Efficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine for COVID-19: A systematic review

  1. Sonal Singh
  2. Thomas J Moore

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are widely used to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients primarily based on antiviral activity in in vitro studies. Our objective was to systematically evaluate their efficacy and safety in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically reviewed PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Medrxviv for studies of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 hospitalized patients on April 26, 2020. We evaluated the quality of trials and observational studies using the Jadad criteria and Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively. RESULTS: After a review of 175 citations, we included 5 clinical trials (total of 345 patients), 9 observational studies (n = 2529), and 6 additional studies (n = 775) reporting on the QT interval. Three studies reported treatment benefits including two studies reporting benefit on virologic outcomes, which was statistically significant in one study, and another reported significant improvement on cough symptoms. Three studies reported that treatment was potentially harmful, including an significantly increased risk of mortality in two studies and increased need for respiratory support in another. Eight studies were unable to detect improvements on virologic outcomes (n = 3) or pneumonia or transfer to ICU/death (n = 5). The proportion of participants with critical QTc intervals of ≥ 500 ms or an increase of ≥ 60 ms from baseline ranged from 8.3% to 36% (n = 8). One clinical trial and six observational studies were of good quality. The remaining studies were of poor quality. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review of reported clinical studies did not identify substantial evidence to support the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and raises questions about potential harm from QT prolongation and increased mortality.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.19.20106906: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We initially searched PubMed for studies published from November 1, 2019, to April 26, 2020.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our systematic review has limitations, many of which reflect the quality of underlying data. The methodologic quality of many studies was poor, as noted by others.46 Except for a few studies that reported an increased mortality,18,21 or no difference in the risk of intubation/death,26 the remaining studies were underpowered to detect significant differences in mortality. Few studies reported a formal hypothesis to determine an adequate sample size sufficient to detect the treatment benefit under study and thus may have not detected smaller treatment benefits. A meta-analysis was not feasible because of heterogeneous and novel clinical scales and surrogate endpoints that were not uniform among studies. The interpretation of many of the QT studies was limited by the absence of a control group, assessment of the underlying severity of the illness, and concomitant use of QT prolonging therapies.18,32 In addition, the QT interval studies were too small or uncontrolled to establish a risk of life-threatening cardiac arrythmia.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.19.20106906 on medRxiv