Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32470568›Full record

SynthesisClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2020

Clinical evidence for repurposing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as antiviral agents: a systematic review.

C Rodrigo, S D Fernando, S Rajapakse

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. COVID-19 in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: lessons learned from the inflammatory disease.Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine · 2021
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

C RodrigoDepartment of Pathology, School of Medical Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Australia.
S D FernandoDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
S RajapakseDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka. Electronic address: senaka@med.cmb.ac.lk.
University of Colombo · LKUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRepurposing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) as antiviral agents is a re-emerging topic with the advent of new viral epidemics.

aimsTo summarize evidence from human clinical studies for using HCQ or CQ as antiviral agents for any viral infection. SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science for published studies without time or language restrictions; Cochrane Clinical Trial Registry and Chinese Clinical Trials Registry for trials registered after 2015; MedRxiv for preprints within the last 12 months. CONTENT: Study eligibility criteria were interventional and prospective observational studies (with or without a control group). Participants were adults and children with a confirmed viral infection. Interventions included the use of CQ or HCQ as antiviral agent in one or more groups of the study. Two authors independently screened abstracts, and all authors agreed on eligible studies. A meta-analysis was planned if studies were available which were similar in terms of participants, intervention, comparator and outcomes. Nineteen studies (including two preprints) were eligible (HIV 8, HCV 2, dengue 2, chikungunya 1, COVID-19 6). Nine and ten studies assessed CQ and HCQ respectively. Benefits of either drug for viral load suppression in HIV are inconsistent. CQ is ineffective in curing dengue (high-certainty evidence) and may have little or no benefit in curing chikungunya (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for COVID-19 infection is rapidly evolving but at this stage we are unsure whether either CQ or HCQ has any benefit in clearing viraemia (very-low-certainty evidence). IMPLICATIONS: Using HCQ or CQ for HIV/HCV infections is now clinically irrelevant as other effective antivirals are available for viral load suppression (HIV) and cure (HCV). There is no benefit of CQ in dengue, and the same conclusion is likely for chikungunya. More evidence is needed to confirm whether either HCQ or CQ is beneficial in COVID-19 infection.

Indexed as

AdultAntiviral AgentsBetacoronavirusChildChloroquineClinical Trials as TopicCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Drug RepositioningHumansHydroxychloroquineObservational Studies as TopicPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Treatment OutcomeAntiviral AgentsChloroquineHydroxychloroquineAntiviralsChikungunyaChloroquineCOVID-19DengueHydroxychloroquinePneumonia

Identifiers

PMID32470568
PMCPMC7250111
OpenAlexW3028659981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.