ArticleNew microbes and new infections2023
Outcomes after early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: An analysis of a database of 30,423 COVID-19 patients.
Article in New microbes and new infections, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac findings in a phase II double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial of combination therapy (HAZDPac) to treat COVID-19 patients.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Trial
- Article
- Controversial COVID study that promoted unproven treatment retracted after four-year saga.Nature · 2024Article
- Repositioning of Antibiotics in the Treatment of Viral Infections.Current microbiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern · 2024-03-22Concerns/Issues about Human Subject Welfare · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · · Authors' names derived from their Scopus profiles. See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/3543A87E349E2B7081592624198040
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many studies have evaluated the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. Most retrospective observational studies demonstrate a benefit of using HCQ on mortality, but not most randomized clinical trials. Methods: We analyzed raw data collected from a cohort of 30,423 patients with COVID-19 cared for at IHU Méditerranée Infection in Marseille France and extracted from the DRYAD open data platform. We performed univariate and multivariable logistic regressions with all-cause mortality within six weeks. Multivariable logistic regressions were adjusted for sex, age group (<50, 50-69, 70-89 and > 89 years), periods (or variants), and type of patient management. Results: Among 30,202 patients for whom information on treatment was available, 191/23,172 (0.82%) patients treated with HCQ-AZ died, compared to 344/7030 (4.89%) who did not receive treatment with HCQ-AZ. HCQ-AZ therapy was associated with a lower mortality than treatment without HCQ-AZ (odds ratio (OR) 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.14-0.19). After adjustment for sex, age, period, and patient management, HCQ-AZ was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.45-0.68). On a subsample of 21,664 patients with available variant information, results remained robust after adjustment on sex, age, patient management and variant (aOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.44-0.69). On a subsample of 16,063 patients, HCQ-AZ was still associated with a significantly lower mortality rate (aOR 0.47, 95%CI 0.29-0.75) after adjustment for sex, age, period, patient management, vaccination status and comorbidities. Conclusion: Analysis of this large online database showed that HCQ-AZ was consistently associated with the lowest mortality.
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.