Selected article for: "change rate and significant change"

Author: takla, M.; Jeevaratnam, K.
Title: Chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and COVID-19: systematic review and narrative synthesis of efficacy and safety
  • Cord-id: srr2n28u
  • Document date: 2020_5_30
  • ID: srr2n28u
    Snippet: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has required clinicians to urgently identify new treatment options or the repurposing of existing drugs. Several drugs are now being repurposed with the aim of identifying if these drugs provide some level of disease resolution. Of particular interest are chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), first developed as an antimalarial therapy. There is increasing concern with regards to the efficacy and safety of these agents. The aims of this review are to sys
    Document: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has required clinicians to urgently identify new treatment options or the repurposing of existing drugs. Several drugs are now being repurposed with the aim of identifying if these drugs provide some level of disease resolution. Of particular interest are chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), first developed as an antimalarial therapy. There is increasing concern with regards to the efficacy and safety of these agents. The aims of this review are to systematically identify and collate studies describing the use of CQ and HCQ in human clinical trials and provide a detailed synthesis of evidence of its efficacy and safety. Methods and Findings: Searches for (COVID AND chloroquine [title/abstract] AND outcomes[full text]) and two (COVID AND hydroxychloroquine[title/abstract] AND outcomes[full text]) yielded 272 unique articles. Unique articles were manually checked for inclusion and exclusion criteria and also subjected to a quality appraisal assessment. A total of 19 articles were included in the systematic review. Seventy-five percent of observational studies employing an endpoint specific to efficacy recorded no significant difference in the attainment of outcomes, between COVID-19 patients given a range of CQ and/or HCQ doses, and the control groups. All clinical trials and 82% of observational studies examining an indicator unique to drug safety discovered a higher probability of adverse events in those treated patients suspected of, and diagnosed with, COVID-19. Seventy-five percent of the total papers focusing on cardiac side-effects found a greater incidence among patients administered a wide range of CQ and/or HCQ doses, with QTc prolongation the most common finding, in addition to its consequences of VT and cardiac arrest. Of the total studies using mortality rate as an end-point, 60% reported no significant change in the risk of death, while 30% showed an elevation, and 10% a depression, in treated relative to control patients. Conclusion: The strongest available evidence suggests that, relative to standard in-hospital management of symptoms, the use of CQ and HCQ to treat hospitalised COVID-19 patients has likely been unsafe. At the very least, the poor quality of data failing to find any significant changes in the risk of VT should preclude definitive judgment on drug safety until the completion of high-quality randomised clinical trials.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • academic medicine and acute respiratory syndrome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    • acid dependent and acute respiratory syndrome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
    • acid dependent and additional antiviral: 1
    • acute respiratory syndrome and additional antiviral: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
    • acute respiratory syndrome and adequately design: 1