Conv. Plasma
Nigella Sativa
Nitric Oxide
Peg.. Lambda

Home   COVID-19 treatment studies for Hydroxychloroquine  COVID-19 treatment studies for HCQ  C19 studies: HCQ  HCQ   Select treatmentSelect treatmentTreatmentsTreatments
Alkalinization Meta Lactoferrin Meta
Melatonin Meta
Bromhexine Meta Metformin Meta
Budesonide Meta Molnupiravir Meta
Cannabidiol Meta
Colchicine Meta Nigella Sativa Meta
Conv. Plasma Meta Nitazoxanide Meta
Curcumin Meta Nitric Oxide Meta
Ensovibep Meta Paxlovid Meta
Famotidine Meta Peg.. Lambda Meta
Favipiravir Meta Povidone-Iod.. Meta
Fluvoxamine Meta Quercetin Meta
Hydroxychlor.. Meta Remdesivir Meta
Iota-carragee.. Meta
Ivermectin Meta Zinc Meta

Other Treatments Global Adoption
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Recent:  
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ Mortality 50% Improvement Relative Risk Progression 37% ICU time 9% Hospitalization time -3% Alshamrani et al. HCQ for COVID-19 LATE TREATMENT Is late treatment with HCQ beneficial for COVID-19? PSM retrospective 814 patients in Saudi Arabia (Mar 2020 - Jan 2021) Lower mortality (p=0.18) and progression (p=0.21), not stat. sig. Alshamrani et al., Saudi Pharmaceutical J., doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2023.02.004 Favors HCQ Favors control
Comprehensive evaluation of six interventions for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score matching study
Alshamrani et al., Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2023.02.004
Alshamrani et al., Comprehensive evaluation of six interventions for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score.., Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2023.02.004
Feb 2023   Source   PDF  
  All Studies   Meta
PSM retrospective 29 hospitals in Saudi Arabia, finding lower mortality with HCQ, without reaching statistical significance (described by authors as "no impact").
risk of death, 50.0% lower, RR 0.50, p = 0.18, treatment 6 of 161 (3.7%), control 50 of 653 (7.7%), NNT 25, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, propensity score matching, multivariable.
risk of progression, 37.0% lower, RR 0.63, p = 0.21, treatment 16 of 161 (9.9%), control 100 of 653 (15.3%), NNT 19, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, AKI, ARDS, multi-organ failure, or mortality, propensity score matching, multivariable.
ICU time, 9.2% lower, relative time 0.91, p = 0.66, treatment 22, control 169, propensity score matching.
hospitalization time, 3.0% higher, relative time 1.03, p = 0.69, treatment 161, control 653, propensity score matching.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates
Alshamrani et al., 15 Feb 2023, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 3 authors, study period March 2020 - January 2021.
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Submit Updates or Corrections
This PaperHCQAll
Abstract: Journal Pre-proofs Original article Comprehensive evaluation of six interventions for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score matching study Ali A. Alshamrani, Ahmed M. Assiri, Omar A. Almohammed PII: DOI: Reference: S1319-0164(23)00034-8 SPJ 1580 To appear in: Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date: 30 August 2022 10 February 2023 12 February 2023 Please cite this article as: Alshamrani, A.A., Assiri, A.M., Almohammed, O.A., Comprehensive evaluation of six interventions for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score matching study, Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal (2023), doi: This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. Comprehensive evaluation of six interventions for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score matching study Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of either hydroxychloroquine, triple combination therapy (TCT), favipiravir, dexamethasone, remdesivir, or COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in comparison with standard-of-care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using real-world data from Saudi Arabia. Patients and methods A secondary database analysis was conducted using the Saudi Ministry of Health database for patients with COVID-19. Adult (≥ 18 years) hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021 were included in the analysis. A propensity score matching technique was used to establish comparable groups for each therapeutic approach. Lastly, an independent t-test and chi-square test were used to compare the matching groups in the aspects of the duration of hospitalization, length of stay (LOS) in intensive care units (ICU), in-hospital mortality, and composite poor outcome. Multilevel logistic regression model was used to assess the association between the severity stage of COVID-19 and the outcomes while using the medication or intervention used as a grouping variable in the model. Results The mean duration of hospitalization was significantly longer for patients who received TCT, favipiravir, dexamethasone, or CCP compared to patients who did not receive these therapies, with a mean difference ranging between 2.2 and 4.9 days for dexamethasone and CCP, respectively. Furthermore, the use of favipiravir or CCP was associated with a longer stay in ICU. Remdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. A higher risk of mortality and poorer composite outcome were associated with the use of favipiravir or dexamethasone. However, the logistic regression model reveled that the difference between the two matched cohorts was due to the severity stage not the medication. Additionally, the use of hydroxychloroquine, TCT, or CCP had no impact on the incidence of in-hospital mortality or..
Late treatment
is less effective
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and treatments are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. FLCCC and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop