Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ): an observational cohort study in primary and secondary prevention of pneumonia in an at-risk population

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Background

Recent studies suggest that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) could be effective against COVID-19. It is reasonable to expect that if HCQ can prevent or reduce the adverse effects of influenza, it may also reduce the effects of COVID-19 in humans. The objective of this study was to test whether HCQ can prevent or reduce the risk and severity of influenza.

Methods

This is an observational cohort study using medico-administrative data from Québec. Patients included had at least one emergency department (ED) visit in 2012 or 2013, with a prior diagnosis of chronic conditions, and were admissible to the public drug insurance plan. Two sub-cohorts were considered depending on reasons for ED visit: other than influenza or pneumonia (primary prevention) and influenza or pneumonia (secondary prevention).

Results

In the primary prevention analysis (n=417,353), patients taking HCQ (n=3,659) had an increased risk of hospitalization for pneumonia in the following year compared to those who did not (5.2% vs. 2.9%; adjusted OR=1.25, p=0.0079). In the secondary prevention analysis (n=27,152), patients taking HCQ (n=392), compared to those who did not had a modest and non-significant increased risk of hospitalization for pneumonia after 30 days (25.8% vs. 22.6%; adjusted OR=1.14, p=0.3177).

Interpretation

Based on the assumption that HCQ has similar effects on the COVID-19 as those observed on influenza, we can infer that it will not have positive effects on COVID-19. We should therefore act cautiously before initiating prospective interventional studies on the use of HCQ to reduce adverse effects of COVID-19.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.08.20057893: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethics approval: This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board Committee of the Université de Sherbrooke and by the Commission d’accès à l’information of Quebec.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.