome of Hydroxychloroquine in Patients Treated for COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ayele Mega T, Feyissa TM, Dessalegn Bosho D, Kumela Goro K, Zeleke Negera G.Can Respir J. 2020 Oct 13;2020:4312519. doi: 10.1155/2020/4312519. eCollection 2020.PMID: 33082891 Free PMC article.
A systematic review of the prophylactic role of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19).
Shah S, Das S, Jain A, Misra DP, Negi VS.Int J Rheum Dis. 2020 May;23(5):613-619. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.13842. Epub 2020 Apr 27.PMID: 32281213 Free PMC article.
Efficacy and safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Eze P, Mezue KN, Nduka CU, Obianyo I, Egbuche O.Am J Cardiovasc Dis. 2021 Feb 15;11(1):93-107. eCollection 2021.PMID: 33815925 Free PMC article. Review.
See all similar articles
Cited by 14 articles
Scoping insight on antiviral drugs against COVID-19.
Ali AS, Ibrahim IM, Burzangi AS, Ghoneim RH, Aljohani HS, Alsamhan HA, Barakat J.Arab J Chem. 2021 Oct;14(10):103385. doi: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2021.103385. Epub 2021 Aug 16.PMID: 34909060 Free PMC article. Review.
Hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin in COVID-19: The association between time to treatment and case fatality rate.
Accinelli RA, Ynga-Meléndez GJ, León-Abarca JA, López LM, Madrid-Cisneros JC, Mendoza-Saldaña JD.Travel Med Infect Dis. 2021 Nov-Dec;44:102163. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102163. Epub 2021 Sep 14.PMID: 34534686 Free PMC article.
A computational study on hydroxychloroquine binding to target proteins related to SARS-COV-2 infection.
Navya VB, Hosur MV.Inform Med Unlocked. 2021;26:100714. doi: 10.1016/j.imu.2021.100714. Epub 2021 Aug 23.PMID: 34458558 Free PMC article.
Effect of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Chi G, Memar Montazerin S, Lee JJ, Kazmi SHA, Shojaei F, Fitzgerald C, Gibson CM.J Med Virol. 2021 Dec;93(12):6737-6749. doi: 10.1002/jmv.27259. Epub 2021 Aug 17.PMID: 34370328 Free PMC article.
Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019: Rapid updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Gupta T, Thakkar P, Kalra B, Kannan S.Rev Med Virol. 2021 Jul 10:e2276. doi: 10.1002/rmv.2276. Online ahead of print.PMID: 34245622 Free PMC article. Review.
See all "Cited by" articles
References
Monforte AdA., Tavelli A., Bai F., Marchetti G., Cozzi-Lepri A. Effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 disease: a done and dusted situation? Int J Infect Dis. 2020 - PMC - PubMedGuérin V., Lévy P., Thomas J.L., Lardenois T., Lacrosse P., Sarrazin E. Azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine accelerate recovery of outpatients with mild/moderate COVID-19. Asian J Med Health. 2020;18:45–55.Mallat J., Hamed F., Balkis M., Mohamed M.A., Mooty M., Malik A., Nusair A. Hydroxychloroquine is associated with slower viral clearance in clinical COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate disease: a retrospective study. medRxiv. 2020Cavalcanti A.B., Zampieri F.G., Azevedo L.C., Rosa R.G., Avezum A., Veiga V.C. Hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin to prevent major clinical events in hospitalised patients with coronavirus infection (COVID-19): rationale and design of a randomised, controlled clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020Zelenko V. 23 March 2020. Open letter describing Covid-19 treatment protocol.http://www.nunesfarma.com.br/download.php?id=TlRBPQ== Available at:
Million M., Lagier J., Gautret P., Colson P., Fournier P., Amrane S. Early treatment of COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective analysis of 1061 cases in Marseille, France. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 - PMC - PubMedGumbien J., Fox M. CNN; 4 June 2020. Two coronavirus studies retracted after questions emerge about data.https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/health/retraction-coronavirus-studies-lancet-nejm/index.html Available at:Esper R.B., da Silva R.S., Oikawa F., Castro M., Razuk-Filho A., Junior P. Prevent Senior Institute; São Paulo, Brazil: 2020. Empirical treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for suspected cases of COVID-19 followed-up by telemedicine.https://pgibertie.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/2020.04.15-journal-manuscript-final.pdf Available at:Mitjà O., Corbacho-Monné M., Ubals M., Tebe C., Peñafiel J., Tobias A. Hydroxychloroquine for early treatment of adults with mild COVID-19: a randomized–controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 - PMC - PubMedSkipper C.P., Pastick K.A., Engen N.W., Bangdiwala A.S., Abassi M., Lofgren S.M. Hydroxychloroquine in nonhospitalized adults with early COVID-19: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2020 - PMC - PubMedChen Z., Hu J., Zhang Z., Jiang S., Han S., Yan D. Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020Arshad S., Kilgore P., Chaudhry Z.S., Jacobsen G., Wang D.D., Huitsing K. Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Int J Infect Dis. 2020 - PMC - PubMedDavido B., Boussaid G., Vaugier I., Lansaman T., Bouchand F., Lawrence C. Impact of medical care including anti-infective agents use on the prognosis of COVID-19 hospitalized patients over time. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 - PMC - PubMedXue H., Liu Y., Luo P., Liu X., Qiu L., Liu D. Hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19: a descriptive observational analysis of 30 cases from a single center in Wuhan, China. J Med Virol. 2020 - PMC - PubMedPaccoud O., Tubach F., Baptiste A., Bleibtreu A., Hajage D., Monsel G. Compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine in clinical practice for patients with mild to severe Covid-19 in a French university hospital. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 - PMC - PubMedMahevas M., Tran V.T., Roumier M., Chabrol A., Paule R., Guillaud C. No evidence of clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with oxygen requirement: results of a study using routinely collected data to emulate a target trial. medRxiv. 2020Geleris J., Sun Y., Platt J., Zucker J., Baldwin M., Hripcsak G. Observational study of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 - PMC - PubMedRosenberg E.S., Dufort E.M., Udo T., Wilberschied L.A., Kumar J., Tesoriero J. Association of treatment with hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin with in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 in New York State. JAMA. 2020 - PMC - PubMedYu B., Li C., Chen P., Li J., Jiang H., Wang D.W. Beneficial effects exerted by hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients via protecting multiple organs. Sci China Life Sci. 2020 - PMC - PubMedYu B., Li C., Chen P., Zhou N., Wang L., Li J., Jiang H., Wang D.W. Low dose of hydroxychloroquine reduces fatality of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Sci China Life Sci. 2020 - PMC - PubMedAn M.H., Kim M.S., Kim B.O., Kang S.H., Kimn W.J., Park S.K. Treatment response to hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics for mild to moderate COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study from South Korea. medRxiv. 2020Horby P., Mafham M., Linsell L., Bell J.L., Staplin N., Emberson J.R. Effect of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial. medRxiv. 2020Lopez A., Duclos G., Pastene B., Bezulier K., Guilhaumou R., Solas C. Effects of hydroxychloroquine on Covid-19 in intensive care unit patients: preliminary results. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 - PMC - PubMedIp A., Berry D.A., Hansen E., Goy A.H., Pecora A.L., Sinclaire B.A. Hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in COVID-19 patients—an observational study. medRxiv. 2020 - PMC - PubMedSingh S., Khan A., Chowdhry M., Chatterjee A. Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine treatment among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States—real-world evidence from a federated electronic medical record network. medRxiv. 2020Magagnoli J., Narendran S., Pereira F., Cummings T.H., Hardin J.W., Sutton S.S. 2020. Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19. Med (N Y) - PMC - PubMedRivera D.R., Peters S., Panagiotou O.A., Shah D.P., Kuderer N.M., Hsu C.Y. Utilization of COVID-19 treatments and clinical outcomes among patients with cancer: a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) cohort study. Cancer Discov. 2020 - PMC - PubMedAhmad I., Alam M., Saadi R., Mahmud S., Saadi E. Doxycycline and hydroxychloroquine as treatment for high-risk COVID-19 patients: experience from case series of 54 patients in long-term care facilities. medRxiv. 2020Ashraf M.A., Shokouhi N., Shirali E., Davari-Tanha F., Memar O., Kamalipour A. COVID-19 in Iran, a comprehensive investigation from exposure to treatment outcomes. medRxiv. 2020Bernaola N., Mena R., Bernaola A., Lara A., Carballo C., Larranaga P. Observational study of the efficiency of treatments in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 in Madrid. medRxiv. 2020Carlucci P., Ahuja T., Petrilli C.M., Rajagopalan H., Jones S., Rahimian J. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc vs. hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone: outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. medRxiv. 2020de Novales F.J.M., Ramírez-Olivencia G., Estébanez M., de Dios B., Herrero M.D., Mata T. Early hydroxychloroquine is associated with an increase of survival in COVID-19 patients: an observational study. Preprints. 6 May 2020 doi: 10.20944/preprints202005.0057.v1. Available at: - DOIGautret P., Lagier J.C., Parola P., Meddeb L., Mailhe M., Doudier B. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 - PMC - PubMedGautret P., Lagier J.C., Parola P., Meddeb L., Sevestre J., Mailhe M. Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: a pilot observational study. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 - PMC - PubMedKim J.W., Kim E.J., Kwon H.H., Jung C.Y., Kim K.C., Choe J.Y. Lopinavir–ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine for viral clearance and clinical improvement in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease, 2019. Korean J Intern Med. 2020 - PMC - PubMedKim M.S., Jang S.W., Park Y.K., Kim B.O., Hwang T.H., Kang S.H. Treatment response to hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and antibiotics for moderate COVID 19: a first report on the pharmacological outcomes from South Korea. medRxiv. 2020Lagier J.C., Million M., Gautret P., Colson P., Cortaredona S., Giraud-Gatineau A. Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: a retrospective analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 - PMC - PubMedSbidian E., Josse J., Lemaitre G., Mayer I., Bernaux M., Gramfort A. Hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin and in-hospital mortality or discharge in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection: a cohort study of 4,642 in-patients in France. medRxiv. 2020Scholz M., Derwand R., Zelenko V. 30 June 2020. COVID-19 outpatients—early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study. Preprints. Available at: - DOIGiacomelli A., Pagani G., Ridolfo A.L., Oreni A., Conti F., Pezzati L. Early administration of lopinavir/ritonavir plus hydroxychloroquine does not alter the clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a retrospective cohort study. medRxiv. 2020 - PMC - PubMedKalligeros M., Shehadeh F., Atalla E., Mylona E.K., Aung S., Pandita A. Hydroxychloroquine use in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an observational matched cohort study. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020 - PMC - PubMedMolina J.M., Delaugerre C., Le GoffJ, Mela-Lima B., Ponscarme D., Goldwirt L. No evidence of rapid antiviral clearance or clinical benefit with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with severe COVID-19 infection. Med Mal Infect. 2020;50:30085–30088. - PMC - PubMedNational Institutes of Health (NIH) News release; 20 June 2020. NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine.https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine Available at:Tang W., Cao Z., Han M., Wang Z., Chen J., Sun W. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2020;369:m1849. - PMC - PubMedProdromos C.C. Hydroxychloroquine is protective to the heart, not harmful: a systematic review. New Microbe. New Infect. 2020 - PMC - PubMedSpinner C.D., Gottlieb R.L., Criner G.J., López J.R.A., Cattelan A.M., Viladomiu A.S. Effect of remdesivir vs. standard care on clinical status at 11 days in patients with moderate COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020 - PMC - PubMedRECOVERY Collaborative Group. Horby P., Lim W.S., Emberson J.R., Mafham M., Bell J.L. Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19—preliminary report. N Engl J Med. 2020 - PMC - PubMedDuan K., Liu B., Li C., Zhang H., Yu T., Qu J. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19 patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117:9490–9496. - PMC - PubMed Drugs.com Hydroxychloroquine prices, coupons, and patient assistance programs. drugs.com n.d. Available at:Lupkin S. NPR; 29 June 2020. Remdesivir priced at more than $3,100 for a course of treatment.https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/29/884648842/remdesivir-priced-at-more-than-3-100-for-a-course-of-treatment Available at: |
