Author: Sarma, Phulen; Kaur, Hardeep; Kumar, Harish; Mahendru, Dhruv; Avti, Pramod; Bhattacharyya, Anusuya; Prajapat, Manisha; Shekhar, Nishant; Kumar, Subodh; Singh, Rahul; Singh, Ashutosh; Dhibar, Deba Prasad; Prakash, Ajay; Medhi, Bikash
Title: Virological and clinical cure in COVIDâ€19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: A systematic review and metaâ€analysis Cord-id: 3tio10sx Document date: 2020_5_3
ID: 3tio10sx
Snippet: Following the demonstration of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro, many trials started to evaluate its efficacy in clinical settings. However, no systematic review and metaâ€analysis have addressed the issue of the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in coronavirus disease 2019. We conducted a systematic review and metaâ€analysis with the objectives of evaluation of safety and efficacy of HCQ alone or in combination i
Document: Following the demonstration of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro, many trials started to evaluate its efficacy in clinical settings. However, no systematic review and metaâ€analysis have addressed the issue of the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in coronavirus disease 2019. We conducted a systematic review and metaâ€analysis with the objectives of evaluation of safety and efficacy of HCQ alone or in combination in terms of “time to clinical cure,†“virological cure,†“death or clinical worsening of disease,†“radiological progression,†and safety. RevMan was used for metaâ€analysis. We searched 16 literature databases out of which seven studies (n = 1358) were included in the systematic review. In terms of clinical cure, two studies reported possible benefit in “time to body temperature normalization†and one study reported less “cough days†in the HCQ arm. Treatment with HCQ resulted in less number of cases showing the radiological progression of lung disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11â€0.9). No difference was observed in virological cure (OR, 2.37, 95% CI, 0.13â€44.53), death or clinical worsening of disease (OR, 1.37, 95% CI, 1.37â€21.97), and safety (OR, 2.19, 95% CI, 0.59â€8.18), when compared with the control/conventional treatment. Five studies reported either the safety or efficacy of HCQ + azithromycin. Although seems safe and effective, more data are required for a definitive conclusion. HCQ seems to be promising in terms of less number of cases with radiological progression with a comparable safety profile to control/conventional treatment. We need more data to come to a definite conclusion.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- abstract title and lopinavir ritonavir: 1, 2
- abstract title and lopinavir ritonavir combination: 1
- acute renal failure and lopinavir ritonavir: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- acute renal failure and lopinavir ritonavir combination: 1
- acute respiratory syndrome sars and loading dose: 1, 2
- acute respiratory syndrome sars and lopinavir care standard ritonavir: 1, 2, 3
- acute respiratory syndrome sars and lopinavir ritonavir: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- acute respiratory syndrome sars and lopinavir ritonavir combination: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
- acute respiratory syndrome sars and lopinavir ritonavir initially: 1, 2, 3
- loading dose and lopinavir care standard ritonavir: 1
- loading dose and lopinavir ritonavir: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date