Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients

An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of 25 randomized trials assessing the efficacy and safety of treatments in COVID-19 disease

To date, there is no definite effective treatment for the COVID-19 pandemic. We performed an update network meta-analysis to compare and rank COVID-19 treatments according to their efficacy and safety. Literature search was performed from MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases from inception to September 5, 2020. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) which compared the effect of any pharmacological drugs versus standard care or placebo 28-day after hospitalization in adult patients with COVID-19 disease were included. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI were calculated for 28-day all-cause mortality, clinical improvement, any adverse event (AEs), and viral clearance. A total of 25 RCTs, evaluating 17 different treatments, and 11,597 participants were analyzed. Remdesivir for 10-day compared to standard care (RR 0.69, 95% CI [0.48–0.99]), and a low dose compared to a high dose of HCQ (0.38, [0.17–0.89]) were associated with a lower risk of death. A total of 2,766 patients experienced clinical improvement, a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with a higher frequency of clinical improvement compared to standard care (RR 1.21, 95% CI [1.00–1.47]). Compared to standard care, remdesivir for both 5 and 10 days, lopinavir/ritonavir, and dexamethasone reduced the risk of any severe AEs by 52% (0.48, 0.34–0.67), 24% (0.77, 0.63–0.92), 40% (0.60, 0.37–0.98), and 50% (0.50, 0.25–0.98) respectively. In this study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, administration of remdesivir for 10-day compared to standard care was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality and serious AEs, and higher clinical improvement rate.&nbsp

How COVID-19 has fundamentally changed clinical research in global health

COVID-19 has had negative repercussions on the entire global population. Despite there being a common goal that should have unified resources and efforts, there have been an overwhelmingly large number of clinical trials that have been registered that are of questionable methodological quality. As the final paper of this Series, we discuss how the medical research community has responded to COVID-19. We recognise the incredible pressure that this pandemic has put on researchers, regulators, and policy makers, all of whom were doing their best to move quickly but safely in a time of tremendous uncertainty. However, the research community\u27s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has prominently highlighted many fundamental issues that exist in clinical trial research under the current system and its incentive structures. The COVID-19 pandemic has not only re-emphasised the importance of well designed randomised clinical trials but also highlighted the need for large-scale clinical trials structured according to a master protocol in a coordinated and collaborative manner. There is also a need for structures and incentives to enable faster data sharing of anonymised datasets, and a need to provide similar opportunities to those in high-income countries for clinical trial research in low-resource regions where clinical trial research receives considerably less research funding

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19: A fiction, hope or hype? An updated review

In December 2019, the novel coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) that began in China had infected so far more than 109,217,366 million individuals worldwide and accounted for more than 2,413,912 fatalities. With the dawn of this novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), there was a requirement to select potential therapies that might effectively kill the virus, accelerate the recovery, or decrease the case fatality rate. Besides the currently available antiviral medications for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ) regimen with or without azithromycin has been repurposed in China and was recommended by the National Health Commission, China in mid-February 2020. By this time, the selection of this regimen was based on its efficacy against the previous SARS-CoV-1 virus and its potential to inhibit viral replication of the SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. There was a shortage of robust clinical proof about the effectiveness of this regimen against the novel SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, extensive research effort has been made by several researchers worldwide to investigate whether this regimen is safe and effective for the management of COVID-19. In this review, we provided a comprehensive overview of the CQ/HCQ regimen, summarizing data from in vitro studies and clinical trials for the protection against or the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the initial promising results from the in vitro studies and the widespread use of CQ/HCQ in clinical settings during the 1st wave of COVID-19, current data from well-designed randomized controlled trials showed no evidence of benefit from CQ/HCQ supplementation for the treatment or prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Particularly, the two largest randomized controlled trials to date (RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY trials), both confirmed that CQ/HCQ regimen does not provide any clinical benefit for COVID-19 patients. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of this regimen in COVID-19 patients outside the context of clinical trials

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P=0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.

Antimalarials and macrolides: a review of off-label pharmacotherapies during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

We critically analyzed clinical trials performed with chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without macrolides during the first wave of COVID-19 and discussed the design and limitations of peer-reviewed studies from January to July 2020. Seventeen studies were eligible for the discussion. CQ and HCQ did not demonstrate clinical advantages that justified their inclusion in therapeutic regimens of free prescription for treatment or prophylactic purposes, as suggested by health authorities, including in Brazil, during the first wave. Around August 2020, robust data had already indicated that pharmacological effects of CQ, HCQ and macrolides as anti-SARS-CoV-2 molecules were limited to in vitro conditions and largely based on retrospective trials with low quality and weak internal validity, which made evidence superficial for decision-making. Up to that point, most randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials did not reveal beneficial effects of CQ or HCQ with or without macrolides to reduce lethality, rate of intubation, days of hospitalization, respiratory support/mechanical ventilation requirements, duration, type and number of symptoms, and death and were unsuccessful in increasing virus elimination and/or days alive in hospitalized or ambulatory patients with COVID-19. In addition, many studies have demonstrated that side effects are more common in CQ-or HCQ-treated patients

Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine for the Prevention or Treatment of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in Africa: Caution for Inappropriate Off-Label Use in Healthcare Settings

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 pandemic has spread to Africa, where nearly all countries have reported laboratory-confirmed cases of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Although there are ongoing clinical trials of repurposed and investigational antiviral and immune-based therapies, there are as yet no scientifically proven, clinically effective pharmacological treatments for COVID-19. Among the repurposed drugs, the commonly used antimalarials chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have become the focus of global scientific, media, and political attention despite a lack of randomized clinical trials supporting their efficacy. Chloroquine has been used worldwide for about 75 years and is listed by the WHO as an essential medicine to treat malaria. Hydroxychloroquine is mainly used as a therapy for autoimmune diseases. However, the efficacy and safety of CQ/HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19 remains to be defined. Indiscriminate promotion and widespread use of CQ/HCQ have led to extensive shortages, self-treatment, and fatal overdoses. Shortages and increased market prices leave all countries vulnerable to substandard and falsified medical products, and safety issues are especially concerning for Africa because of its healthcare system limitations. Much needed in Africa is a cross-continental collaborative network for coordinated production, distribution, and post-marketing surveillance aligned to low-cost distribution of any approved COVID-19 drug; this would ideally be piggybacked on existing global aid efforts. Meanwhile, African countries should strongly consider implementing prescription monitoring schemes to ensure that any off-label CQ/HCQ use is appropriate and beneficial during this pandemic

The worldwide clinical trial research response to the COVID-19 pandemic - the first 100 days

Background: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats

The impact of therapeutics on mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19:systematic review and meta-analyses informing the European Respiratory Society living guideline

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a high mortality rate. There are an increasing number of published randomised controlled trials for anti-inflammatory, anti-viral and other treatments. The European Respiratory Society Living Guidelines for the Management of Hospitalised Adults with COVID-19 were published recently, providing recommendations on appropriate pharmacotherapy.Patient, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes questions for key interventions were identified by an international panel and systematic reviews were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria. The importance of end-points were rated, and mortality was identified as the key "critical" outcome for all interventions. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool studies and provide effect estimates for the impact of treatments on mortality.Corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β have been reviewed.Our results found further evidence in support of the use of corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone, and anti-IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. These data support the need to identify additional therapies with beneficial effects on mortality