The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
12
10
2020
accepted:
16
12
2020
entrez:
6
1
2021
pubmed:
7
1
2021
medline:
15
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) transmission. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro antiviral properties against SARS CoV-2. We therefore sought to determine the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19. We electronically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos COVID-19, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to September 28th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effect model. We identified four RCTs (n = 4921) that met our eligibility criteria. The use of hydroxychloroquine, compared to placebo, did not reduce the risks of developing COVID-19 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, moderate certainty), hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.50, moderate certainty), or mortality (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 79.74, low certainty), however, hydroxychloroquine use increased the risk of adverse events (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.55, moderate certainty). Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) transmission. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro antiviral properties against SARS CoV-2. We therefore sought to determine the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We electronically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos COVID-19, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to September 28th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effect model. We identified four RCTs (n = 4921) that met our eligibility criteria. The use of hydroxychloroquine, compared to placebo, did not reduce the risks of developing COVID-19 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, moderate certainty), hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.50, moderate certainty), or mortality (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 79.74, low certainty), however, hydroxychloroquine use increased the risk of adverse events (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.55, moderate certainty).
CONCLUSION
Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33406138
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244778
pii: PONE-D-20-31832
pmc: PMC7787432
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antiviral Agents
0
Hydroxychloroquine
4QWG6N8QKH
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0244778Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
JAMA. 2020 Apr 7;323(13):1239-1242
pubmed: 32091533
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020 Jul 1;75(7):1667-1670
pubmed: 32196083
Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Nov;45(Pt A):139-45
pubmed: 26343745
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 5;71(8):1943-1946
pubmed: 32301964
Cell Res. 2020 Mar;30(3):269-271
pubmed: 32020029
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013 Sep;34(9):875-92
pubmed: 23917901
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2018 Dec;14(12):693-703
pubmed: 30401979
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 24;:
pubmed: 33289973
Virol J. 2005 Aug 22;2:69
pubmed: 16115318
Hypertens Res. 2020 Jul;43(7):648-654
pubmed: 32341442
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004 Oct 8;323(1):264-8
pubmed: 15351731
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Sep 30;:
pubmed: 33001138
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Aug;26(8):979-987
pubmed: 32470568
Lancet. 2020 Feb 22;395(10224):565-574
pubmed: 32007145
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):732-739
pubmed: 32150618
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 Mar - Apr;34:101663
pubmed: 32289548
N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383(6):517-525
pubmed: 32492293
Lupus. 2018 Apr;27(5):847-852
pubmed: 28862574
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2020 Mar;16(3):155-166
pubmed: 32034323
JAMA. 2020 Apr 14;323(14):1335
pubmed: 32181795
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Jan 16;20(1):10
pubmed: 31948397
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 19;383(21):2041-2052
pubmed: 32706953
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Jun;55(6):105988
pubmed: 32305587
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Oct 17;:
pubmed: 33068425
Sci China Life Sci. 2020 Oct;63(10):1515-1521
pubmed: 32418114
Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2017 Jan 23;5(1):e00293
pubmed: 28596841
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120