ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine in patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural Products and Nanotechnology Against Coronavirus Disease 2019.Frontiers in chemistry · 2022Review
- Toll-like receptor (TLRs) agonists and antagonists for COVID-19 treatments.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the COVID-19 pandemic, several therapeutic agents have been used in COVID-19 management. However, the results were controversial. Here, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)/chloroquine (CQ) in COVID-19.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of patients with COVID-19 admitted to an inpatient ward in Wuhan from 2020/Feb/08 to 2020/Mar/05. Patients with HCQ/CQ and age, gender, disease severity matched ones without HCQ/CQ were selected at a 1:2 ratio. The clinical, laboratory and imaging findings were compared between these two groups. The multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to identify the factors that might influence patients' virus shedding periods (VSPs).
resultsA total of 14 patients with HCQ/CQ and 21 matched ones were analyzed. The HCQ/CQ treatment lasted for an average of 10.36 ± 3.12 days. The mean VSPs were longer in the HCQ/CQ treatment group (26.57 ± 10.35 days vs. 19.10 ± 7.80 days, P = 0.020). There were 3 patients deceased during inpatient period, two patients were with HCQ/CQ treatment (P = 0.551). In the multivariate linear regression analysis, disease durations at admission (t = 3.643, P = 0.001) and HCQ/CQ treatment (t = 2.637, P = 0.013) were independent parameters for patients' VSPs. One patient with CQ had recurrent first-degree atrioventricular block (AVB) and obvious QTc elongation, another one complained about dizziness and blurred vision which disappeared after CQ discontinuation. One patient with HCQ had transient AVB.
conclusionsIn summary, we identify that the HCQ/CQ administration is not related to less mortality cases at later phase of COVID-19. More studies are needed to explore whether HCQ/CQ treatment would lead to SARS-Cov-2 RNA clearance delay or not.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.