Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34485970›Full record

ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2021

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials.

Paulo Ricardo Martins-Filho, Lis Campos Ferreira, Luana Heimfarth, Adriano Antunes de Souza Araújo, Lucindo José Quintans-Júnior

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Application of optical coherence tomography angiography for microvascular changes in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comprehensive evaluation of six interventions for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score matching study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Low-cost zeolitic carriers for delivery of hydroxychloroquine immunomodulatory agent with antiviral activity.Microporous and mesoporous materials : the official journal of the International Zeolite Association · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paulo Ricardo Martins-FilhoInvestigative Pathology Laboratory, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil.
Lis Campos FerreiraHealth Sciences Graduate Program, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil.
Luana HeimfarthLaboratory of Neuroscience and Pharmacological Assays, Department of Physiology, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristovão, Sergipe, Brazil.
Adriano Antunes de Souza AraújoHealth Sciences Graduate Program, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil.
Lucindo José Quintans-JúniorHealth Sciences Graduate Program, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Sergipe · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an anti-malarial and immunomodulatory drug considered a potential candidate for drug repurposing in COVID-19 due to their

methodsSearches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs, the website ClinicalTrials.gov and the preprint server medRxiv from January 1, 2020 to May 17, 2021. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population: individuals at high-risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (pre-exposure), individuals who had close contact with a positive or probable case of COVID-19 (post-exposure), non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hospitalized patients with COVID-19; (2) Intervention: HCQ; (3) Comparison: placebo; (4) Outcomes: incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, need for hospitalization, length of hospital stay, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), death, and adverse events; and (5) Study type: blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Risk of bias was judged according to the Cochrane guidelines for RCTs. Treatment effects were reported as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used either a fixed or random-effects model to pool the results of individual studies depending on the presence of heterogeneity. The GRADE system was used to evaluate the strength of evidence between use of HCQ and the outcomes of interest.

findingsFourteen blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Four trials (1942 patients: HCQ = 1271; placebo = 671) used HCQ as a prophylactic medication pre-exposure to COVID-19, two (1650 patients: HCQ = 821; placebo = 829) as a prophylactic medication post-exposure to COVID-19, three (1018 patients: HCQ = 497; placebo = 521) as treatment for non-hospitalized patients, and five (1138 patients: HCQ = 572; placebo = 566) as treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We found no decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals receiving HCQ as pre-exposure (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.77) or post-exposure (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29) prophylaxis to prevent COVID-19. There was no significant decreased risk of hospitalization for outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23) and no decreased risk of MV (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.34) and death (RR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.78) among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving HCQ. The certainty of the results on the lack of clinical benefit for HCQ was rated as moderate. Moreover, our results demonstrated an increased risk for any adverse events and gastrointestinal symptoms among those using HCQ.

interpretationAvailable evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

fundingThere was no funding source.

Indexed as

COVID-19HydroxychloroquineSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34485970
PMCPMC8403035
OpenAlexW3198853312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.