ObjectiveTo synthesize findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without Azithromycin for treating COVID-19, and to update the evidence using a meta-analysis.
MethodsA comprehensive search was carried out in electronic databases for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and experimental studies which investigated the efficacy and safety of CQ, HCQ with or without Azithromycin to treat COVID-19. Findings from the reviews were synthesised using tables and forest plots and the quality effect model was used for the updated meta-analysis. The main outcomes were mortality, the need for intensive care services, disease exacerbation, viral clearance and occurrence of adverse events.
ResultsThirteen reviews with 40 primary studies were included. Two meta-analyses reported a high risk of mortality, with ORs of 2.2 and 3.0, and the two others found no association between HCQ and mortality. Findings from two meta-analyses showed that HCQ with Azithromycin increased the risk of mortality, with similar ORs of 2.5. The updated meta-analysis of experimental studies showed that the drugs were not effective in reducing mortality (RR 1.1, 95%CI 1.0-1.3, I2 =0.0%), need for intensive care services (OR 1.1, 95%CI 0.9-1.4, I2 =0.0%), virological cure (OR 1.5, 95%CI 0.5-4.4, I2 =39.6%) or disease exacerbation (OR 1.2, 95%CI 0.3-5.9, I2 =31.9%) but increased the odds of adverse events (OR 12,3, 95%CI 2.5-59.9, I2 =76.6%).
ConclusionThere is conclusive evidence that CQ and HCQ, with or without Azithromycin are not effective in treating COVID-19 or its exacerbation.
RegistrationPROSPERO: CRD42020191353
PurposeThe rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted researchers from all over the world to share their experience. The results were numerous reports with variable quality. The latter has provided an impetus to examine all published meta-analyses and systematic reviews on COVID-19 to date to examine available evidence. Methods: Using predefined selection criteria, a literature search identified 43 eligible meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews. Results: Most (N=17) studies addressed clinical manifestations and associated comorbidity, 6 studies addressed clinical manifestations in pregnant women and younger individuals, 8 studies addressed diagnostic data, 9 studies addressed various interventions, and 9 studies addressed prevention and control. The number of studies included in the various systemic reviews and meta-analyses ranged from 2 to 89. While there were some similarities and consistency for some findings, e.g. the relation between comorbidities and disease severity, we also noted occasionally conflicting data. Conclusion: As more data are collected from patients infected with COVID-19 all over the world, more studies will undoubtedly be published and attention to scientific accuracy in the performance of trials must be exercised to inform clinical decision-making and treatment guidelines.
BACKGROUND: No proven effective treatment for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) currently exist. Different drugs have different effects on patients with Covid-19, and the potential benefits or harms of the proposed drugs for the treatment of this disease need to be discussed more fully. The aim of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of the proposed drugs in the treatment of patients with Covid-19. The present study is a systematic review that used SID, PubMed, Web Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Science direct, Google Scholar, JAMA, WHO and CDC databases to access related articles. In order to search for articles, only English articles with the keywords Covid19, treatment, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ritonavir, Tocilizumab and all possible combinations of these words during 2019 and 2020 were examined. Out of 250 papers obtained, 20 papers had initial conditions and finally 9 clinical trial papers related to Covid-19 treatments were reviewed. Initial studies on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (with and without macrolides) were found to be effective in the treatment of Covid-19 patients, but further studies have shown that these drugs do not have a positive effect on Covid-19. Also, the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in patients led to an increase in their mortality. There were different results for lopinavir and ritonavir, some of which showed improvement in symptoms and in others exacerbation of symptoms and complications. Remdesivir causes side effects such as nausea, constipation, hypokalemia, hypotension and elevated liver enzymes. Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine have no effect on the recovery of patients with Covid-19. The positive or negative effect of lopinavir / ritonavir requires clinical trials and research. Remdesivir improves patients with Covid-19. It is recommended that caregivers and medical and nursing staff closely monitor patients receiving remdesivir for drug side effects.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this moments, of extreme gravity in which we find ourselves, and in the uncertainty face about the most effective treatment against COVID-19 disease and with the aim of find the evidence that support the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine use recommendation to treat COVID-19 disease, a systematic review of published studies and RCT studies publishes until April 28, 2020 was carried out. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search was carried out in PubMed with the keywords COVID-19 and their synonyms and hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine. The data selection and extraction was elaborated by two researchers, independently. The results were discussed with a Primary Care physicians clinical group and the results were synthesized using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: A good quality systematic review was found that includes articles with a high risk of bias. And 8 EC launched that will produce results beyond May 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Although the conclusions of the systematic review generate a low confidence in the results, and the clinical variables that show benefit are intermediate variables, the side effects are acceptable and could be minimized with the use of QT lengthening risk tools, so it is could make a weak recommendation in favor of the use of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in patients with mild-moderate stage COVID-19
ObjectiveTo synthesize findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without Azithromycin for treating COVID-19, and to update the evidence using a meta-analysis.
MethodsA comprehensive search was carried out in electronic databases for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and experimental studies which investigated the efficacy and safety of CQ, HCQ with or without Azithromycin to treat COVID-19. Findings from the reviews were synthesised using tables and forest plots and the quality effect model was used for the updated meta-analysis. The main outcomes were mortality, the need for intensive care services, disease exacerbation, viral clearance and occurrence of adverse events.
ResultsThirteen reviews with 40 primary studies were included. Two meta-analyses reported a high risk of mortality, with ORs of 2.2 and 3.0, and the two others found no association between HCQ and mortality. Findings from two meta-analyses showed that HCQ with Azithromycin increased the risk of mortality, with similar ORs of 2.5. The updated meta-analysis of experimental studies showed that the drugs were not effective in reducing mortality (RR 1.1, 95%CI 1.0-1.3, I2 =0.0%), need for intensive care services (OR 1.1, 95%CI 0.9-1.4, I2 =0.0%), virological cure (OR 1.5, 95%CI 0.5-4.4, I2 =39.6%) or disease exacerbation (OR 1.2, 95%CI 0.3-5.9, I2 =31.9%) but increased the odds of adverse events (OR 12,3, 95%CI 2.5-59.9, I2 =76.6%).
ConclusionThere is conclusive evidence that CQ and HCQ, with or without Azithromycin are not effective in treating COVID-19 or its exacerbation.
