HCQ for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 419 studies
Abstract
Early treatment shows 66% [54‑74%]
lower risk with pooled effects in 39
studies.
Results are similar for higher quality studies and for peer-reviewed studies.
The 17 mortality and 16 hospitalization results show 76% [61‑85%] lower
mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization.
Late treatment is less successful,
with 22% [18‑26%] lower risk from
269 studies. Very late treatment may be
harmful, especially with excessive dosages.
Randomized Controlled Trials show
21% [8‑32%] lower risk, or 30% [18‑41%] when
excluding late treatment.
There is substantial bias towards publishing negative results. Prospective studies
show higher efficacy. Negative RCTs received priority treatment at top
journals, while positive trials report difficulty publishing. There is a
strong geographical bias, with significantly more negative studies from North America.
Results
are missing for 51% of early treatment and prophylaxis RCTs,
compared to 18% for late treatment, consistent with the higher
prevalence of positive studies for early treatment and prophylaxis, and bias
against publishing positive results.
No treatment or intervention
is 100% effective. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used
based on risk/benefit analysis.
Multiple treatments are typically used in
combination, which may be significantly more effective.
Lung pharmacokinetics show high inter-individual variability1.
Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 — Highlights
HCQ reduces
risk with very high confidence for mortality, hospitalization, cases, viral clearance, and in pooled analysis.
1st treatment shown effective with ≥3 clinical studies in
March 2020, now with p < 0.00000000001 from 419 studies, and recognized in 46 countries.
Outcome specific analyses and combined evidence from all
studies, incorporating treatment delay, a primary confounding factor.
Real-time updates and corrections,
transparent analysis with all results in the same format, consistent protocol
for 109
treatments.
E
Loading..
Figure 1.
A. Random effects
meta-analysis of all early treatment studies. This plot shows pooled effects,
see the specific outcome analyses for individual outcomes.
Analysis validating pooled outcomes for
COVID-19 can be found below.
Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported.
Simplified dosages are shown for comparison, these are the total dose in the
first four days. Chloroquine is indicated with (c). For details of
effect extraction and full dosage information see the appendix.
B. and C. Random effects meta-analysis of early treatment mortality and hospitalization results.
D. Timeline of results in HCQ treatment studies. The marked dates indicate the time when efficacy was known with a statistically significant improvement of ≥10% from ≥3 studies for pooled outcomes, one or more specific outcome, pooled outcomes in RCTs, and one or more specific outcome in RCTs. Efficacy based on RCTs only was delayed by 10.8 months, compared to using all studies. Efficacy based on specific outcomes was delayed by 2.4 months, compared to using pooled outcomes. Efficacy based on specific outcomes in RCTs was delayed by 2.6 months, compared to using pooled outcomes in RCTs.
E. Scatter plot of the effects reported in early treatment studies
compared with all studies. Early treatment is more effective.
SARS-CoV-2 infection primarily begins in the upper respiratory
tract and may progress to the lower respiratory tract, other tissues, and the
nervous and cardiovascular systems, which may lead to cytokine storm,
pneumonia, ARDS, neurological injury10-20 and
cognitive deficits12,17, cardiovascular
complications21-23, organ failure, and death.
Minimizing replication as early as possible is recommended.
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves the complex interplay of 50+
host and viral proteins and other factorsA,24-29, providing many
therapeutic targets for which many existing compounds have known activity.
Scientists have predicted that over 8,000 compounds may
reduce COVID-19 risk30, either by
directly minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system
function, or by minimizing secondary complications.
We analyze all significant controlled studies of HCQ (or CQ) for COVID-19.
Search methods, inclusion criteria, effect extraction criteria (more serious
outcomes have priority), all individual study data, PRISMA answers, and
statistical methods are detailed in Appendix 1. We present
random-effects meta-analysis results for all studies, studies within each
treatment stage, mortality, hospitalization, cases, viral clearance, higher
quality studies, and for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
Figure 2 shows stages of possible treatment for
COVID-19. Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) refers to regularly taking
medication before being infected, in order to prevent or minimize infection.
In Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), medication is taken after exposure
but before symptoms appear. Early Treatment refers to treatment
immediately or soon after symptoms appear, while Late Treatment refers
to more delayed treatment.
Figure 2. Treatment stages.
5 studies investigate novel formulations of hydroxychloroquine that may be more
effective for COVID-1945,51,66-68.
Preclinical research is an important part of the development of
treatments, however results may be very different in clinical trials.
Preclinical results are not used in this paper.
92% of early treatment
studies report a positive effect, with an estimated improvement of
66% in random effects meta
analysis.
Late treatment studies are
mixed, with 70% showing
positive effects, and an estimated improvement of
22%. Negative studies
typically fall into the following categories: they show evidence of
significant unadjusted confounding, including confounding by indication; usage
is extremely late; or they use an excessively high dosage.
82% of PrEP studies show
positive effects, with an estimated improvement of
34%. The majority of negative
studies analyze systemic autoimmune disease patients and either do not adjust
for the different baseline risk of these patients at all, or do not adjust for
the highly variable risk within this group.
88% of PEP studies report
positive effects, with an estimated improvement of
30%.
Table 1 summarizes the results for all stages combined, for Randomized Controlled Trials, with different exclusions, and for specific outcomes.
Table 2 shows results by treatment stage.
Figure 3 plots individual results by treatment stage.
Figure 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 show forest plots for treatment
studies with pooled effects, and for studies reporting mortality,
hospitalization, case, and viral clearance results.
| Improvement | Studies | Patients | Authors | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All studies | 28% [24‑31%] p < 0.0001 **** | 419 | 538,895 | 8,654 |
| After exclusions | 37% [34‑41%] p < 0.0001 **** | 272 | 324,081 | 6,624 |
| Randomized Controlled TrialsRCTs | 21% [8‑32%] p = 0.0028 ** | 61 | 32,113 | 3,179 |
| RCTs exc. late treatmentRCTs exc. late | 30% [18‑41%] p < 0.0001 **** | 28 | 20,334 | 783 |
| Mortality | 26% [22‑30%] p < 0.0001 **** | 250 | 380,323 | 6,188 |
| HospitalizationHosp. | 16% [7‑24%] p = 0.001 ** | 68 | 97,036 | 1,317 |
| Recovery | 17% [6‑26%] p = 0.0031 ** | 29 | 8,860 | 516 |
| Cases | 29% [21‑35%] p < 0.0001 **** | 82 | 166,293 | 1,227 |
| Viral | 19% [10‑27%] p = 0.00016 *** | 46 | 10,345 | 645 |
| RCT mortality exc. late | 48% [-5‑74%] p = 0.069 | 3 | 4,292 | 111 |
| RCT hospitalization exc. lateRCT hosp. exc. late | 24% [-1‑43%] p = 0.057 | 11 | 8,780 | 274 |
| RCT casesRCT cases | 26% [13‑38%] p = 0.00045 *** | 18 | 16,312 | 576 |
| Early treatment | Late treatment | Pre‑Exposure ProphylaxisPrEP |
Post‑Exposure ProphylaxisPEP |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All studies | 66% [54‑74%] **** | 22% [18‑26%] **** | 34% [27‑41%] **** | 30% [10‑46%] ** |
| After exclusions | 66% [54‑75%] **** | 31% [27‑35%] **** | 42% [34‑49%] **** | 30% [10‑46%] ** |
| Randomized Controlled TrialsRCTs | 34% [-1‑56%] | 15% [-4‑31%] | 33% [12‑49%] ** | 21% [-6‑41%] |
| Mortality | 76% [61‑85%] **** | 22% [17‑26%] **** | 31% [15‑44%] *** | 46% [-80‑84%] |
| HospitalizationHosp. | 41% [28‑51%] **** | -2% [-16‑10%] | 11% [-0‑22%] | 16% [-69‑58%] |
| Recovery | 35% [16‑50%] ** | 11% [-1‑22%] | ||
| Cases | 29% [21‑36%] **** | 25% [-0‑43%] |
||
| Viral | 32% [14‑47%] ** | 17% [6‑27%] ** | ||
| RCT mortality | 48% [-76‑85%] | -3% [-19‑11%] | 46% [-80‑84%] |
|
| RCT hospitalizationRCT hosp. | 24% [-5‑45%] | -18% [-70‑19%] | 61% [-83‑92%] | 16% [-69‑58%] |
| RCT casesRCT cases | 33% [19‑45%] **** | 13% [-14‑34%] |
Loading..
Figure 3. Results by treatment stage.
Loading..
Loading..
Figure 4. Random effects meta-analysis. This plot shows pooled effects,
see the specific outcome analyses for individual outcomes.
Analysis validating pooled outcomes for
COVID-19 can be found below.
Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported,
see the appendix for details.
(ES) indicates the early treatment subset of a
study.
Loading..
Loading..
Figure 5. Random effects meta-analysis for
mortality results only. (ES) indicates the early treatment
subset of a study.
Loading..
Figure 6. Random effects meta-analysis for
hospitalization results only.
Loading..
Figure 7. Random effects meta-analysis for
case results only.
Loading..
Figure 8. Random effects meta-analysis for
viral clearance results only.
Figure 9 compares RCT vs. other results.
Meta analysis for RCTs is shown in Figure 10 and
Figure 11, showing 21% [8‑32%] improvement for all RCTs,
and 30% [18‑41%] improvement when excluding late treatment
studies.
Loading..
Figure 9. Scatter plot of all effects comparing RCTs to observational studies.
Loading..
Figure 10. Random effects meta-analysis for
RCTs.
Loading..
Figure 10. Random effects meta-analysis for
RCTs excluding late treatment studies.
Loading..
Figure 12. Random effects meta-analysis for
RCT mortality results excluding late treatment.
Loading..
Figure 13. Random effects meta-analysis for
RCT hospitalization results excluding late treatment.
Loading..
Figure 14. Random effects meta-analysis for
RCT case results.
RCTs help to make study groups more similar and can provide a higher level of
evidence, however they are subject to many biases69, and
analysis of double-blind RCTs has identified extreme levels of bias70.
For COVID-19, the overhead may delay treatment, dramatically compromising
efficacy; they may encourage monotherapy for simplicity at the cost of
efficacy which may rely on combined or synergistic effects; the participants
that sign up may not reflect real world usage or the population that benefits
most in terms of age, comorbidities, severity of illness, or other factors;
standard of care may be compromised and unable to evolve quickly based on
emerging research for new diseases; errors may be made in randomization and
medication delivery; and investigators may have hidden agendas or vested
interests influencing design, operation, analysis, reporting, and the
potential for fraud. All of these biases have been observed with COVID-19
RCTs. There is no guarantee that a specific RCT provides a higher level of
evidence.
RCTs are expensive and many RCTs are funded
by pharmaceutical companies or interests closely aligned with pharmaceutical
companies. For COVID-19, this creates an incentive to show efficacy for
patented commercial products, and an incentive to show a lack of efficacy for
inexpensive treatments. The bias is expected to be significant, for example
Als-Nielsen et al. analyzed 370 RCTs from Cochrane reviews, showing that
trials funded by for-profit organizations were 5 times more likely to
recommend the experimental drug compared with those funded by nonprofit
organizations. For COVID-19, some major philanthropic organizations are
largely funded by investments with extreme conflicts of interest for and
against specific COVID-19 interventions.
High quality RCTs for novel acute diseases are more challenging, with
increased ethical issues due to the urgency of treatment, increased risk due
to enrollment delays, and more difficult design with a rapidly evolving
evidence base. For COVID-19, the most common site of initial infection is the
upper respiratory tract. Immediate treatment is likely to be most successful
and may prevent or slow progression to other parts of the body. For a
non-prophylaxis RCT, it makes sense to provide treatment in advance and
instruct patients to use it immediately on symptoms, just as some governments
have done by providing medication kits in advance. Unfortunately, no RCTs have
been done in this way. Every treatment RCT to date involves delayed treatment.
Among the 109 treatments we have analyzed,
65% of RCTs involve very late treatment 5+ days after
onset. No non-prophylaxis COVID-19 RCTs match the potential real-world use of
early treatments. They may more accurately represent results for treatments
that require visiting a medical facility, e.g., those requiring intravenous
administration.
RCTs have a bias against finding an
effect for interventions that are widely available — patients that
believe they need the intervention are more likely to decline participation
and take the intervention. RCTs for hydroxychloroquine are more likely to
enroll low-risk participants that do not need treatment to recover, making the
results less applicable to clinical practice. This bias is likely to be
greater for widely known treatments, and may be greater when the risk of a
serious outcome is overstated. This bias does not apply to the typical
pharmaceutical trial of a new drug that is otherwise unavailable.
For COVID-19, observational study results do not systematically
differ from RCTs, RR 1.00 [0.92‑1.08]
across 109 treatments72.
Evidence shows that observational studies
can also provide reliable results. Concato et al. found that well-designed
observational studies do not systematically overestimate the magnitude of the
effects of treatment compared to RCTs. Anglemyer et al. analyzed reviews
comparing RCTs to observational studies and found little evidence for
significant differences in effect estimates.
We performed a similar analysis across the 109 treatments
we cover, showing no significant difference in the results of RCTs compared to
observational studies, RR 1.00 [0.92‑1.08]. Similar results are found for all low-cost treatments, RR
1.02 [0.92‑1.12]. High-cost treatments
show a non-significant trend towards RCTs showing greater efficacy,
RR 0.92 [0.82‑1.03].
Details can be found in the
supplementary data.
Lee et al. showed that only 14% of the guidelines of the Infectious
Diseases Society of America were based on RCTs. Evaluation of studies relies
on an understanding of the study and potential biases. Limitations in an RCT
can outweigh the benefits, for example excessive dosages, excessive treatment
delays, or remote survey bias may have a greater effect on results. Ethical
issues may also prevent running RCTs for known effective treatments. For more
on issues with RCTs see76,77.
Currently, 48 of the treatments we analyze show statistically significant efficacy or harm, defined as ≥10% decreased risk or >0% increased risk from ≥3 studies. Of these, 60% have been confirmed in RCTs, with a mean delay of 7.1 months (68% with 8.2 months delay for low-cost treatments). The remaining treatments either have no RCTs, or the point estimate is consistent.
We need to
evaluate each trial on its own merits. RCTs for a given medication and disease
may be more reliable, however they may also be less reliable. For off-patent
medications, very high conflict of interest trials may be more likely to be
RCTs, and more likely to be large trials that dominate meta analyses.
Many meta-analyses for HCQ have been written, most of which
have become obselete due to the continuing stream of more recent
studies. More recent analyses with positive conclusions include IHU Marseille
which considers significant bias from an understanding of each trial, and
Prodromos, Ladapo, García-Albéniz which focus on early or
prophylactic use studies.
Meta analyses reporting negative conclusions focus on late
treatment studies, tend to disregard treatment delay, tend to follow formulaic
evaluations which overlook major issues with various studies, and end up with
weighting disproportionate to a reasoned analysis of each study's
contribution. For example, Axfors assigns 87% weight to a single
trial, the RECOVERY trial80, thereby producing the same
result. However, the RECOVERY trial may be the most biased of the studies they
included, due to the excessive dosage used, close to the level shown to be
very dangerous in Borba (OR 2.8), and with extremely sick late stage
patients (60% requiring oxygen, 17% ventilation/ECMO, and a very high
mortality rate in both arms). There is little reason to suggest that the
results from this trial are applicable to more typical dosages or to earlier
treatment (10/22: the second version of this study released 10/22 assigns 74%
to RECOVERY and 15% to SOLIDARITY82, which is the only
other trial using a similar excessive dosage).
We include all studies in the main analysis, however there are
major issues with several studies that could significantly alter the results.
Here, we present an analysis excluding studies with significant issues,
including indication of significant unadjusted group differences or confouding
by indication, extremely late stage usage >14 days post symptoms or >50% on
oxygen at baseline, very minimal detail provided, excessive dosages which have
been shown to be dangerous, significant issues with adjustments that could
reasonably make substantial differences, and reliance on PCR which may be
inaccurate and less indicative of severity than symptoms. The aim here is not
to exclude studies on technicalities, but to exclude studies that clearly have
major issues that may significantly change the outcome. We welcome feedback on
improvements or corrections to this. The studies excluded are as follows, and
the resulting forest plot is shown in Figure 15.
Aboulenain, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication possible.
Ader, very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline.
Afşin, unadjusted results with no group details.
Alamdari, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Albanghali, unadjusted results with no group details; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Albani, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically.
Alghamdi, unadjusted results with no group details; very late stage, ICU patients.
Alghamdi (B), confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline.
Alhamlan, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically.
Alqatari, unadjusted results with no group details.
AlShehhi, unadjusted results with no group details.
Alwafi, excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Annie, confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline.
Aparisi, unadjusted results with no group details.
Assad, unadjusted results with no group details; confounding by time possible, propensity to use HCQ changed significantly during the study period.
Awad, substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Azaña Gómez, unadjusted results with no group details.
Azimi Pirsaraei, unadjusted results with no group details.
Barbosa, excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Barra, unadjusted results with no group details.
Bielza, unadjusted results with no group details.
Boari, unadjusted results with no group details.
Bosaeed, very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline.
Budhiraja, excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Cassione, not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients.
Chari, unadjusted results with no group details.
Charif, unadjusted results with no group details.
Chechter, unadjusted results with no group details.
Choi, excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Coll, unadjusted results with no group details.
Cortez, unadjusted results with no group details.
Cravedi, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Cárdenas-Jaén, unadjusted for baseline differences with no group details.
de Gonzalo-Calvo, unadjusted results with no group details.
de la Iglesia, not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients.
De Luna, unadjusted results with no group details; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Dey, unadjusted results with no group details.
Erden, unadjusted results with no group details.
Fernández-Cruz, unadjusted results with no group details.
Fitzgerald, not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients.
Fried, excessive unadjusted differences between groups; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Fung, not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients.
Gadhiya, substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Gautret, excessive unadjusted differences between groups; results only for PCR status which may be significantly different to symptoms.
Geleris, significant issues found with adjustments.
Gendebien, not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients.
Gendelman, not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients.
Gianfrancesco, not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients.
Goldman, unadjusted results with no group details.
Guillaume, statistical analysis shows significant mismatch with prior research, potential overfitting.
Gupta, very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline.
Hall, unadjusted results with no group details.
Ho, excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Hraiech, very late stage, ICU patients.
Huang, significant unadjusted confounding possible.
Huh, not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients.
Jacobs, unadjusted results with no group details; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically.
Juneja, excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Kamran, excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Kamstrup, not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients.
Karruli, unadjusted results with no group details.
Kelly, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Konig, not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients; unadjusted results with no group details.
Krishnan, unadjusted results with no group details.
Kuderer, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Küçükakkaş, minimal details of groups provided.
Lamback, substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically.
Laplana, not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients.
Lecronier, very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline.
Lotfy, substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Luo, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Lyashchenko, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Macias, not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients.
Mahale, unadjusted results with no group details.
Mahto, unadjusted results with no group details.
Maldonado, treatment or control group size extremely small.
Malundo, unadjusted results with no group details.
Martin-Vicente, unadjusted results with no group details; treatment or control group size extremely small.
Martinez-Lopez, unadjusted results with no group details.
McGrail, excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Menardi, excessive unadjusted differences between groups; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Mohandas, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; unadjusted results with no group details; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically.
Mulhem, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically.
Niwas, excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Oztas, not adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients; excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Pasquini, unadjusted results with no group details.
Patel, unadjusted results with no group details.
Peters, excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Psevdos, unadjusted results with no group details; no treatment details; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Qin, unadjusted results with no group details.
Ramírez-García, excessive unadjusted differences between groups; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Rangel, not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients.
Rao, unadjusted results with minimal group details.
RECOVERY Collaborative Group, excessive dosage in late stage patients, results do not apply to typical dosages.
Rentsch, not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients; medication adherence unknown and may significantly change results.
Rodriguez, unadjusted results with no group details.
Rodriguez-Nava, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; excessive unadjusted differences between groups; unadjusted results with no group details.
Roger, substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically.
Roig, unadjusted results with no group details.
Roomi, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Rosenthal, confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline.
Roy, no serious outcomes reported and fast recovery in treatment and control groups, there is little room for a treatment to improve results.
Rubio-Sánchez, unadjusted results with no group details.
Rutskaya-Moroshan, unadjusted results with no group details.
Saib, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Said, unadjusted results with no group details.
Salazar, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; unadjusted results with no group details.
Saleemi, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Salehi, unadjusted results with no group details.
Salesi, unadjusted results with no group details.
Salvarani, not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients.
Samajdar, minimal details provided; unadjusted results with no group details; results may be significantly affected by survey bias.
Sammartino, substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically.
Sands, includes PCR+ patients that may be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but in hospital for other reasons; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Santos, unadjusted results with no group details.
Santos (B), unadjusted results with no group details.
Sarfaraz, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; significant unadjusted confounding possible; unadjusted results with no group details.
Sarhan, very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline; significant unadjusted differences between groups.
Satti, unadjusted results with no group details.
Sbidian, significant issues found with adjustments.
Schmidt, confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline.
Shamsi, unadjusted results with no group details.
Shoaibi, unadjusted results with no group details.
Singer, not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients.
Singh, confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline.
Smith, immortal time bias may significantly affect results.
Solh, very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
SOLIDARITY Trial Consortium, excessive dosage in late stage patients, results do not apply to typical dosages; very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline.
Sosa-García, very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Soto, unadjusted results with no group details; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time possible due to significant changes in SOC and treatment propensity near the start of the pandemic.
Soto-Becerra, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; includes PCR+ patients that may be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but in hospital for other reasons.
Souza-Silva, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; authors discussion of prior research exhibits strong bias, raising concern for bias in analysis.
Stewart, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; includes PCR+ patients that may be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but in hospital for other reasons.
Tamura, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically.
Tehrani, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; unadjusted results with no group details.
Texeira, unadjusted results with no group details; no treatment details; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Trefond, not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients; significant unadjusted confounding possible; excessive unadjusted differences between groups.
Tu, unadjusted results with no group details.
Ubaldo, substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; very late stage, ICU patients; unadjusted results with no group details.
Ulrich, very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline.
Vernaz, substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely.
Vivanco-Hidalgo, not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients.
Wang (C), confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline.
Xia, minimal details provided.
Yegerov, unadjusted results with no group details.
Çivriz Bozdağ, substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically.
Çiyiltepe, treatment group only includes patients where treatment failed resulting in ICU admission.
Loading..
Figure 15. Random effects meta-analysis excluding
studies with significant issues. Effect extraction is pre-specified, using the most serious outcome reported,
see the appendix for details.
Analysis validating pooled outcomes for
COVID-19 can be found below.
(ES)
indicates the early treatment subset of a study.
Heterogeneity in COVID-19 studies arises from many factors including:
The time
between infection or the onset of symptoms and treatment may critically affect
how well a treatment works. For example an antiviral may be very effective
when used early but may not be effective in late stage disease, and may even
be harmful. Oseltamivir, for example, is generally only considered effective
for influenza when used within 0-36 or 0-48 hours228,229.
Baloxavir marboxil studies for influenza also show that treatment delay is critical
— Ikematsu et al. report an 86% reduction in cases for post-exposure
prophylaxis, Hayden et al. show a 33 hour reduction in the time to
alleviation of symptoms for treatment within 24 hours and a reduction of 13
hours for treatment within 24-48 hours, and Kumar et al. report only 2.5
hours improvement for inpatient treatment.
| Treatment delay | Result |
| Post-exposure prophylaxis | 86% fewer cases230 |
| <24 hours | -33 hours symptoms231 |
| 24-48 hours | -13 hours symptoms231 |
| Inpatients | -2.5 hours to improvement232 |
Figure 16 shows a mixed-effects meta-regression of efficacy as
a function of treatment delay in HCQ COVID-19 studies, showing that efficacy declines rapidly with treatment delay.
Early treatment is critical for COVID-19.
Loading..
Figure 16. Early treatment is more effective. Meta-regression showing efficacy as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 HCQ studies.
Details of the patient population including age and comorbidities may
critically affect how well a treatment works. For example, many COVID-19
studies with relatively young low-comorbidity patients show all patients
recovering quickly with or without treatment. In such cases, there is little
room for an effective treatment to improve results, for example as in
López-Medina et al.
Efficacy may
depend critically on the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 variants encountered by
patients. Risk varies significantly across variants234, for
example the Gamma variant shows significantly different characteristics235-238. Different mechanisms of action may be
more or less effective depending on variants, for example the degree to which
TMPRSS2 contributes to viral entry can differ across variants239,240.
Effectiveness may depend strongly on the dosage and treatment regimen.
The use
of other treatments may significantly affect outcomes, including supplements,
other medications, or other interventions such as prone positioning.
Treatments may be synergistic60,241-251, therefore
efficacy may depend strongly on combined treatments.
The
quality of medications may vary significantly between manufacturers and
production batches, which may significantly affect efficacy and safety.
Williams et al. analyze ivermectin from 11 different sources, showing
highly variable antiparasitic efficacy across different manufacturers.
Xu et al. analyze a treatment from two different manufacturers, showing 9
different impurities, with significantly different concentrations for each
manufacturer.
Across all
studies there is a strong association between different outcomes, for example
improved recovery is strongly associated with lower mortality. However,
efficacy may differ depending on the effect measured, for example a treatment
may be more effective against secondary complications and have minimal effect
on viral clearance.
The
distribution of studies will alter the outcome of a meta analysis. Consider a
simplified example where everything is equal except for the treatment delay,
and effectiveness decreases to zero or below with increasing delay. If there
are many studies using very late treatment, the outcome may be negative, even
though early treatment is very effective.
All meta analyses combine heterogeneous studies, varying in population,
variants, and potentially all factors above, and therefore may obscure
efficacy by including studies where treatment is less effective. Generally, we
expect the estimated effect size from meta analysis to be less than that for
the optimal case.
Looking at all studies is valuable for providing an overview of all research,
important to avoid cherry-picking, and informative when a positive result is
found despite combining less-optimal situations. However, the resulting
estimate does not apply to specific cases such as
early treatment in high-risk populations.
While we present results for all studies, we also present treatment time and
individual outcome analyses, which may be more informative for specific use
cases.
HCQ studies vary widely in all the factors above. We find a
significant effect based on treatment delay. Early treatment shows
consistently positive results, while late treatment results are very mixed.
Closer analysis may identify factors related to efficacy among this group, for
example treatment may be more effective in certain popuations, or more
fine-grained analysis of treatment delay may identify a point after which
treatment is ineffective.
This section validates the use of pooled effects for COVID-19, which enables
earlier detection of efficacy, however note that pooled effects are no longer
required for hydroxychloroquine as of May 2020.
Efficacy is now known for hydroxychloroquine based on specific outcomes for all studies and when restricted to RCTs. Efficacy based on specific outcomes was delayed by 2.4 months, compared to using pooled outcomes. Efficacy based on specific outcomes in RCTs was delayed by 2.6 months, compared to using pooled outcomes in RCTs.
For COVID-19, delay in clinical results translates into
additional death and morbidity, as well as additional economic and societal
damage. Combining the results of studies reporting different outcomes is
required.
There may be no mortality in a trial with low-risk patients,
however a reduction in severity or improved viral clearance may translate
into lower mortality in a high-risk population.
Different studies may report lower severity, improved recovery, and lower mortality,
and the significance may be very high when combining the results.
"The studies reported different outcomes"
is not a good reason for disregarding results.
We present both specific outcome and pooled analyses.
In order to combine the results of studies reporting different outcomes we use
the most serious outcome reported in each study, based on the thesis that
improvement in the most serious outcome provides comparable measures of
efficacy for a treatment. A critical advantage of this approach is
simplicity and transparency.
There are many other ways to combine evidence for different outcomes, along
with additional evidence such as dose-response relationships, however these
increase complexity.
Another way to view pooled analysis is that we are using more of
the available information. Logically we should, and do, use additional
information. For example dose-response and
treatment delay-response relationships provide significant additional evidence
of efficacy that is considered when reviewing the evidence for a
treatment.
Trials with high-risk patients may be restricted due to ethics for treatments
that are known or expected to be effective, and they increase difficulty for
recruiting. Using less severe outcomes as a proxy for more serious outcomes
allows faster collection of evidence.
For many COVID-19 treatments, a reduction in mortality logically
follows from a reduction in hospitalization, which follows from a reduction in
symptomatic cases, which follows from a reduction in PCR positivity. We can
directly test this for COVID-19.
Analysis of the the association between different outcomes across studies from
all 109
treatments we cover confirms the validity of pooled outcome analysis for COVID-19.
Figure 17 shows that lower hospitalization is very strongly associated
with lower mortality (p < 0.000000000001).
Similarly, Figure 18 shows that improved recovery is very strongly associated
with lower mortality (p < 0.000000000001).
Considering the extremes, Singh (B) et al. show an association between viral clearance and
hospitalization or death, with p = 0.003 after excluding one large
outlier from a mutagenic treatment, and based on 44 RCTs including 52,384
patients.
Figure 19 shows that improved viral clearance is strongly associated
with fewer serious outcomes. The association is very similar to
Singh (B) et al., with higher confidence due to the larger number of
studies. As with Singh (B) et al., the confidence increases
when excluding the outlier treatment, from p = 0.00000042 to p = 0.00000002.
Loading..
Figure 17. Lower hospitalization is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Loading..
Figure 18. Improved recovery is associated with lower mortality, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Loading..
Figure 17. Improved viral clearance is associated with fewer serious outcomes, supporting pooled outcome analysis.
Currently, 48 of the treatments we analyze show statistically significant efficacy or harm, defined as ≥10% decreased risk or >0% increased risk from ≥3 studies. 89% of these have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 5.1 months. When restricting to RCTs only, 56% of treatments showing statistically significant efficacy/harm with pooled effects have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 6.4 months.
Figure 20 shows when treatments were found effective during the
pandemic. Pooled outcomes often resulted in earlier detection of efficacy.
Loading..
Loading..
Figure 20. The time when studies showed that
treatments were effective, defined as statistically significant improvement of
≥10% from ≥3 studies.
Pooled results typically show efficacy earlier than specific
outcome results. Results from all studies often shows efficacy much earlier
than when restricting to RCTs.
Results reflect conditions as used in trials to date, these depend on the
population treated, treatment delay, and treatment regimen.
Pooled analysis could hide efficacy, for example a treatment that is
beneficial for late stage patients but has no effect on viral clearance may
show no efficacy if most studies only examine viral clearance. In practice, it
is rare for a non-antiviral treatment to report viral clearance and to not
report clinical outcomes; and in practice other sources of heterogeneity such
as difference in treatment delay is more likely to hide efficacy.
Analysis validates the use of pooled effects and shows significantly faster
detection of efficacy on average.
However, as with all meta analyses, it is important to review the different
studies included. We also present individual outcome analyses, which may be
more informative for specific use cases.
Publication of clinical
trials is often biased based on conflicts of interest. One way to examine
potential bias is to compare prospective and retrospective studies.
Prospective trials that involve significant effort are more likely to be
published regardless of the result, while retrospective studies are more
likely to exhibit bias. For example, researchers may perform preliminary
analysis with minimal effort and the results may influence their decision to
continue. Retrospective studies also provide more opportunities for the
specifics of data extraction and adjustments to influence results.
For HCQ, 78.4% of prospective
studies report positive effects, compared to
73.8% of retrospective studies, suggesting a
bias toward publishing negative results.
Prospective studies show 33% [24‑41%] improvement in meta
analysis, compared to 27% [23‑31%] for retrospective studies.
Figure 21 shows a scatter plot of results for prospective and
retrospective studies.
Loading..
Figure 21. Prospective vs. retrospective studies.
The diamonds show the results of random effects meta-analysis.
Figure 22 shows the results by region of the world, for
all regions that have > 5 studies. Studies from North America are
2.3 times more likely to report negative results
than studies from the rest of the world combined,
45.3% vs. 19.7%,
two-tailed z test -4.85, p =
0.0000012110. Berry performed an independent analysis
which also showed bias toward negative results for US-based research.
Figure 22. Percentage of studies reporting positive effects by region.
The lack of bias towards positive results is not
surprising. Both negative and positive results are very important given the
use of HCQ for COVID-19 around the world, evidence of which can be found in
the studies analyzed here, government protocols, and news reports, e.g.,
Bianet, Middle East Eye, BBC, CBS News, Filipova, Barron's, Rathi, Oneindia, Dr. Goldin, AFP, The Indian Express, Government of India, The Australian, The Tico Times, Q Costa Rica, NPR News, Teller Report, Africanews, Belayneh, A., Medical Xpress, Afrik.com, The Africa Report, Parola, Franceinfo, Medical Xpress (B), Barron's (B), Russian Government, PledgeTimes, The Moscow Times, Russian Government (B), The BL, Vanguard, Medical World Nigeria, Pilot News, Anadolu Agency, The Guardian, Nigeria News World, AfricaFeeds, Pan African Medical Journal, The East African, Al-bab, Le Nouvel Afrik, Morocco World News, The North Africa Post, Challenge, Ukrinform, Ministry of Health of Ukraine, Ministry of Health of Ukraine (B), Pleno.News, Anadolu Agency (B), Expats.cz, Ministerstva Zdravotnictví, Efecto Cocuyo, Government of Venezuela, LifeSiteNews, Mosaique Guinee, Archyde, Government of China, France 24, Voice of America, France 24 (B), Global Times, Face 2 Face Africa, Al Arabia, GulfInsider .
HCQ treatment became highly politicized and widely restricted.
In many cases, physicians recommending treatment based on clinical evidence
lost employment, licenses, and careers. There is a strong bias towards
publishing negative results, with negative RCTs receiving priority handling at
top journals, and scientists reporting difficulty publishing positive results321-323. Meeus, for example,
report that their paper with 4,000 patients reporting favourable outcomes for
HCQ+AZ was rejected without peer review from the editors of four different
journals.
News organizations show a similar bias. Although 314
studies show positive results, The New York Times, for example, has only
written articles for studies that claim HCQ is not effective324-326. As of September 10, 2020, The New
York Times still claims that there is clear evidence that HCQ is not effective
for COVID-19327. As of October 9, 2020, the United
States National Institutes of Health recommends against HCQ for both
hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients328.
37 HCQ RCTs have not reported their results, with results
missing for 50% of early treatment RCTs and 51% of prophylaxis
RCTs, compared to 18% for late treatment RCTs. This is consistent with
the higher prevalence of positive studies for early treatment and prophylaxis,
and bias against publishing positive results.
Figure 23. Many RCTs have not reported their results, mostly those for early treatment and prophylaxis.
The RCTs with missing results are shown in the RCT forest plots, and do not include
65 RCTs that report terminating prior to enrolling 30 patients.
The missing trials report a total of 20,747 patients, with
11 trials having actual enrollment of
3,487, and the remainder only reporting estimated
numbers. Most trials are known to have started enrollment, while several may
have been terminated early. A few trials may have been terminated before
enrollment started.
This analysis is based on the US clinicaltrials.gov registry. There may be
additional missing RCTs not registered in the US.
Fincham et al. found 70% of 187 HCQ trials had not reported results as of
October 2022. Their analysis includes additional trials that were not
registered in clinicaltrials.gov.
Unpublished results are unethical. Future patients are deprived
of the ability to make informed decisions. Moreover, RCT participants make a
potentially lethal sacrifice for the good of humanity.
For existing medications with known efficacy and safety data, patients forego
the best treatment choice based on current data. For COVID-19, they know that
they may die, depending on their random assignment.
The reasons for lack of publication differ, and may be out of
control of the authors. Some RCTs were submitted for publication, but have
been caught in journal politicization (authors should release preprints in
this case). Others may be held due to decisions of associated organizations,
or decisions of only a subset of authors. Most missing RCTs have associations
with organizations and/or physicians that restricted HCQ — publication
would highlight their liability. Note that in many cases, trials may have been
started prior to the extreme politicization.
Table 4 shows the reported results of physicians that use early
treatments for COVID-19, compared to the results for a non-treating physician
(this physician reportedly prescribed early treatment for themself, but not
for patients330). The treatments used vary between physicians. Almost
all report using ivermectin and/or HCQ, and most use additional treatments in
combination.
These results are subject to selection and ascertainment
bias and more accurate analysis requires details of the patient populations
and followup, however results are consistently better across many teams, and consistent
with the extensive controlled trial evidence that shows a significant
reduction in risk with many early treatments, and improved results with the use of
multiple treatments in combination.
| LATE TREATMENT | ||||||
| Physician / Team | Location | Patients | HospitalizationHosp. | MortalityDeath | ||
| Dr. David Uip (*) | Brazil | 2,200 | 38.6% (850) | Ref. | 2.5% (54) | Ref. |
| EARLY TREATMENT - 40 physicians/teams | ||||||
| Physician / Team | Location | Patients | HospitalizationHosp. | ImprovementImp. | MortalityDeath | ImprovementImp. |
| Dr. Roberto Alfonso Accinelli 0/360 deaths for treatment within 3 days |
Peru | 1,265 | 0.6% (7) | 77.5% | ||
| Dr. Mohammed Tarek Alam patients up to 84 years old |
Bangladesh | 100 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Oluwagbenga Alonge | Nigeria | 310 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Raja Bhattacharya up to 88yo, 81% comorbidities |
India | 148 | 1.4% (2) | 44.9% | ||
| Dr. Flavio Cadegiani | Brazil | 3,450 | 0.1% (4) | 99.7% | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% |
| Dr. Alessandro Capucci | Italy | 350 | 4.6% (16) | 88.2% | ||
| Dr. Shankara Chetty | South Africa | 8,000 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Deborah Chisholm | USA | 100 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Ryan Cole | USA | 400 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% |
| Dr. Marco Cosentino vs. 3-3.8% mortality during period; earlier treatment better |
Italy | 392 | 6.4% (25) | 83.5% | 0.3% (1) | 89.6% |
| Dr. Jeff Davis | USA | 6,000 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Dhanajay | India | 500 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Bryan Tyson & Dr. George Fareed | USA | 20,000 | 0.0% (6) | 99.9% | 0.0% (4) | 99.2% |
| Dr. Raphael Furtado | Brazil | 170 | 0.6% (1) | 98.5% | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% |
| Rabbi Yehoshua Gerzi | Israel | 860 | 0.1% (1) | 99.7% | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% |
| Dr. Heather Gessling | USA | 1,500 | 0.1% (1) | 97.3% | ||
| Dr. Ellen Guimarães | Brazil | 500 | 1.6% (8) | 95.9% | 0.4% (2) | 83.7% |
| Dr. Syed Haider | USA | 4,000 | 0.1% (5) | 99.7% | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% |
| Dr. Mark Hancock | USA | 24 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Sabine Hazan | USA | 1,000 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Mollie James | USA | 3,500 | 1.1% (40) | 97.0% | 0.0% (1) | 98.8% |
| Dr. Roberta Lacerda | Brazil | 550 | 1.5% (8) | 96.2% | 0.4% (2) | 85.2% |
| Dr. Katarina Lindley | USA | 100 | 5.0% (5) | 87.1% | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% |
| Dr. Ben Marble | USA | 150,000 | 0.0% (4) | 99.9% | ||
| Dr. Edimilson Migowski | Brazil | 2,000 | 0.3% (7) | 99.1% | 0.1% (2) | 95.9% |
| Dr. Abdulrahman Mohana | Saudi Arabia | 2,733 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Carlos Nigro | Brazil | 5,000 | 0.9% (45) | 97.7% | 0.5% (23) | 81.3% |
| Dr. Benoit Ochs | Luxembourg | 800 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Ortore | Italy | 240 | 1.2% (3) | 96.8% | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% |
| Dr. Valerio Pascua one death for a patient presenting on the 5th day in need of supplemental oxygen |
Honduras | 415 | 6.3% (26) | 83.8% | 0.2% (1) | 90.2% |
| Dr. Sebastian Pop | Romania | 300 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Brian Proctor | USA | 869 | 2.3% (20) | 94.0% | 0.2% (2) | 90.6% |
| Dr. Anastacio Queiroz | Brazil | 700 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Didier Raoult | France | 8,315 | 2.6% (214) | 93.3% | 0.1% (5) | 97.6% |
| Dr. Karin Ried up to 99yo, 73% comorbidities, av. age 63 |
Turkey | 237 | 0.4% (1) | 82.8% | ||
| Dr. Roman Rozencwaig patients up to 86 years old |
Canada | 80 | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% | ||
| Dr. Vipul Shah | India | 8,000 | 0.1% (5) | 97.5% | ||
| Dr. Silvestre Sobrinho | Brazil | 116 | 8.6% (10) | 77.7% | 0.0% (0) | 100.0% |
| Dr. Unknown | Brazil | 957 | 1.7% (16) | 95.7% | 0.2% (2) | 91.5% |
| Dr. Vladimir Zelenko | USA | 2,200 | 0.5% (12) | 98.6% | 0.1% (2) | 96.3% |
| Mean improvement with early treatment protocols | 238,381 | HospitalizationHosp. | 94.4% | MortalityDeath | 94.9% | |
Funnel
plots have traditionally been used for analyzing publication bias. This is
invalid for COVID-19 acute treatment trials — the underlying assumptions
are invalid, which we can demonstrate with a simple example. Consider a set of
hypothetical perfect trials with no bias. Figure 24 plot A
shows a funnel plot for a simulation of 80 perfect trials, with random group
sizes, and each patient's outcome randomly sampled (10% control event
probability, and a 30% effect size for treatment). Analysis shows no asymmetry
(p > 0.05). In plot B, we add a single typical variation in COVID-19 treatment
trials — treatment delay. Consider that efficacy varies from 90% for
treatment within 24 hours, reducing to 10% when treatment is delayed 3 days.
In plot B, each trial's treatment delay is randomly selected. Analysis now
shows highly significant asymmetry, p < 0.0001, with six variants of
Egger's test all showing p < 0.05331-338.
Note that these tests fail even though treatment delay is uniformly
distributed. In reality treatment delay is more complex — each trial has
a different distribution of delays across patients, and the distribution
across trials may be biased (e.g., late treatment trials may be more common).
Similarly, many other variations in trials may produce asymmetry, including
dose, administration, duration of treatment, differences in SOC,
comorbidities, age, variants, and bias in design, implementation, analysis,
and reporting.
Figure 24. Example funnel plot analysis for simulated perfect trials.
Summary statistics from
meta analysis necessarily lose information. As with all meta analyses, studies
are heterogeneous, with differences
in treatment delay, treatment regimen, patient demographics, variants,
conflicts of interest, standard of care, and other factors. We provide analyses for specific
outcomes and by treatment delay, and we aim to identify key characteristics in
the forest plots and summaries. Results should be viewed in the context of
study characteristics.
Some analyses classify treatment based on early or late
administration, as done here, while others distinguish between mild, moderate,
and severe cases. Viral load does not indicate degree of symptoms — for
example patients may have a high viral load while being asymptomatic. With
regard to treatments that have antiviral properties, timing of treatment is
critical — late administration may be less helpful regardless of
severity.
Details of treatment delay per patient is often not available.
For example, a study may treat 90% of patients relatively early, but the
events driving the outcome may come from 10% of patients treated very late.
Our 5 day cutoff for early treatment may be too conservative, 5 days may be too late in many cases.
Comparison across treatments is confounded by differences in
the studies performed, for example dose, variants, and conflicts of interest.
Trials with conflicts of interest may use designs better suited to the
preferred outcome.
In some cases, the most serious outcome has very few events,
resulting in lower confidence results being used in pooled analysis, however
the method is simpler and more transparent. This is less critical as the
number of studies increases. Restriction to outcomes with sufficient power may
be beneficial in pooled analysis and improve accuracy when there are few
studies, however we maintain our pre-specified method to avoid any
retrospective changes.
Studies show that combinations of treatments can be highly
synergistic and may result in many times greater efficacy than individual
treatments alone60,241-251.
Therefore standard of care may be critical and benefits may diminish or
disappear if standard of care does not include certain treatments.
This real-time analysis is constantly updated based on
submissions. Accuracy benefits from widespread review and submission of
updates and corrections from reviewers. Less popular treatments may receive
fewer reviews.
No treatment or intervention is 100% available and
effective for all current and future variants. Efficacy may vary significantly
with different variants and within different populations. All treatments have
potential side effects. Propensity to experience side effects may be predicted
in advance by qualified physicians. We do not provide medical advice. Before
taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can compare all
options, provide personalized advice, and provide details of risks and
benefits based on individual medical history and situations.
Many reviews cover hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, presenting additional
background on mechanisms, formulations, and related results, including339-364.
We focus here on the
question of whether HCQ is effective or not for COVID-19. Studies vary
significantly in terms of treatment delay, treatment regimen, patients
characteristics, and (for the pooled effects analysis) outcomes, as reflected
in the high degree of heterogeneity. However, early treatment consistently
shows benefits. 92% of early
treatment studies report a positive effect, with an estimated improvement of
66%
(p < 0.0001).
Generally, it is easy to choose inclusion criteria and assign
biased risk evaluations in order to produce any desired outcome in a meta
analysis.
COVID-19 treatment studies have many sources of heterogeneity
which affect the results, including treatment delay (time from infection or
the onset of symptoms), patient population (age, comorbidities), the effect
measured and details of the measurement, distribution of SARS-CoV-2 variants,
dosage/regimen, and other treatments (anything from supplements, other
medications, or other kinds of treatment like prone positioning).
If a treatment is effective early, there is no reason to expect
it will also work late. Antivirals are typically only considered effective
when used within a short timeframe, for example 0-36 or 0-48 hours for
oseltamivir, with longer delays not being effective228,229.
For HCQ, the overwhelming majority of trials involve treatment not only after
48 hours but after 5 days - results from these trials are not relevant to
earlier usage.
Authors desiring to produce a negative outcome for HCQ need
only focus on late treatment studies. For example, Axfors assigns
89% weight to the RECOVERY and SOLIDARITY trials, producing the same negative
result. These trials used excessively high non-patient-customized dosage in
very sick late stage patients, dosages comparable to those known to be harmful
in that context81. The results are not generalizable to typical
dosage or treatment of earlier stage hospitalized patients, and certainly not
applicable to early treatment, i.e., at first glance we can see that this meta
analysis is of no relevance to early treatment.
This paper also does not appear to have been done very
carefully. For example, authors include Borba which is assigned 97%
weight for CQ. This study has no control group, comparing two different
dosages of CQ, which is clear from the abstract of the study.
Axfors approximate early treatment with outpatient
use, where they list 5 trials. This is misleading because authors ignore all
outcomes other than mortality, and only one of the 5 trials has mortality
events, so in reality only one trial is included. Table 1 shows the 5 trials,
only one with mortality. The text says something different: "among the five
studies on outpatients, there were three deaths, two occurring in the one
trial of 491 relatively young patients with few comorbidities and one
occurring in a small trial with 27 patients". We do not know what the missing
27 patient trial is, none of the 5 outpatient trials in Table 1 show 27
patients. There is an outpatient trial with 27 patients365,
however that trial reports no mortality. It does appear in the meta analysis,
but is reported as being an inpatient trial with zero mortality (in reality it
was a remotely conducted trial of patients quarantined at home). The
supplementary appendix has another different version for outpatient trials,
with only 4 trials in Table S3 and Figure S2B (only one with mortality).
Therefore, of the 39 early
treatment trials, authors have included data from only one, which contains
only 1 death in each of the treatment and control groups. If we read the
actual study366, we find that the death in the treatment group
was a non-hospitalized patient, suggesting that the death was not caused by
COVID-19, or at a minimum the patient did not receive standard care and the
comparison here is therefore not valid.
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves a complex interplay of 50+ host
and viral proteins and other factors24-29,
providing many therapeutic targets.
Over 8,000 compounds have been predicted to reduce COVID-19
risk30, either by directly
minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system function, or
by minimizing secondary complications.
Figure 25 shows an overview of the results for hydroxychloroquine
in the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments, and Figure 26 shows a plot
of efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
Loading..
Figure 25.
Scatter plot showing results within the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments.
Diamonds shows the results of random effects meta-analysis.
0.6% of 8,000+ proposed treatments show efficacy367.
Loading..
Loading..
Figure 26. Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.
Direct clinical measurement shows that HCQ reaches therapeutic concentrations
in COVID-19 patients1, and analysis of lung cells from COVID-19
patients shows inhibition in early target cell types368.
Analysis of 419 controlled clinical studies shows
that HCQ reduces risk for COVID-19. Treatment is more
effective when used early.
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [54‑74%] lower risk for the 39 early treatment studies. Results are
similar for higher quality studies and peer-reviewed studies.
Restricting to the 11 early treatment RCTs shows 34% [-1‑56%]
lower risk,
the 17 mortality results shows 76% [61‑85%]
lower mortality,
and the 16 hospitalization results show 41% [28‑51%] lower risk.
Very late stage treatment is not effective and may be harmful, especially when
using excessive dosages.
Most HCQ studies are inconsistent with the logical use of antivirals, with the
majority of studies using late treatment. This makes it easy to generate
meta analyses showing poor efficacy by including large late treatment
studies79, although the results are not relevant for recommended
usage.
HCQ was the first treatment confirmed
effective367, however alternatives
may offer advantages. Lung pharmacokinetics show high inter-individual
variability1; dosage is relatively challenging, with cholesterol
dependence50, delayed attainment of therapeutic concentrations,
and a relatively narrow range of regimens showing efficacy while limiting side
effects; and ~2.5%369 of patients may have contraindications.
Longer-term use of endosomal acidification modifiers for prophylaxis raises
concern for potential off-target effects, including disruption of cellular
processes, impaired lysosomal function, reduced immune response370,
and altered cellular signaling.
Fake tablets are common in some locations371,372. Usage of
oral tables may be less relevant for the now typical lower severity cases,
when infection does not spread far. Direct nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal
administration may be more appropriate, as it is whenever infection can be
stopped at the source in the upper respiratory tract before further
progression.
This paper is data driven, all graphs and numbers are
dynamically generated. Please
submit updates and corrections at https://c19hcq.org/meta.html.
11/3: We added Kim.
10/29: We added Rutskaya-Moroshan.
10/11: We updated the TLDR section.
9/28: We added Azimi Pirsaraei, Darcis.
9/12: We added Schilling.
8/31: We added Brouqui (B).
8/22: We corrected a duplicate entry for
Haji Aghajani.
7/23: We corrected a duplicate entry for
Azaña Gómez.
7/15: We added Dey.
6/26: We added the missing mortality result for
Novartis.
6/13: We added Baguiya.
5/22: We fixed the total number of studies to not include the
early treatment subset results, and we now include the results of
Stewart as a single study, consistent with similar studies.
3/27: Updated discussion of pooled outcomes.
3/12: We updated the discussion of pre-exposure prophylaxis
studies.
2/23: We added Piñana.
2/13: We added Liu (B).
1/25: We added Chouhdari.
1/24: We added Fincham and updated the
introduction.
1/3/2024: We added Salesi.
12/14: We added Huang (B).
11/27: We added Rabe.
10/9: We added Souza-Silva.
9/28: We added Meeus (B).
9/28: We added Burhan.
9/23: We updated Sobngwi to the journal
version.
8/29: We added Shamsi.
8/22: We added details of RCTs where the results have not been
reported.
8/16: We added Afşin.
8/10: We added Klebanov.
7/24: We updated the conclusions.
6/30: We added Finkelstein.
6/26: We added Rubio-Sánchez, Rathod, Krishnan (B).
6/24: We added McCullough.
6/20: We added Cárdenas-Jaén.
6/20: We added de Gonzalo-Calvo.
6/18: We added a forest plot for RCT case results.
6/9: We added Dulcey.
5/23: We added Said.
5/16: We added Yilgwan.
5/14: We added AlQadheeb.
4/27: We added Sen.
4/5: We added Aweimer.
3/2: We added Spivak.
3/1: We added Llanos-Cuentas, Mathew.
2/21: We added Delgado.
2/17: We added Alshamrani.
2/1: We added Nasri.
1/25: We corrected Polo which had a duplicate
entry.
1/9/2023: We added Dhibar.
12/22: We added Alosaimi.
12/20: We updated the discussion of heterogeneity and
RCTs.
12/8: We added Shahrin.
11/28: We added Assad.
11/18: We added Bubenek-Turconi.
11/17: We added Sukumar.
11/11: We added Fernández-Cruz.
10/26: We added Isnardi.
9/28: We added Obrișcă.
9/27: We added Go.
9/22: We added Núñez-Gil.
9/19: We added Babayigit.
9/15: We added Pablos.
9/14: We added Santos.
9/13: We added Sahebari.
9/8: We added Osawa.
9/7: We added Oku.
8/29: We added Lyashchenko, Yadav (B).
8/26: We added Bowen, Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan.
8/20: We corrected an error where Self was listed
twice.
8/18: We added Loucera.
8/14: We added Becetti.
8/10: We added Strangfeld.
8/6: We added Polo.
7/4: We added Raabe.
6/5: We added Tu.
6/1: We added Satti.
5/21: We added Shaw.
5/21: We added Silva.
5/11: We added Niwas.
5/9: We added Uyaroğlu.
5/6: We added Hong.
5/3: We updated Kadnur to the journal version.
5/2: We added MacFadden.
4/17: We added a section on preclinical research.
4/16: We added Roy-García.
4/13: We added Rosenthal.
4/9: We added Hafez.
3/31: We added Avezum.
3/26: We added Salehi.
3/26: We added Oztas.
3/26: We added Schmidt.
3/25: We added AlQahtani.
3/23: We added Opdam.
3/21: We added Arabi.
3/19: We added Ebongue.
3/10: We added Azaña Gómez.
3/8: We added Cortez.
3/6: We added Khoubnasabjafari.
3/5: We added Tsanovska.
3/4: We added Soto (B).
3/3: We added Lavilla Olleros.
3/3: We updated Beltran Gonzalez to the journal version.
3/1: We added Alwafi.
2/26: We added Rouamba.
2/22: We updated Ader with the new results
released 2/21/2022.
2/23: We added Omma.
2/22: We added Tamura (B).
2/21: We added Ugarte-Gil, Cordtz.
2/20: We added Mahale.
2/16: We added Mahto.
2/14: We added Beaumont.
2/7: We added Karruli.
2/6: We added Belmont.
2/5: We added Erden.
2/4: We added Albanghali.
1/30: We added Haji Aghajani.
1/24: We added Corradini.
1/21: We added AbdelGhaffar.
1/14: We added Juneja.
1/13: We added Atipornwanich. We added identification for combined treatment,
comparison with other treatments, and use of CQ in Figure 1.
1/10/2022: We updated Syed to the journal version.
12/23: We added McKinnon.
12/14: We noted that the majority of the PrEP studies reporting
negative effects are studies where all or most patients were autoimmune
disorder patients Crawford.
12/12: We added Rao.
12/11: We added Calderón.
12/5: We added Ferreira.
12/4: We added Ahmed.
12/4: We updated Grau-Pujol to the journal version.
11/18: We added Samajdar.
11/7: We added Chechter.
11/3: We added Sarhan, Guglielmetti.
10/19: We added a summary plot for all results.
10/12: We added Menardi.
10/10: We added Luo (B).
10/4: We added Fung.
10/4: We added Babalola.
9/29: We corrected a display error causing some points to be missing in Figure 3.
9/27: We added Uygen, and updated Million (B) to the journal version.
9/19: We added Çivriz Bozdağ, Alotaibi.
9/17: We added Çiyiltepe.
9/15: We added Agarwal.
9/14: We added Sawanpanyalert.
9/14: We added Mulhem.
9/12: We added Küçükakkaş.
9/9: We added Alhamlan.
9/7: Discussion updates.
8/28: We added Patil.
8/27: We added Rodrigues.
8/25: We added Naggie.
8/21: We added Gadhiya.
8/20: We corrected the event counts in Berenguer.
8/17: We added De Luna.
8/16: We added Turrini.
8/12: We added Shabani.
8/10: We added Rogado.
8/8: We added Di Castelnuovo.
8/6: We added Yadav (C).
8/5: We added Bhatt.
8/4: We added Alghamdi.
8/3: We added Barra.
7/19: We added analysis restricted to hospitalization results.
7/15: We added Jacobs.
7/14: We added Roger.
7/13: We added Barrat-Due.
7/11: We added Krishnan.
7/8: We updated Cadegiani to the journal version.
7/2: We added Taieb.
6/22: We added Schwartz.
6/21: We added Ramírez-García.
6/16: We added Saib.
6/12: We added Sivapalan.
6/7: We added Badyal.
6/6: We added Lagier.
6/4: We added Byakika-Kibwika, Korkmaz.
5/28: We added Million (B).
5/17: We added Syed.
5/16: We added Rojas-Serrano. We corrected the group
sizes for Skipper, and we excluded hospitalizations that were
reported as not being related to COVID-19.
5/15: We added Sammartino.
5/14: We added more discussion of heterogeneity.
5/12: We added De Rosa.
5/10: We added additional information in the abstract.
5/8: We added Réa-Neto.
5/7: We added Kokturk.
5/3: We added an explanation of how some meta analyses produce
negative results.
5/1: We added Bosaeed.
4/29: We added Mohandas.
4/23: We added Reis.
4/14: We added Seet.
4/9: We updated Dubee to the journal version.
4/6: We added Mokhtari.
4/4: We updated Mitjà for 11 control
hospitalizations. There is conflicting data, table S2 lists 12 control
hospitalizations, while table 2 shows 11. A previous version of this paper
also showed some values corresponding to 12 control hospitalizations in the
abstract and table 2.
4/2: We added Salvarani.
4/1: We added Alghamdi (B).
3/29: We added Barry.
3/28: We added Stewart.
3/24: We added Dev.
3/13: We added Roy.
3/9: We added Vivanco-Hidalgo.
3/8: We added Martin-Vicente.
3/7: We added Salvador.
3/5: We added Lotfy.
3/3: We added Pasquini.
3/2: We added Pham.
2/28: We added Rodriguez.
2/26: We added Amaravadi.
2/23: We added Beltran Gonzalez.
2/25: We added Bae.
2/20: We added Lamback.
2/18: We added Awad.
2/17: We added Purwati (B).
2/16: We added Albani.
2/15: We added Lora-Tamayo.
2/9: We added Ouedraogo.
2/7: We added Johnston.
2/6: We added Fitzgerald.
2/5: We added Hernandez-Cardenas.
2/2: We added Bernabeu-Wittel.
2/1: We added Trefond.
1/24: We added Psevdos, Desbois. We moved the analysis
with exclusions and mortality analysis to the main text.
1/21: We added Li (B).
1/16: We added the effect measured for each study in the forest
plots.
1/15: We updated Ip to the published version.
1/12: We added Li (C).
1/11: We added Rangel.
1/7: We added direct links to the study details in the
chronological plots.
1/6: We added direct links to the study details in the forest
plots.
1/5: We added Sarfaraz.
1/4: We added Vernaz.
1/3: We added dosage information for early treatment
studies.
1/2: We added the number of patients to the forest plots.
1/1/2021: We added Sands.
12/31: We added additional details about the studies in the
appendix.
12/28: We added Auld, Cordtz (B).
12/27: We added the total number of authors and patients.
12/25: We added Chari.
12/24: We added Su.
12/23: We added Cangiano.
12/22: We added Taccone.
12/21: We added Matangila.
12/17: We added Signes-Costa.
12/16: We added Sosa-García, Alqassieh, Orioli, Naseem, Tan.
12/15: We added Kalligeros, López.
12/14: We added Rodriguez-Nava, Rivera-Izquierdo.
12/13: We added Bielza.
12/11: We added Jung.
12/9: We added Guglielmetti, Agusti.
12/8: We added Barnabas.
12/7: We added Maldonado.
12/2: We added Rodriguez-Gonzalez.
12/1: We added Capsoni.
11/30: We added Abdulrahman.
11/28: We added Lambermont.
11/27: We added van Halem.
11/25: We added Qin, and we added analysis
restricted to mortality results.
11/24: We added Boari.
11/23: We added Revollo.
11/20: We added Omrani.
11/19: We added Falcone.
11/18: We added Budhiraja.
11/14: We added Sheshah.
11/13: We added Águila-Gordo, Núñez-Gil (B).
11/12: We added Simova, Simova (B).
11/10: We added Mathai.
11/9: We added Self.
11/8: We added Dhibar (B).
11/1: We added Trullàs.
10/31: We added Tehrani, Szente Fonseca, Frontera.
10/30: We added Berenguer, Faíco-Filho.
10/23: We added Lano, Komissarov. The second version
of the preprint for Komissarov includes a comparison with the
control group (not reported in the first version). We updated
Lyngbakken to use the mortality result in the recent journal version
of the paper (not reported in the preprint).
10/22: We added Anglemyer, Ñamendys-Silva. We updated
the discussion of Axfors for the second version of this study. We
added a table summarizing RCT results.
10/21: We added studies Martinez-Lopez, Solh, Dubee. We
received a report that the United States National Institutes of Health is
recommending against HCQ for hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients as of
October 9, and we added a reference.
10/20/2020: Initial revision.
With 419 controlled studies,
61 RCTs, and extensive supporting evidence,
evaluating the HCQ research is time consuming. However, confirmation of
efficacy—when used appropriately—is now simple.
The COPCOV 4,652 patient Oxford/MORU double-blind, randomized,
placebo-controlled trial, with the largest number of treated patients of all
HCQ/CQ RCTs, shows 57% lower symptomatic PCR+ COVID-19 (p =
0.0002)375. This result was very difficult to publish, taking
over 800 days, with publication delayed until late 2024. Authors also include
a meta analysis of 8 RCTs confirming significantly lower symptomatic PCR+
cases.
Figure 27.
The largest HCQ/CQ prophylaxis RCT shows 57% lower symptomatic PCR+
COVID-19.
Figure 27.
Oxford/MORU meta analysis of symptomatic PCR+ cases.
Prior to the COPCOV RCT, Naggie et al.475 showed
efficacy from two US based prophylaxis RCTs in 2021: "The HERO-HCQ and
COVID PREP studies are compared in Supplemental Table 3. Pooling the main
results using the Mantel–Haenszel method resulted in an estimate of the common
odds ratio of 0.74 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.00) with a p-value of
0.046"475.
There are now 14 pre-exposure
prophylaxis RCTs, showing 33% [19‑45%] lower COVID-19 cases
with p = 0.000037.
Observational studies show a similar result, with 60
studies showing 29% [20‑36%] lower COVID-19 cases with
p = 0.000000013. Forest plots are shown in
Figure 28 and Figure 29.
Efficacy was known 289 days earlier for observational studies as
shown in Figure 30 and Figure 31.
A 2022 meta analysis of 7 RCTs by Harvard researchers confirms
efficacy for prophylaxis6,
as does a meta analysis of 20 studies on HCQ use with rheumatic disease
patients7,
along with our analysis of RCTs, and of all PrEP
studies. All produce similar results.
Some researchers have claimed that reaching in vitro
effective concentrations is not feasible, however direct measurement in
treated patients shows that this is incorrect1,368.
SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves the complex interplay of 50+
host and viral proteins and other factorsA,24-29, providing many
therapeutic targets for which many existing compounds have known activity.
Scientists have predicted that over 8,000 compounds may
reduce COVID-19 risk30, either by
directly minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system
function, or by minimizing secondary complications.
38 preclinical studies
support the efficacy of HCQ for COVID-19570, along with many additional
studies because HCQ is often used as an active comparator in studies of other
compounds.
HCQ was the first treatment confirmed effective367, however alternatives may offer
advantages. Lung pharmacokinetics show high inter-individual variability1, and dosage is relatively challenging, with cholesterol
dependence50, delayed attainment of therapeutic concentrations,
and a relatively narrow range of regimens showing efficacy while limiting side
effects. Longer-term use of endosomal acidification modifiers for prophylaxis
raises concern for potential off-target effects. Fake tablets are common in
some locations371.
Loading..
Figure 28. Random effects meta-analysis for
RCT pre-exposure prophylaxis case results.
Loading..
Figure 29. Random effects meta-analysis for
pre-exposure prophylaxis case results in observational studies.
Figure 28. Evolution of the pre-exposure prophylaxis case results in RCTs.
Figure 29. Evolution of the pre-exposure prophylaxis case results in observational studies.
We perform ongoing searches of PubMed, medRxiv, Europe PMC,
ClinicalTrials.gov, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Research
Square, ScienceDirect, Oxford University Press, the reference lists of other
studies and meta-analyses, and submissions to the site c19hcq.org, which regularly receives submissions of studies upon publication.
Search terms are hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2. Automated searches are performed twice daily, with all matches reviewed for inclusion.
All studies regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 that report
a comparison with a control group are included in the main analysis.
Sensitivity analysis is performed, excluding studies with major issues,
epidemiological studies, and studies with minimal available information.
This is a living analysis and is updated regularly.
We extracted effect sizes and associated data from all studies.
If studies report multiple kinds of effects then the most serious
outcome is used in pooled analysis, while other outcomes are included in the
outcome specific analyses. For example, if effects for mortality and cases are
both reported, the effect for mortality is used, this may be different to the
effect that a study focused on.
If symptomatic
results are reported at multiple times, we used the latest time, for example
if mortality results are provided at 14 days and 28 days, the results at 28
days have preference. Mortality alone is preferred over combined outcomes.
Outcomes with zero events in both arms are not used, the next most serious
outcome with one or more events is used. For example, in low-risk populations
with no mortality, a reduction in mortality with treatment is not possible,
however a reduction in hospitalization, for example, is still valuable.
Clinical outcomes are considered more important than viral test status. When
basically all patients recover in both treatment and control groups,
preference for viral clearance and recovery is given to results mid-recovery
where available. After most or all patients have recovered there is little or
no room for an effective treatment to do better, however faster recovery is
valuable.
If only individual symptom data is available, the most serious symptom has
priority, for example difficulty breathing or low SpO2 is more
important than cough.
When results provide an odds ratio, we compute the relative risk when
possible, or convert to a relative risk according to571.
Reported confidence intervals and p-values were used when available,
using adjusted values when provided. If multiple types of adjustments are
reported propensity score matching and multivariable regression has preference
over propensity score matching or weighting, which has preference over
multivariable regression. Adjusted results have preference over unadjusted
results for a more serious outcome when the adjustments significantly alter
results. When needed, conversion between reported p-values and
confidence intervals followed Altman, Altman (B), and Fisher's exact
test was used to calculate p-values for event data. If continuity
correction for zero values is required, we use the reciprocal of the opposite
arm with the sum of the correction factors equal to 1574.
Results are expressed with RR < 1.0 favoring treatment, and using the risk of
a negative outcome when applicable (for example, the risk of death rather than
the risk of survival). If studies only report relative continuous values such
as relative times, the ratio of the time for the treatment group versus the
time for the control group is used. Calculations are done in Python
(3.13.0) with
scipy (1.14.1), pythonmeta (1.26), numpy (1.26.4), statsmodels (0.14.4), and plotly (5.24.1).
Forest plots are computed using PythonMeta575
with the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model (the fixed effect
assumption is not plausible in this case) and inverse variance weighting.
Results are presented with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity among studies was
assessed using the I2 statistic.
Mixed-effects meta-regression results are computed with R (4.4.0) using the metafor
(4.6-0) and rms (6.8-0) packages, and using the most serious sufficiently powered outcome.
For all statistical tests, a p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Grobid 0.8.0 is used to parse PDF documents.
We have classified studies as early treatment if most patients
are not already at a severe stage at the time of treatment (for example based
on oxygen status or lung involvement), and treatment started within 5 days of
the onset of symptoms. If studies contain a mix of early treatment and late
treatment patients, we consider the treatment time of patients contributing
most to the events (for example, consider a study where most patients are
treated early but late treatment patients are included, and all mortality
events were observed with late treatment patients).
We note that a shorter time may be preferable. Antivirals are typically only
considered effective when used within a shorter timeframe, for example 0-36 or
0-48 hours for oseltamivir, with longer delays not being effective228,229.
We received no funding, this research is done in our spare
time. We have no affiliations with any pharmaceutical companies or political
parties.
A summary of study results is below. Please submit
updates and corrections at https://c19hcq.org/meta.html.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above
and gives priority to more serious outcomes. Only the first (most serious)
outcome is used in pooled analysis, which may differ from the effect a paper
focuses on. Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.
| Abayomi, 12/4/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Nigeria, peer-reviewed, trial PACTR202004801273802 (LACCTT). | Estimated 800 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Agusti, 12/9/2020, prospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 37.0, 13 authors, average treatment delay 5.0 days, dosage 400mg bid day 1, 200mg bid days 2-5. | risk of progression, 68.4% lower, RR 0.32, p = 0.21, treatment 2 of 87 (2.3%), control 4 of 55 (7.3%), NNT 20, pneumonia. |
| Amaravadi, 2/26/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, preprint, 20 authors, study period 15 April, 2020 - 14 July, 2020, dosage 400mg bid days 1-14. | risk of not reaching lowest symptom score at day 7 mid-recovery, 60.0% lower, RR 0.40, p = 0.13, treatment 3 of 15 (20.0%), control 6 of 12 (50.0%), NNT 3.3. |
| risk of not reaching lowest symptom score at day 5 mid-recovery, 50.0% lower, RR 0.50, p = 0.13, treatment 5 of 15 (33.3%), control 8 of 12 (66.7%), NNT 3.0. | |
| relative time to first occurrence of lowest symptom score, 42.9% lower, relative time 0.57, p = 0.38, treatment median 4.0 IQR 13.0 n=15, control median 7.0 IQR 10.0 n=12. | |
| relative time to release from quarantine, 27.3% lower, relative time 0.73, p = 0.46, treatment median 8.0 IQR 15.0 n=16, control median 11.0 IQR 14.0 n=13, primary outcome. | |
| Ashraf, 4/24/2020, retrospective, database analysis, Iran, preprint, median age 58.0, 16 authors, dosage 200mg bid daily, 400mg qd was used when combined with Lopinavir-Ritonavir. | risk of death, 67.5% lower, RR 0.32, p = 0.15, treatment 10 of 77 (13.0%), control 2 of 5 (40.0%), NNT 3.7. | Aston, 12/31/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, trial NCT04334382 (history) (HyAzOUT). | Estimated 1,550 patient RCT with results unknown and over 2 years late. |
| Atipornwanich, 10/5/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Thailand, peer-reviewed, 16 authors, early treatment subset, study period 19 October, 2020 - 20 July, 2021, dosage 400mg days 1-14, 800mg/day or 400mg/day, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with oseltamivir/favipiravir and duranivir/ritonavir for moderate/severe, oseltamivir and duranivir/ritonavir for mild) - results of individual treatments may vary, trial NCT04303299 (history). | risk of progression, 150.0% higher, RR 2.50, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 60 (1.7%), control 0 of 30 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), mild, early treatment result. |
| time to viral-, 43.3% lower, relative time 0.57, p = 0.04, treatment mean 8.9 (±6.0) n=30, control mean 15.7 (±16.7) n=30, mild, HCQ 800, primary outcome, early treatment result. | |
| time to viral-, 36.3% lower, relative time 0.64, p = 0.09, treatment mean 10.0 (±6.9) n=30, control mean 15.7 (±16.7) n=30, mild, HCQ 400, primary outcome, early treatment result. | |
| Avezum, 3/31/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Brazil, peer-reviewed, 40 authors, study period 12 May, 2020 - 7 July, 2021, average treatment delay 4.0 days, dosage 400mg bid day 1, 200mg bid days 2-7, trial NCT04466540 (history). | risk of death, 0.7% lower, RR 0.99, p = 1.00, treatment 5 of 687 (0.7%), control 5 of 682 (0.7%), NNT 18741, all-cause death. |
| risk of death, 56.0% higher, HR 1.56, p = 0.54, treatment 5 of 687 (0.7%), control 5 of 682 (0.7%), adjusted per study, univariate Firth's penalized likelihood. | |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 32.4% higher, RR 1.32, p = 0.79, treatment 8 of 687 (1.2%), control 6 of 682 (0.9%). | |
| risk of ICU admission, 16.4% lower, RR 0.84, p = 0.61, treatment 16 of 687 (2.3%), control 19 of 682 (2.8%), NNT 219. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 23.5% lower, RR 0.77, p = 0.18, treatment 44 of 689 (6.4%), control 57 of 683 (8.3%), NNT 51. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 40.0% lower, RR 0.60, p = 0.15, treatment 267, control 265, <4 days. | |
| Azhar, 3/18/2024, Randomized Controlled Trial, Pakistan, peer-reviewed, 22 authors, dosage 200mg tid days 1-5, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo, trial NCT04338698 (history) (PROTECT). | risk of death, 71.3% lower, RR 0.29, p = 0.03, treatment 4 of 248 (1.6%), control 10 of 178 (5.6%), NNT 25, HCQ arms vs. non-HCQ arms. |
| risk of death, 70.8% lower, RR 0.29, p = 0.05, treatment 3 of 183 (1.6%), control 10 of 178 (5.6%), NNT 25, HCQ + OS/AZ/OS+AZ vs. OS/AZ/OS+AZ. | |
| risk of no improvement by 2 points, 4.3% lower, RR 0.96, p = 0.64, treatment 157 of 274 (57.3%), control 118 of 197 (59.9%), NNT 38, HCQ arms vs. non-HCQ arms. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 10.5% lower, RR 0.90, p = 0.52, treatment 66 of 274 (24.1%), control 53 of 197 (26.9%), NNT 36, HCQ arms vs. non-HCQ arms. | |
| Bernabeu-Wittel, 8/1/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 13 authors, dosage 400mg bid day 1, 200mg bid days 2-7, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with lopinavir/ritonavir, AZ, and/or antimicrobial treatments for some patients) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 93.7% lower, RR 0.06, p = 0.001, treatment 24 of 139 (17.3%), control 37 of 83 (44.6%), NNT 3.7, adjusted per study, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, odds ratio converted to relative risk, active standard care. | Butler, 6/22/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial ISRCTN86534580 (PRINCIPLE). | Estimated 400 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Cadegiani, 11/4/2020, prospective, Brazil, peer-reviewed, 4 authors, average treatment delay 2.9 days, dosage 400mg days 1-5. | risk of death, 81.2% lower, RR 0.19, p = 0.21, treatment 0 of 159 (0.0%), control 2 of 137 (1.5%), NNT 68, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), control group 1. |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 95.1% lower, RR 0.05, p < 0.001, treatment 0 of 159 (0.0%), control 9 of 137 (6.6%), NNT 15, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), control group 1. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 98.3% lower, RR 0.02, p < 0.001, treatment 0 of 159 (0.0%), control 27 of 137 (19.7%), NNT 5.1, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), control group 1. | |
| Chechter, 11/5/2021, prospective, Brazil, peer-reviewed, mean age 37.6, 14 authors, dosage 800mg day 1, 400mg days 2-5, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of hospitalization, 94.7% lower, RR 0.05, p = 0.004, treatment 0 of 60 (0.0%), control 3 of 12 (25.0%), NNT 4.0, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| Corradini, 4/24/2021, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 60 authors, early treatment subset, dosage not specified. | risk of death, 67.4% lower, OR 0.33, p = 0.01, treatment 641, control 102, adjusted per study, Table S6, light condition patients, multivariable, RR approximated with OR, early treatment result. |
| Derwand (B), 7/3/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 3 authors, average treatment delay 4.0 days, dosage 200mg bid days 1-5, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ and zinc) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 79.4% lower, RR 0.21, p = 0.12, treatment 1 of 141 (0.7%), control 13 of 377 (3.4%), NNT 37, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| risk of hospitalization, 81.6% lower, RR 0.18, p < 0.001, treatment 4 of 141 (2.8%), control 58 of 377 (15.4%), NNT 8.0, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| Esper, 4/15/2020, prospective, Brazil, preprint, 15 authors, average treatment delay 5.2 days, dosage 800mg day 1, 400mg days 2-7, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of hospitalization, 64.0% lower, RR 0.36, p = 0.02, treatment 8 of 412 (1.9%), control 12 of 224 (5.4%), NNT 29. |
| Gautret, 3/17/2020, prospective, France, peer-reviewed, 18 authors, average treatment delay 4.1 days, dosage 200mg tid days 1-10, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups; results only for PCR status which may be significantly different to symptoms. | risk of no virological cure at day 6, 66.0% lower, RR 0.34, p = 0.001, treatment 6 of 20 (30.0%), control 14 of 16 (87.5%), NNT 1.7. | Genton, 12/31/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04385264 (history) (PROLIFIC). | Estimated 800 patient RCT with results unknown and over 1.5 years late. |
| Guisado-Vasco, 10/15/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 69.0, 25 authors, early treatment subset, dosage not specified. | risk of death, 66.9% lower, RR 0.33, p = 0.19, treatment 2 of 65 (3.1%), control 139 of 542 (25.6%), NNT 4.4, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariate. |
| Guérin, 5/31/2020, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, dosage 600mg days 1-10, 7-10 days, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 61.4% lower, RR 0.39, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 20 (0.0%), control 1 of 34 (2.9%), NNT 34, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| recovery time, 65.0% lower, relative time 0.35, p < 0.001, treatment 20, control 34. | Gül, 2/16/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04981379 (history). | 1,120 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Heras, 9/2/2020, retrospective, Andorra, peer-reviewed, median age 85.0, 13 authors, dosage not specified, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 95.6% lower, RR 0.04, p = 0.004, treatment 8 of 70 (11.4%), control 16 of 30 (53.3%), NNT 2.4, adjusted per study. |
| Hong, 7/16/2020, retrospective, South Korea, peer-reviewed, 7 authors, dosage not specified. | risk of prolonged viral shedding, early vs. late HCQ, 64.9% lower, RR 0.35, p = 0.001, treatment 42, control 48, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Huang (C), 5/28/2020, prospective, China, peer-reviewed, 36 authors, early treatment subset, dosage chloroquine 500mg days 1-10, two groups, 500mg qd and 500mg bid. | time to viral-, 59.1% lower, relative time 0.41, p < 0.001, treatment 32, control 37. |
| Ip, 8/25/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, peer-reviewed, 25 authors, dosage not specified. | risk of death, 54.5% lower, RR 0.45, p = 0.43, treatment 2 of 97 (2.1%), control 44 of 970 (4.5%), NNT 40. |
| risk of ICU admission, 28.6% lower, RR 0.71, p = 0.79, treatment 3 of 97 (3.1%), control 42 of 970 (4.3%), NNT 81. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 37.3% lower, RR 0.63, p = 0.04, treatment 21 of 97 (21.6%), control 305 of 970 (31.4%), NNT 10, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | Kara, 6/1/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Turkey, peer-reviewed, trial NCT04411433 (history). | 1,008 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. | Kim (B), 4/30/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, trial NCT04307693 (history). | 65 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Kirenga, 9/9/2020, prospective, Uganda, peer-reviewed, 29 authors, dosage not specified. | median time to recovery, 25.6% lower, relative time 0.74, p = 0.20, treatment 29, control 27. |
| Ly, 8/21/2020, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, mean age 83.0, 21 authors, dosage 200mg tid days 1-10, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 55.6% lower, RR 0.44, p = 0.02, treatment 18 of 116 (15.5%), control 29 of 110 (26.4%), NNT 9.2, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Million (B), 5/27/2021, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, 39 authors, average treatment delay 4.0 days, dosage 200mg tid days 1-10, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 83.0% lower, HR 0.17, p < 0.001, treatment 5 of 8,315 (0.1%), control 11 of 2,114 (0.5%), NNT 217, adjusted per study. |
| risk of ICU admission, 44.0% lower, HR 0.56, p = 0.18, treatment 17 of 8,315 (0.2%), control 7 of 2,114 (0.3%), NNT 789, adjusted per study. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 4.0% lower, HR 0.96, p = 0.77, treatment 214 of 8,315 (2.6%), control 64 of 2,114 (3.0%), adjusted per study. | |
| Mitjà, 7/16/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, Spain, peer-reviewed, 46 authors, study period 17 March, 2020 - 26 May, 2020, dosage 800mg day 1, 400mg days 2-7. | risk of hospitalization, 16.0% lower, RR 0.84, p = 0.64, treatment 8 of 136 (5.9%), control 11 of 157 (7.0%), NNT 89. |
| risk of no recovery, 34.0% lower, RR 0.66, p = 0.38, treatment 8 of 136 (5.9%), control 14 of 157 (8.9%), NNT 33. | |
| Mokhtari, 4/6/2021, retrospective, Iran, peer-reviewed, 12 authors, dosage 400mg bid day 1, 200mg bid days 2-5. | risk of death, 69.7% lower, RR 0.30, p < 0.001, treatment 27 of 7,295 (0.4%), control 287 of 21,464 (1.3%), NNT 103, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| risk of hospitalization, 35.3% lower, RR 0.65, p < 0.001, treatment 523 of 7,295 (7.2%), control 2,382 of 21,464 (11.1%), NNT 25, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | Okasha, 12/31/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, trial NCT04361318 (history). | Estimated 100 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Omrani, 11/20/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Qatar, peer-reviewed, 19 authors, study period 13 April, 2020 - 1 August, 2020, dosage 600mg days 1-6, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary, Q-PROTECT trial. | risk of hospitalization, 12.5% lower, RR 0.88, p = 1.00, treatment 7 of 304 (2.3%), control 4 of 152 (2.6%), NNT 304, HCQ+AZ or HCQ vs. control. |
| risk of symptomatic at day 21, 25.8% lower, RR 0.74, p = 0.58, treatment 9 of 293 (3.1%), control 6 of 145 (4.1%), NNT 94, HCQ+AZ or HCQ vs. control. | |
| risk of Ct<=40 at day 14, 10.3% higher, RR 1.10, p = 0.13, treatment 223 of 295 (75.6%), control 98 of 143 (68.5%), HCQ+AZ or HCQ vs. control. | Pineda, 12/31/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, trial NCT04954040 (history) (AMBUCOV). | Estimated 132 patient RCT with results unknown and over 2 years late. |
| Rathod (B), 6/1/2023, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, study period 28 March, 2020 - 3 June, 2020, average treatment delay 5.0 days, dosage not specified, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 73.0% lower, HR 0.27, p = 0.02, treatment 513, control 52, Cox proportional hazards. |
| Rodrigues, 8/25/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Brazil, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, study period 12 April, 2020 - 13 May, 2020, average treatment delay 3.8 days, dosage 400mg bid days 1-7, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of hospitalization, 200.0% higher, RR 3.00, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 42 (2.4%), control 0 of 42 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of no viral clearance, 14.4% lower, RR 0.86, p = 0.15, treatment 29 of 36 (80.6%), control 32 of 34 (94.1%), NNT 7.4, PP, day 3. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 13.1% lower, RR 0.87, p = 0.45, treatment 23 of 36 (63.9%), control 25 of 34 (73.5%), NNT 10, PP, day 6. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 23.3% lower, RR 0.77, p = 0.47, treatment 13 of 36 (36.1%), control 16 of 34 (47.1%), NNT 9.1, PP, day 9. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 3.1% lower, RR 0.97, p = 1.00, treatment 31 of 42 (73.8%), control 32 of 42 (76.2%), NNT 42, ITT, day 3. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, treatment 25 of 42 (59.5%), control 25 of 42 (59.5%), ITT, day 6. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 6.2% lower, RR 0.94, p = 1.00, treatment 15 of 42 (35.7%), control 16 of 42 (38.1%), NNT 42, ITT, day 9. | |
| time to viral-, 8.8% lower, relative time 0.91, p = 0.26, treatment 36, control 34, PP. | |
| time to viral-, 1.4% lower, relative time 0.99, p = 0.85, treatment 42, control 42, ITT. | |
| Rouamba, 2/26/2022, retrospective, Burkina Faso, peer-reviewed, mean age 42.2, 17 authors, early treatment subset, study period 9 March, 2020 - 31 October, 2020, dosage 200mg tid days 1-10, HCQ 200mg tid daily or CQ 250mg bid daily, trial NCT04445441 (history). | risk of progression, 73.0% lower, HR 0.27, p = 0.05, treatment 23 of 399 (5.8%), control 4 of 33 (12.1%), adjusted per study, outpatients, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards, early treatment result. |
| time to viral clearance, 21.3% lower, HR 0.79, p = 0.37, treatment 399, control 33, adjusted per study, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, outpatients, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards, primary outcome, early treatment result. | |
| Roy, 3/12/2021, retrospective, database analysis, India, preprint, 5 authors, dosage not specified, excluded in exclusion analyses: no serious outcomes reported and fast recovery in treatment and control groups, there is little room for a treatment to improve results. | relative time to clinical response of wellbeing, 2.4% lower, relative time 0.98, p = 0.96, treatment 14, control 15, primary outcome. |
| Roy-García, 4/16/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Mexico, preprint, 11 authors, study period January 2021 - June 2021, average treatment delay 5.0 days, dosage 200mg bid days 1-10, trial NCT04964583 (history). | risk of progression, 100% higher, RR 2.00, p = 1.00, treatment 2 of 31 (6.5%), control 1 of 31 (3.2%), supplemental oxygen. |
| risk of progression, 233.3% higher, RR 3.33, p = 0.06, treatment 10 of 31 (32.3%), control 3 of 31 (9.7%), pneumonia. | |
| risk of progression, 225.0% higher, RR 3.25, p = 0.02, treatment 13 of 31 (41.9%), control 4 of 31 (12.9%), oxygen saturation less than 90%, dyspnea, or pneumonia. | Sarwar, 8/30/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04351191 (history) (PRECISE). | 137 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Sawanpanyalert, 9/9/2021, retrospective, Thailand, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, dosage varies, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, ICU, intubation, or high-flow oxygen, 42.0% lower, OR 0.58, p = 0.37, within 4 days of symptom onset, RR approximated with OR. |
| Simova, 11/12/2020, retrospective, Bulgaria, peer-reviewed, 5 authors, dosage 200mg tid days 1-14, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ and zinc) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of hospitalization, 93.8% lower, RR 0.06, p = 0.01, treatment 0 of 33 (0.0%), control 2 of 5 (40.0%), NNT 2.5, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of viral+ at day 14, 95.8% lower, RR 0.04, p = 0.001, treatment 0 of 33 (0.0%), control 3 of 5 (60.0%), NNT 1.7, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). | |
| Skipper, 7/16/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, peer-reviewed, 24 authors, study period 17 March, 2020 - 20 May, 2020, dosage 800mg once, followed by 600mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600mg daily for 4 more days, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo, trial NCT04308668 (history). | risk of death/hospitalization, 36.7% lower, RR 0.63, p = 0.58, treatment 5 of 231 (2.2%), control 8 of 234 (3.4%), NNT 80, COVID-19 adjudicated hospitalization/death. |
| risk of hospitalization, 49.4% lower, RR 0.51, p = 0.38, treatment 4 of 231 (1.7%), control 8 of 234 (3.4%), NNT 59, COVID-19 adjudicated hospitalization. | |
| risk of death/hospitalization, 49.4% lower, RR 0.51, p = 0.29, treatment 5 of 231 (2.2%), control 10 of 234 (4.3%), NNT 47, all hospitalization/death. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 59.5% lower, RR 0.41, p = 0.17, treatment 4 of 231 (1.7%), control 10 of 234 (4.3%), NNT 39, all hospitalizations. | |
| risk of no recovery at day 14, 20.0% lower, RR 0.80, p = 0.21, treatment 231, control 234. | |
| Smith (B), 7/8/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, preprint, 1 author, average treatment delay 5.0 days, dosage 400mg bid day 1, 200mg bid days 2-7, trial NCT04358068 (history). | risk of hospitalization, 64.0% lower, RR 0.36, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 7 (0.0%), control 1 of 9 (11.1%), NNT 9.0, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| Sobngwi, 7/29/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Cameroon, peer-reviewed, mean age 39.0, 16 authors, study period 16 March, 2021 - 9 April, 2021, dosage 400mg days 1-5, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo. | risk of no recovery, 51.6% lower, RR 0.48, p = 0.44, treatment 2 of 95 (2.1%), control 4 of 92 (4.3%), NNT 45, day 10. |
| risk of no recovery, 3.2% lower, RR 0.97, p = 1.00, treatment 18 of 95 (18.9%), control 18 of 92 (19.6%), NNT 162, day 3. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 3.2% lower, RR 0.97, p = 0.88, treatment 32 of 95 (33.7%), control 32 of 92 (34.8%), NNT 91, day 10. | Sow, 9/30/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo, trial NCT04501965 (history) (PHYTCOVID-19). | 231 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Su, 12/23/2020, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, 9 authors, study period 20 January, 2020 - 30 April, 2020, dosage 400mg days 1-10, 400mg daily for 10-14 days. | risk of progression, 84.9% lower, HR 0.15, p = 0.006, adjusted per study, binary logistic regression. |
| improvement time, 24.0% better, relative time 0.76, p = 0.02, adjusted per study, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, Cox proportional hazards. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 35.8% lower, HR 0.64, p = 0.001, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, Cox proportional hazards. | |
| Sulaiman, 9/13/2020, prospective, Saudi Arabia, preprint, 22 authors, dosage 400mg bid day 1, 200mg bid days 2-5. | risk of death, 63.7% lower, RR 0.36, p = 0.01, treatment 7 of 1,817 (0.4%), control 54 of 3,724 (1.5%), NNT 94, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| risk of death/ICU, 44.4% lower, RR 0.56, p = 0.02, treatment 21 of 1,817 (1.2%), control 95 of 3,724 (2.6%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| risk of ICU admission, 36.7% lower, RR 0.63, p = 0.13, treatment 14 of 1,817 (0.8%), control 56 of 3,724 (1.5%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 38.6% lower, RR 0.61, p < 0.001, treatment 171 of 1,817 (9.4%), control 617 of 3,724 (16.6%), NNT 14, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| Szente Fonseca, 10/31/2020, retrospective, Brazil, peer-reviewed, mean age 50.6, 10 authors, average treatment delay 4.6 days, dosage 400mg bid day 1, 400mg qd days 2-5. | risk of hospitalization, 64.0% lower, RR 0.36, p < 0.001, treatment 25 of 175 (14.3%), control 89 of 542 (16.4%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, HCQ vs. nothing, primary outcome. |
| risk of hospitalization, 50.5% lower, RR 0.49, p = 0.006, treatment 25 of 175 (14.3%), control 89 of 542 (16.4%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, HCQ vs. anything else. | |
| Yu, 8/3/2020, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, median age 62.0, 6 authors, early treatment subset, average treatment delay 5.0 days, dosage 200mg bid days 1-10. | risk of death, 85.0% lower, RR 0.15, p = 0.02, treatment 1 of 73 (1.4%), control 238 of 2,604 (9.1%), NNT 13, HCQ treatment started early vs. non-HCQ. |
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above
and gives priority to more serious outcomes. Only the first (most serious)
outcome is used in pooled analysis, which may differ from the effect a paper
focuses on. Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.
| AbdelGhaffar, 1/11/2022, retrospective, Egypt, peer-reviewed, 17 authors, study period April 2020 - July 2020. | risk of death, 99.9% lower, RR 0.001, p < 0.001, treatment 0 of 238 (0.0%), control 900 of 3,474 (25.9%), NNT 3.9, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| Abdulrahman, 11/30/2020, retrospective, propensity score matching, Bahrain, preprint, 9 authors. | risk of death, 16.7% lower, RR 0.83, p = 1.00, treatment 5 of 223 (2.2%), control 6 of 223 (2.7%), NNT 223, PSM. |
| risk of death/intubation, 75.0% higher, RR 1.75, p = 0.24, treatment 12 of 223 (5.4%), control 7 of 223 (3.1%), adjusted per study, PSM. | |
| Aboulenain, 11/30/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 13 authors, study period March 2020 - May 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication possible. | risk of death, 15.0% higher, HR 1.15, p = 0.72, treatment 82, control 93, Cox proportional hazards. |
| Ader, 10/6/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, multiple countries, preprint, baseline oxygen required 95.4%, 59 authors, study period 22 March, 2020 - 29 June, 2020, average treatment delay 9.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline. | risk of death, 15.3% higher, RR 1.15, p = 0.70, treatment 11 of 150 (7.3%), control 13 of 149 (8.7%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, day 90. |
| risk of death, 10.1% lower, RR 0.90, p = 0.75, treatment 15 of 150 (10.0%), control 13 of 149 (8.7%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, day 28. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 23.8% lower, RR 0.76, p = 0.68, treatment 4 of 83 (4.8%), control 5 of 81 (6.2%), NNT 74, odds ratio converted to relative risk, Table S2, day 29. | |
| Afşin, 8/1/2023, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 2 authors, study period August 2020 - November 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 16.7% lower, RR 0.83, p = 0.50, treatment 15 of 36 (41.7%), control 22 of 44 (50.0%), NNT 12. |
| Alamdari, 9/9/2020, retrospective, Iran, peer-reviewed, 14 authors, average treatment delay 5.72 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 55.0% lower, RR 0.45, p = 0.03, treatment 54 of 427 (12.6%), control 9 of 32 (28.1%), NNT 6.5. |
| Albanghali, 2/3/2022, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 34.6% higher, RR 1.35, p = 0.46, treatment 20 of 466 (4.3%), control 11 of 345 (3.2%). |
| Albani, 8/30/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically. | risk of death, 18.4% lower, RR 0.82, p = 0.15, treatment 60 of 211 (28.4%), control 172 of 605 (28.4%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, HCQ vs. neither. |
| risk of death, 9.0% higher, RR 1.09, p = 0.54, treatment 60 of 211 (28.4%), control 172 of 605 (28.4%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, HCQ+AZ vs. neither. | |
| risk of ICU admission, 9.2% higher, RR 1.09, p = 0.70, treatment 73 of 211 (34.6%), control 46 of 605 (7.6%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, HCQ vs. neither. | |
| risk of ICU admission, 71.3% higher, RR 1.71, p < 0.001, treatment 73 of 211 (34.6%), control 46 of 605 (7.6%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, HCQ+AZ vs. neither. | |
| Alberici, 5/10/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 31 authors, average treatment delay 4.0 days. | risk of death, 42.9% lower, RR 0.57, p = 0.12, treatment 17 of 72 (23.6%), control 9 of 22 (40.9%), NNT 5.8, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Alghamdi, 8/4/2021, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 1 author, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details; very late stage, ICU patients. | risk of death, 39.2% higher, RR 1.39, p = 0.52, treatment 29 of 128 (22.7%), control 7 of 43 (16.3%). |
| Alghamdi (B), 3/31/2021, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline. | risk of death, 6.9% higher, RR 1.07, p = 0.88, treatment 44 of 568 (7.7%), control 15 of 207 (7.2%). |
| Alhamlan, 7/16/2021, retrospective, database analysis, Saudi Arabia, preprint, 10 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically. | risk of death, 52.0% higher, HR 1.52, p = 0.57. |
| Almazrou, 10/1/2020, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 5 authors. | risk of mechanical ventilation, 65.0% lower, RR 0.35, p = 0.16, treatment 3 of 95 (3.2%), control 6 of 66 (9.1%), NNT 17. |
| risk of ICU admission, 21.0% lower, RR 0.79, p = 0.78, treatment 8 of 95 (8.4%), control 7 of 66 (10.6%), NNT 46. | |
| Alosaimi, 11/24/2022, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 13 authors, study period April 2020 - March 2021, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo. | risk of death, 400.0% higher, RR 5.00, p = 0.49, treatment 2 of 37 (5.4%), control 0 of 37 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), propensity score matching. |
| hospitalization time, 42.9% lower, relative time 0.57, p = 0.63, treatment 37, control 37, propensity score matching. | |
| time to discharge, 28.6% lower, relative time 0.71, p = 0.74, treatment 37, control 37, propensity score matching. | |
| Alotaibi, 9/14/2021, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo. | risk of death, 133.5% higher, RR 2.33, p = 0.05, treatment 193, control 244, multivariate. |
| AlQadheeb, 5/10/2023, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, mean age 55.8, 9 authors, study period March 2020 - August 2021. | risk of death, 34.8% lower, RR 0.65, p < 0.001, treatment 37 of 92 (40.2%), control 466 of 756 (61.6%), NNT 4.7. |
| AlQahtani, 3/23/2022, Randomized Controlled Trial, Bahrain, peer-reviewed, 14 authors, study period August 2020 - March 2021, trial NCT04387760 (history). | risk of ICU admission, 23.5% lower, RR 0.76, p = 1.00, treatment 3 of 51 (5.9%), control 4 of 52 (7.7%), NNT 55. |
| risk of no recovery, 4.1% lower, RR 0.96, p = 0.94, treatment 5 of 49 (10.2%), control 5 of 47 (10.6%), NNT 230. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 47.4% lower, RR 0.53, p = 0.13, treatment 7 of 38 (18.4%), control 14 of 40 (35.0%), NNT 6.0. | |
| Alqassieh, 12/10/2020, prospective, Jordan, preprint, 10 authors. | hospitalization time, 18.2% lower, relative time 0.82, p = 0.11, treatment 63, control 68. |
| Alshamrani, 2/15/2023, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 3 authors, study period March 2020 - January 2021. | 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. | |
| AlShehhi, 1/11/2024, retrospective, United Arab Emirates, peer-reviewed, 4 authors, study period 1 March, 2020 - 20 April, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of ICU admission, 42.8% lower, RR 0.57, p = 0.001, treatment 114 of 1,460 (7.8%), control 46 of 337 (13.6%), NNT 17. |
| Alwafi, 1/20/2022, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, study period 7 March, 2020 - 15 April, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | risk of no viral clearance, 14.7% lower, RR 0.85, p = 0.65, treatment 12 of 45 (26.7%), control 15 of 48 (31.2%), NNT 22, day 5, primary outcome. |
| risk of no viral clearance, 25.3% lower, RR 0.75, p = 0.60, treatment 7 of 45 (15.6%), control 10 of 48 (20.8%), NNT 19, day 12. | |
| An, 7/7/2020, retrospective, South Korea, preprint, 12 authors. | time to viral clearance, 3.0% lower, HR 0.97, p = 0.92, treatment 31, control 195. |
| Annie, 10/12/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, peer-reviewed, 5 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline. | risk of death, 4.3% lower, RR 0.96, p = 0.83, treatment 48 of 367 (13.1%), control 50 of 367 (13.6%), NNT 183, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| risk of death, 20.5% higher, RR 1.21, p = 0.46, treatment 29 of 199 (14.6%), control 24 of 199 (12.1%), odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| Aparisi, 10/8/2020, prospective, Spain, preprint, 18 authors, average treatment delay 7.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 63.0% lower, RR 0.37, p = 0.008, treatment 122 of 605 (20.2%), control 27 of 49 (55.1%), NNT 2.9. |
| Arshad, 7/1/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 12 authors. | risk of death, 51.3% lower, HR 0.49, p = 0.009, treatment 162 of 1,202 (13.5%), control 108 of 409 (26.4%), NNT 7.7. |
| Ashinyo, 9/15/2020, retrospective, Ghana, peer-reviewed, 16 authors. | hospitalization time, 33.0% lower, relative time 0.67, p = 0.03, treatment 61, control 61. |
| Assad, 10/21/2022, retrospective, Iraq, peer-reviewed, 1 author, study period June 2020 - September 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details; confounding by time possible, propensity to use HCQ changed significantly during the study period. | risk of death, 59.7% lower, RR 0.40, p = 0.002, treatment 9 of 72 (12.5%), control 68 of 219 (31.1%), NNT 5.4, enoxaparin+HCQ vs. enoxaparin. |
| Atipornwanich, 10/5/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Thailand, peer-reviewed, 16 authors, study period 19 October, 2020 - 20 July, 2021, dosage 400mg days 1-14, 800mg/day or 400mg/day, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with oseltamivir/favipiravir and duranivir/ritonavir for moderate/severe, oseltamivir and duranivir/ritonavir for mild) - results of individual treatments may vary, trial NCT04303299 (history). | risk of death, 56.2% lower, RR 0.44, p = 0.07, treatment 7 of 100 (7.0%), control 16 of 100 (16.0%), NNT 11, moderate/severe, HCQ arms vs. non-HCQ arms. |
| risk of progression, 54.2% lower, RR 0.46, p = 0.02, treatment 11 of 100 (11.0%), control 24 of 100 (24.0%), NNT 7.7, moderate/severe, HCQ arms vs. non-HCQ arms. | |
| time to viral-, 7.1% lower, relative time 0.93, p = 0.51, treatment mean 10.4 (±6.3) n=50, control mean 11.2 (±5.7) n=50, moderate/severe, oseltamivir arms, primary outcome. | |
| time to viral-, 6.9% lower, relative time 0.93, p = 0.47, treatment mean 9.5 (±5.0) n=50, control mean 10.2 (±4.6) n=50, moderate/severe, favipiravir arms, primary outcome. | |
| Auld, 4/26/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 14 authors. | risk of death, 2.8% higher, RR 1.03, p = 1.00, treatment 33 of 114 (28.9%), control 29 of 103 (28.2%). |
| Awad, 2/18/2021, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 4 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 19.1% higher, RR 1.19, p = 0.60, treatment 56 of 188 (29.8%), control 37 of 148 (25.0%). |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 460.7% higher, RR 5.61, p < 0.001, treatment 64 of 188 (34.0%), control 9 of 148 (6.1%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| risk of ICU admission, 463.4% higher, RR 5.63, p < 0.001, treatment 67 of 188 (35.6%), control 9 of 148 (6.1%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| Aweimer, 3/29/2023, retrospective, Germany, peer-reviewed, median age 67.0, 19 authors, study period 1 March, 2020 - 31 August, 2021. | risk of death, 40.2% lower, RR 0.60, p = 0.12, treatment 4 of 9 (44.4%), control 104 of 140 (74.3%), NNT 3.4. |
| Ayerbe, 9/30/2020, retrospective, database analysis, Spain, peer-reviewed, 3 authors. | risk of death, 52.2% lower, RR 0.48, p < 0.001, treatment 237 of 1,857 (12.8%), control 49 of 162 (30.2%), NNT 5.7, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Azaña Gómez, 3/10/2022, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, study period 1 March, 2020 - 1 October, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 35.8% lower, RR 0.64, p < 0.001, treatment 500 of 1,378 (36.3%), control 238 of 421 (56.5%), NNT 4.9. |
| Azimi Pirsaraei, 8/13/2024, retrospective, Iran, peer-reviewed, mean age 57.2, 5 authors, study period 20 March, 2020 - 20 June, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 39.2% lower, RR 0.61, p = 0.16, treatment 70 of 777 (9.0%), control 8 of 54 (14.8%), NNT 17. |
| Babalola, 10/1/2021, Single Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Nigeria, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary, trial PACTR202108891693522. | risk of no hospital discharge, 54.5% higher, RR 1.55, p = 0.20, treatment 17 of 30 (56.7%), control 11 of 30 (36.7%), day 7. |
| risk of no viral clearance, 9.5% lower, RR 0.90, p = 0.78, treatment 19 of 30 (63.3%), control 21 of 30 (70.0%), NNT 15, day 5 mid-recovery. | |
| Babayigit, 8/31/2022, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, mean age 51.9, 68 authors, study period 11 March, 2020 - 18 July, 2020. | risk of mechanical ventilation, 112.4% higher, RR 2.12, p = 0.21, treatment 63 of 1,378 (4.6%), control 6 of 94 (6.4%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariable. |
| risk of ICU admission, 52.8% higher, RR 1.53, p = 0.33, treatment 107 of 1,363 (7.9%), control 9 of 93 (9.7%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariable. | |
| hospitalization time, 16.7% higher, relative time 1.17, p = 0.05, treatment 852, control 63. | |
| Baguiya, 2/15/2021, retrospective, Burkina Faso, peer-reviewed, 15 authors, study period 9 March, 2020 - 23 April, 2020. | risk of death, 44.0% lower, HR 0.56, p = 0.14, treatment 150, control 58, adjusted per study, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards, day 12. |
| risk of death, 58.0% lower, HR 0.42, p = 0.11, treatment 150, control 58, adjusted per study, mortality within 24 hours excluded, propensity score matching, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards, day 12, Table S3. | |
| risk of no recovery, 3.0% lower, HR 0.97, p = 0.91, treatment 150, control 58, adjusted per study, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards, day 12. | |
| risk of no recovery, 22.0% lower, HR 0.78, p = 0.91, treatment 150, control 58, adjusted per study, mortality within 24 hours excluded, propensity score matching, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards, day 12, Table S3. | |
| Barbosa, 4/12/2020, retrospective, USA, preprint, 5 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | risk of death, 147.0% higher, RR 2.47, p = 0.58, treatment 2 of 17 (11.8%), control 1 of 21 (4.8%). |
| Barra, 7/31/2021, retrospective, Argentina, preprint, 13 authors, average treatment delay 5.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 10.8% lower, RR 0.89, p = 1.00, treatment 2 of 18 (11.1%), control 81 of 650 (12.5%), NNT 74, unadjusted. |
| Barrat-Due, 7/13/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Norway, peer-reviewed, 43 authors, study period 28 March, 2020 - 4 October, 2020, average treatment delay 8.0 days, trial NCT04321616 (history). | risk of death, 120.0% higher, RR 2.20, p = 0.35, treatment 4 of 45 (8.9%), control 2 of 48 (4.2%), adjusted per study. |
| Barry, 3/23/2021, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 14 authors. | risk of death, 98.9% lower, RR 0.01, p = 0.60, treatment 0 of 6 (0.0%), control 91 of 599 (15.2%), NNT 6.6, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| Bassets-Bosch, 4/30/2022, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 5 authors, study period 11 March, 2020 - 30 April, 2020, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | time to viral-, 29.2% lower, relative time 0.71, p = 0.45, treatment median 17.0 IQR 16.0 n=5, control median 24.0 IQR 21.0 n=5, onset to clearance. |
| Beaumont, 2/13/2022, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, 22 authors, average treatment delay 6.0 days. | risk of death/intubation, 14.1% lower, HR 0.86, p = 0.55, treatment 7 of 38 (18.4%), control 88 of 258 (34.1%), NNT 6.4, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, Cox proportional hazards. |
| Beltran Gonzalez, 2/23/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Mexico, peer-reviewed, mean age 53.8, 13 authors, study period 4 May, 2020 - 6 November, 2020, average treatment delay 7.0 days, trial NCT04391127 (history). | risk of death, 62.6% lower, RR 0.37, p = 0.27, treatment 2 of 33 (6.1%), control 6 of 37 (16.2%), NNT 9.8. |
| risk of respiratory deterioration or death, 25.3% lower, RR 0.75, p = 0.57, treatment 6 of 33 (18.2%), control 9 of 37 (24.3%), NNT 16. | |
| risk of no hospital discharge, 12.1% higher, RR 1.12, p = 1.00, treatment 3 of 33 (9.1%), control 3 of 37 (8.1%). | |
| Berenguer, 8/3/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, average treatment delay 7.0 days. | risk of death, 18.2% lower, RR 0.82, p < 0.001, treatment 681 of 2,618 (26.0%), control 438 of 1,377 (31.8%), NNT 17. |
| Bernaola, 7/21/2020, retrospective, Spain, preprint, 7 authors. | risk of death, 17.0% lower, HR 0.83, p < 0.001, treatment 236 of 1,498 (15.8%), control 28 of 147 (19.0%), NNT 30. |
| Bielza, 12/11/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 87.0, 24 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 21.5% lower, RR 0.78, p = 0.09, treatment 33 of 91 (36.3%), control 249 of 539 (46.2%), NNT 10. |
| Boari, 11/17/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 20 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 54.5% lower, RR 0.45, p < 0.001, treatment 41 of 202 (20.3%), control 25 of 56 (44.6%), NNT 4.1. |
| Bosaeed, 4/30/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 30 authors, study period 21 May, 2020 - 26 January, 2021, average treatment delay 5.85 days, trial NCT04392973 (history) (FACCT), excluded in exclusion analyses: very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline. | risk of death, 3.7% lower, RR 0.96, p = 0.91, treatment 14 of 125 (11.2%), control 15 of 129 (11.6%), NNT 234, 90 days. |
| risk of death, 28.6% lower, RR 0.71, p = 0.45, treatment 9 of 125 (7.2%), control 13 of 129 (10.1%), NNT 35, 28 days. | |
| risk of death, 65.1% higher, RR 1.65, p = 0.68, treatment 8 of 125 (6.4%), control 5 of 129 (3.9%), 14 days. | |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 8.4% higher, RR 1.08, p = 0.78, treatment 21 of 125 (16.8%), control 20 of 129 (15.5%). | |
| risk of ICU admission, 31.0% higher, RR 1.31, p = 0.24, treatment 33 of 125 (26.4%), control 26 of 129 (20.2%). | |
| recovery time, 28.6% higher, relative time 1.29, p = 0.29, treatment 125, control 129. | |
| hospitalization time, 12.5% higher, relative time 1.12, p = 0.42, treatment 125, control 129. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 2.6% lower, RR 0.97, p = 0.75, treatment 100 of 125 (80.0%), control 106 of 129 (82.2%), NNT 46. | |
| Bousquet, 6/23/2020, prospective, France, peer-reviewed, 10 authors. | risk of death, 42.8% lower, RR 0.57, p = 0.15, treatment 5 of 27 (18.5%), control 23 of 81 (28.4%), NNT 10, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Bowen, 8/25/2022, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, study period 1 March, 2020 - 31 March, 2021. | risk of death, 20.0% lower, HR 0.80, p = 0.007, treatment 1,317, control 3,314, Table S2, Cox proportional hazards. |
| Brouqui (B), 8/1/2024, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, 2 authors, study period 3 March, 2020 - 13 March, 2021. | viral clearance, 15.3% lower, HR 0.85, p = 0.04, treatment 776, control 500, adjusted per study, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards. |
| Bubenek-Turconi, 11/17/2022, prospective, Romania, peer-reviewed, 16 authors, study period March 2020 - March 2021. | risk of death, 22.0% lower, OR 0.78, p = 0.01, RR approximated with OR. |
| Budhiraja, 11/18/2020, retrospective, India, preprint, 12 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | risk of death, 65.4% lower, RR 0.35, p < 0.001, treatment 69 of 834 (8.3%), control 34 of 142 (23.9%), NNT 6.4. |
| Burdick, 11/26/2020, prospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 14 authors. | risk of death, 59.0% higher, HR 1.59, p = 0.12, treatment 142, control 148, adjusted per study, all patients. |
| risk of death, 71.0% lower, HR 0.29, p = 0.01, treatment 26, control 17, adjusted per study, subgroup of patients where treatment is predicted to be beneficial. | |
| Burhan, 9/25/2023, retrospective, Indonesia, peer-reviewed, 26 authors, study period January 2020 - March 2021. | risk of death, 1.3% higher, RR 1.01, p = 0.91, treatment 84 of 123 (68.3%), control 294 of 436 (67.4%). |
| Byakika-Kibwika, 6/4/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Uganda, preprint, 17 authors, study period October 2020 - December 2020. | recovery time, no change, relative time 1.00, p = 0.91, treatment 36, control 29. |
| relative improvement in Ct value, 29.3% better, RR 0.71, p = 0.47, treatment 15, control 15. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 2.6% higher, RR 1.03, p = 1.00, treatment 35 of 55 (63.6%), control 31 of 50 (62.0%), day 6. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 6.7% higher, RR 1.07, p = 0.85, treatment 27 of 55 (49.1%), control 23 of 50 (46.0%), day 10. | |
| Calderón, 11/23/2021, retrospective, Mexico, peer-reviewed, 7 authors, dosage 200mg bid days 1-7. | risk of death, 214.8% higher, RR 3.15, p = 0.38, treatment 5 of 27 (18.5%), control 1 of 17 (5.9%). |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 651.9% higher, RR 7.52, p = 0.15, treatment 4 of 27 (14.8%), control 0 of 17 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). | |
| risk of ICU admission, 145.5% higher, RR 2.45, p < 0.001, treatment 16 of 27 (59.3%), control 0 of 17 (0.0%), adjusted per study, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment. | |
| hospitalization time, 107.4% higher, relative time 2.07, p = 0.006, treatment 27, control 17. | |
| Cangiano, 12/22/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 14 authors. | risk of death, 73.4% lower, RR 0.27, p = 0.03, treatment 5 of 33 (15.2%), control 37 of 65 (56.9%), NNT 2.4. |
| Capsoni, 12/1/2020, retrospective, Italy, preprint, 13 authors, average treatment delay 7.0 days. | risk of mechanical ventilation, 40.0% lower, RR 0.60, p = 0.30, treatment 12 of 40 (30.0%), control 6 of 12 (50.0%), NNT 5.0. |
| Catteau, 8/24/2020, retrospective, database analysis, Belgium, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, average treatment delay 5.0 days. | risk of death, 32.0% lower, HR 0.68, p < 0.001, treatment 804 of 4,542 (17.7%), control 957 of 3,533 (27.1%), NNT 11. |
| Cavalcanti, 7/23/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, Brazil, peer-reviewed, baseline oxygen required 41.8%, 35 authors, study period 29 March, 2020 - 18 May, 2020, average treatment delay 7.0 days, trial NCT04322123 (history) (COALITION I). | risk of death, 16.0% lower, RR 0.84, p = 0.77, treatment 8 of 331 (2.4%), control 5 of 173 (2.9%), NNT 211, HCQ+HCQ/AZ. |
| risk of hospitalization, 28.0% higher, RR 1.28, p = 0.30, treatment 331, control 173, HCQ+HCQ/AZ. | |
| Chari, 12/24/2020, retrospective, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, median age 69.0, 25 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 33.1% lower, RR 0.67, p = 0.17, treatment 8 of 29 (27.6%), control 195 of 473 (41.2%), NNT 7.3. |
| Charif, 12/13/2022, retrospective, Morocco, peer-reviewed, mean age 62.5, 10 authors, study period August 2020 - September 2021, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 27.2% lower, RR 0.73, p < 0.001, treatment 138 of 358 (38.5%), control 136 of 257 (52.9%), NNT 7.0, HCQ vs. no HCQ. |
| Chen, 7/10/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, Taiwan, peer-reviewed, 19 authors, study period 1 April, 2020 - 31 May, 2020, trial NCT04384380 (history). | risk of no viral clearance, 24.0% lower, RR 0.76, p = 0.71, treatment 4 of 21 (19.0%), control 3 of 12 (25.0%), NNT 17, day 14. |
| median time to PCR-, 50.0% lower, relative time 0.50, p = 0.40, treatment 21, control 12. | |
| Chen (B), 7/10/2020, retrospective, Taiwan, peer-reviewed, 19 authors. | risk of no viral clearance, 29.0% higher, RR 1.29, p = 0.70, treatment 16 of 28 (57.1%), control 4 of 9 (44.4%), day 14. |
| Chen (C), 6/22/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, China, preprint, 19 authors, study period 18 February, 2020 - 30 March, 2020, dosage 200mg bid days 1-10. | time to clinical recovery, 20.0% lower, relative time 0.80, p = 0.51, treatment median 6.0 IQR 5.0 n=18, control median 7.5 IQR 11.25 n=12, HCQ. |
| time to clinical recovery, 26.7% lower, relative time 0.73, p = 0.36, treatment median 5.5 IQR 4.25 n=18, control median 7.5 IQR 11.25 n=12, CQ. | |
| median time to PCR-, 71.4% lower, relative time 0.29, p < 0.001, treatment median 2.0 IQR 1.5 n=18, control median 7.0 IQR 7.0 n=12, HCQ. | |
| median time to PCR-, 64.3% lower, relative time 0.36, p = 0.001, treatment median 2.5 IQR 1.8 n=18, control median 7.0 IQR 7.0 n=12, CQ. | |
| Chen (D), 3/31/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, China, preprint, 9 authors, study period 4 February, 2020 - 28 February, 2020. | risk of no improvement in pneumonia at day 6, 57.0% lower, RR 0.43, p = 0.04, treatment 6 of 31 (19.4%), control 14 of 31 (45.2%), NNT 3.9. |
| Chen (E), 3/6/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, China, peer-reviewed, 14 authors, study period 6 February, 2020 - 25 February, 2020, trial NCT04261517 (history). | risk of radiological progression, 29.0% lower, RR 0.71, p = 0.57, treatment 5 of 15 (33.3%), control 7 of 15 (46.7%), NNT 7.5. |
| risk of viral+ at day 7, 100% higher, RR 2.00, p = 1.00, treatment 2 of 15 (13.3%), control 1 of 15 (6.7%). | |
| Choi, 10/27/2020, retrospective, database analysis, South Korea, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | median time to PCR-, 22.0% higher, relative time 1.22, p < 0.001, treatment 701, control 701. |
| Coll, 10/23/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 61.0, 29 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 45.6% lower, RR 0.54, p < 0.001, treatment 55 of 307 (17.9%), control 108 of 328 (32.9%), NNT 6.7. |
| Corradini, 4/24/2021, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 60 authors, dosage not specified. | risk of death, 70.2% lower, OR 0.30, p < 0.001, treatment 1,439, control 274, adjusted per study, Table S6, all patients, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. |
| risk of death, 76.8% lower, OR 0.23, p < 0.001, treatment 546, control 71, adjusted per study, Table S6, mild condition patients, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. | |
| risk of death, 84.2% lower, OR 0.16, p < 0.001, treatment 184, control 64, adjusted per study, Table S6, moderate condition patients, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. | |
| risk of death, 29.0% higher, OR 1.29, p = 0.73, treatment 68, control 37, adjusted per study, Table S6, severe condition patients, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. | |
| Cortez, 11/11/2021, retrospective, Philippines, peer-reviewed, 29 authors, study period March 2020 - October 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 15.0% lower, RR 0.85, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 25 (4.0%), control 12 of 255 (4.7%), NNT 142. |
| Cravedi, 7/10/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, mean age 60.0, 25 authors, average treatment delay 6.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 53.0% higher, RR 1.53, p = 0.17, treatment 36 of 101 (35.6%), control 10 of 43 (23.3%). |
| Cárdenas-Jaén, 6/20/2023, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 57.0, 44 authors, study period May 2020 - September 2020, average treatment delay 7.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted for baseline differences with no group details. | risk of severe case, 56.2% lower, RR 0.44, p = 0.13, treatment 3 of 42 (7.1%), control 126 of 787 (16.0%), NNT 11, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| D'Arminio Monforte, 7/29/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 5 authors. | risk of death, 34.0% lower, HR 0.66, p = 0.12, treatment 53 of 197 (26.9%), control 47 of 92 (51.1%), NNT 4.1, adjusted per study. |
| Darcis, 8/31/2021, prospective, Belgium, peer-reviewed, mean age 60.5, 17 authors, study period 2 March, 2020 - 1 October, 2020. | risk of PASC, 32.0% lower, OR 0.68, p = 0.58, treatment 164, control 35, RR approximated with OR. |
| Davido, 8/2/2020, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, 14 authors. | risk of intubation/hospitalization, 55.0% lower, HR 0.45, p = 0.04, treatment 12 of 80 (15.0%), control 13 of 40 (32.5%), NNT 5.7. |
| de Gonzalo-Calvo, 6/17/2023, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 65.0, 46 authors, study period March 2020 - February 2021, trial NCT04457505 (history), excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 37.6% lower, RR 0.62, p = 0.23, treatment 6 of 32 (18.8%), control 138 of 459 (30.1%), NNT 8.8. |
| De Luna, 12/14/2020, retrospective, Dominican Republic, preprint, 10 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 104.5% higher, RR 2.05, p = 0.69, treatment 15 of 132 (11.4%), control 1 of 18 (5.6%). |
| De Rosa, 5/1/2021, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 20 authors, average treatment delay 6.0 days. | risk of death, 35.0% lower, RR 0.65, p = 0.02, treatment 118 of 731 (16.1%), control 80 of 280 (28.6%), NNT 8.0, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariate logistic regression, patients alive at day 7. |
| Delgado, 2/20/2023, retrospective, USA, preprint, 7 authors, study period 1 March, 2020 - 31 December, 2020. | risk of death, 26.0% lower, OR 0.74, p = 0.002, treatment 1,239, control 8,399, both periods combined, RR approximated with OR. |
| risk of death, 28.0% lower, OR 0.72, p = 0.001, treatment 1,157, control 2,064, early 2020, propensity score matching, RR approximated with OR. | |
| risk of death, 10.0% higher, OR 1.10, p = 0.82, treatment 82, control 6,335, late 2020, propensity score matching, RR approximated with OR. | |
| Değirmenci, 7/30/2024, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, mean age 29.3, 7 authors, study period March 2020 - January 2021. | risk of hospitalization, 42.8% lower, OR 0.57, p = 0.76, treatment 10, control 115, RR approximated with OR. |
| Di Castelnuovo, 1/29/2021, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 111 authors. | risk of death, 40.0% lower, RR 0.60, p < 0.001, treatment 3,270, control 1,000, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariate Cox proportional hazards model 4, control prevalence approximated with overall prevalence. |
| Di Castelnuovo (B), 8/25/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 106 authors. | risk of death, 30.0% lower, HR 0.70, p < 0.001, treatment 386 of 2,634 (14.7%), control 90 of 817 (11.0%), adjusted per study. |
| Dubee, 10/21/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, France, peer-reviewed, median age 77.0, 18 authors, study period 2 April, 2020 - 21 May, 2020, average treatment delay 5.0 days, trial NCT04325893 (history) (HYCOVID). | risk of death at day 28, 46.0% lower, RR 0.54, p = 0.21, treatment 6 of 124 (4.8%), control 11 of 123 (8.9%), NNT 24. |
| risk of combined intubation/death at day 28, 26.0% lower, RR 0.74, p = 0.48, treatment 9 of 124 (7.3%), control 12 of 123 (9.8%), NNT 40. | |
| Dubernet, 8/20/2020, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, median age 66.0, 20 authors. | risk of ICU admission, 87.6% lower, RR 0.12, p = 0.008, treatment 1 of 17 (5.9%), control 9 of 19 (47.4%), NNT 2.4. |
| Ebongue, 3/18/2022, retrospective, Cameroon, peer-reviewed, 27 authors, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 43.0% lower, HR 0.57, p = 0.04, treatment 93 of 522 (17.8%), control 36 of 58 (62.1%), NNT 2.3, adjusted per study, multivariable. | El-Sherbiny, 8/15/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, trial NCT04477083 (history). | Estimated 40 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Falcone, 11/19/2020, prospective, propensity score matching, Italy, peer-reviewed, 19 authors, average treatment delay 6.5 days. | risk of death, 65.0% lower, RR 0.35, p = 0.20, treatment 40 of 238 (16.8%), control 30 of 77 (39.0%), NNT 4.5, adjusted per study, PSM. |
| risk of death, 25.0% lower, RR 0.75, p = 0.36, treatment 40 of 238 (16.8%), control 30 of 77 (39.0%), NNT 4.5, adjusted per study, multivariate Cox regression. | |
| risk of death, 57.0% lower, RR 0.43, p < 0.001, treatment 40 of 238 (16.8%), control 30 of 77 (39.0%), NNT 4.5, adjusted per study, univariate Cox regression. | Farooq, 6/28/2020, Single Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04328272 (history). | Estimated 75 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Faíco-Filho, 6/21/2020, prospective, Brazil, peer-reviewed, median age 58.0, 6 authors. | Δt7-12 ΔCt improvement, 80.8% lower, RR 0.19, p = 0.40, treatment 34, control 32, mid-recovery, relative median Ct improvement, Figure 2. |
| Δt<7 ΔCt improvement, 24.0% lower, RR 0.76, p = 0.36, treatment 34, control 32, relative median Ct improvement, Figure 2. | |
| Δt>12 ΔCt improvement, 15.0% higher, RR 1.15, p = 0.52, treatment 34, control 32, relative median Ct improvement, Figure 2. | |
| Fernández-Cruz, 1/31/2022, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, study period March 2020 - May 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 27.0% lower, RR 0.73, p = 0.47, treatment 23 of 63 (36.5%), control 4 of 8 (50.0%), NNT 7.4. |
| Ferreira, 11/26/2021, retrospective, Brazil, peer-reviewed, 5 authors, study period 12 March, 2020 - 8 July, 2020, average treatment delay 7.0 days, dosage not specified. | risk of death, 151.5% higher, RR 2.51, p = 0.03, treatment 17 of 111 (15.3%), control 11 of 81 (13.6%), odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariate. |
| risk of death/intubation, 45.9% higher, RR 1.46, p = 0.23, treatment 30 of 111 (27.0%), control 15 of 81 (18.5%). | |
| risk of death/intubation/ICU, 61.3% higher, RR 1.61, p = 0.04, treatment 42 of 111 (37.8%), control 19 of 81 (23.5%). | |
| Fontana, 6/22/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 8 authors. | risk of death, 50.0% lower, RR 0.50, p = 0.53, treatment 4 of 12 (33.3%), control 2 of 3 (66.7%), NNT 3.0. |
| Fried, 8/28/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 27.0% higher, RR 1.27, p < 0.001, treatment 1,048 of 4,232 (24.8%), control 1,466 of 7,489 (19.6%). |
| Frontera, 10/26/2020, retrospective, propensity score matching, USA, preprint, median age 64.0, 14 authors, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with zinc) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 37.0% lower, HR 0.63, p = 0.01, treatment 121 of 1,006 (12.0%), control 424 of 2,467 (17.2%), NNT 19, adjusted per study, PSM. |
| risk of death, 24.0% lower, HR 0.76, p = 0.02, treatment 121 of 1,006 (12.0%), control 424 of 2,467 (17.2%), NNT 19, adjusted per study, regression. | |
| Gadhiya, 4/8/2021, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 4 authors, dosage not specified, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 4.8% higher, RR 1.05, p = 0.89, treatment 22 of 55 (40.0%), control 33 of 216 (15.3%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariate logistic regression. |
| Geleris, 5/7/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 12 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: significant issues found with adjustments. | risk of death/intubation, 4.0% higher, HR 1.04, p = 0.76, treatment 262 of 811 (32.3%), control 84 of 565 (14.9%), adjusted per study. |
| Gerlovin, 6/24/2021, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 21 authors. | risk of death, 22.0% higher, HR 1.22, p = 0.18, treatment 90 of 429 (21.0%), control 141 of 770 (18.3%), adjusted per study, HCQ+AZ. |
| risk of death, 21.0% higher, HR 1.21, p = 0.33, treatment 49 of 228 (21.5%), control 141 of 770 (18.3%), adjusted per study, HCQ. | |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 55.0% higher, HR 1.55, p = 0.02, treatment 64 of 429 (14.9%), control 69 of 770 (9.0%), adjusted per study, HCQ+AZ. | |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 33.0% higher, HR 1.33, p = 0.25, treatment 32 of 228 (14.0%), control 69 of 770 (9.0%), adjusted per study, HCQ. | |
| Go, 9/27/2022, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 2 authors, study period March 2020 - June 2020, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 55.0% lower, HR 0.45, p = 0.03, adjusted per study, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards. |
| Goldman, 5/27/2020, retrospective, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, 26 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 22.3% lower, RR 0.78, p = 0.46, treatment 10 of 109 (9.2%), control 34 of 288 (11.8%), NNT 38. |
| Gonzalez, 8/21/2020, retrospective, database analysis, Spain, preprint, 25 authors. | risk of death, 26.6% lower, RR 0.73, p = 0.06, treatment 1,246 of 8,476 (14.7%), control 341 of 1,168 (29.2%), NNT 6.9, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Guglielmetti (B), 10/25/2021, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 19 authors, study period 21 February, 2020 - 15 May, 2020. | risk of death, 28.0% lower, HR 0.72, p = 0.10, treatment 474, control 126, multivariable Cox proportional hazards. |
| Guglielmetti, 12/9/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 16 authors, average treatment delay 8.0 days. | risk of death, 35.0% lower, RR 0.65, p = 0.22, treatment 181, control 37, adjusted per study, multivariable Cox. |
| Guisado-Vasco (B), 10/15/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 69.0, 25 authors. | risk of death, 20.3% lower, RR 0.80, p = 0.36, treatment 127 of 558 (22.8%), control 14 of 49 (28.6%), NNT 17, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Gupta, 7/15/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, baseline oxygen required 87.1%, 34 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline. | risk of death, 6.3% higher, RR 1.06, p = 0.41, treatment 631 of 1,761 (35.8%), control 153 of 454 (33.7%). |
| risk of death, 3.7% lower, RR 0.96, p = 0.53, treatment 388 of 1,117 (34.7%), control 396 of 1,098 (36.1%), NNT 75, HCQ+AZ. | |
| Güner, 12/29/2020, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 23 authors. | risk of ICU admission, 77.3% lower, RR 0.23, p = 0.16, treatment 604, control 100, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, IPTW multivariate analysis, HCQ vs. favipiravir. |
| Hafez, 4/8/2022, retrospective, United Arab Emirates, peer-reviewed, 6 authors. | viral clearance time, 12.3% lower, HR 0.88, p = 0.59, treatment 40, control 1,446, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, Cox proportional hazards. |
| viral clearance time, 58.7% lower, HR 0.41, p = 0.09, treatment 4, control 1,446, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, HCQ + favipiravir + lopinavir/ritonavir, Cox proportional hazards. | |
| Haji Aghajani, 4/29/2021, retrospective, Iran, peer-reviewed, 7 authors. | risk of death, 19.5% lower, HR 0.81, p = 0.09, treatment 553, control 438, adjusted per study, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards, RR approximated with OR. |
| Hall, 2/18/2022, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 15 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 11.2% lower, RR 0.89, p = 0.31, treatment 31 of 56 (55.4%), control 280 of 449 (62.4%), NNT 14. | Hawari, 7/20/2022, Randomized Controlled Trial, trial NCT05113810 (history). | Estimated 110 patient RCT with results unknown and over 2 years late. |
| Heberto, 9/12/2020, prospective, Mexico, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 53.9% lower, RR 0.46, p = 0.04, treatment 139, control 115, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 65.1% lower, RR 0.35, p = 0.008, treatment 139, control 115, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| Hernandez-Cardenas, 2/5/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Mexico, preprint, 6 authors, study period 8 April, 2020 - 12 July, 2020, average treatment delay 7.4 days. | risk of death, 12.0% lower, RR 0.88, p = 0.66, treatment 106, control 108. |
| risk of death, 57.0% lower, RR 0.43, p = 0.29, subgroup not intubated at baseline. | |
| Higgins, 12/16/2022, Randomized Controlled Trial, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, 1896 authors, study period 9 March, 2020 - 22 June, 2021, trial NCT02735707 (history) (REMAP-CAP). | risk of death, 51.0% higher, HR 1.51, p = 0.06, treatment 16 of 41 (39.0%), control 107 of 311 (34.4%), adjusted per study, day 180. |
| Ho, 3/31/2023, retrospective, Malaysia, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, average treatment delay 8.05 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | risk of progression, 889.7% higher, RR 9.90, p = 0.03, treatment 4 of 91 (4.4%), control 1 of 234 (0.4%), odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Hofmann-Winkler, 11/16/2020, retrospective, Germany, peer-reviewed, 19 authors, study period March 2020 - May 2020, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo. | risk of death, 140.0% higher, RR 2.40, p = 0.55, treatment 2 of 5 (40.0%), control 1 of 6 (16.7%). |
| Hong (B), 5/4/2022, retrospective, South Korea, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, study period 28 February, 2020 - 28 April, 2020. | recovery time, 24.9% lower, HR 0.75, p = 0.45, treatment 15, control 15, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, propensity score matching. |
| hospitalization time, 12.7% higher, HR 1.13, p = 0.75, treatment 15, control 15, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, propensity score matching. | |
| viral clearance time, 0.5% lower, HR 1.00, p = 0.99, treatment 15, control 15, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, propensity score matching. | |
| Hraiech, 5/24/2020, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, average treatment delay 7.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: very late stage, ICU patients. | risk of death, 64.7% lower, RR 0.35, p = 0.21, treatment 2 of 17 (11.8%), control 5 of 15 (33.3%), NNT 4.6, day 38 +- 7. |
| risk of death, 376.5% higher, RR 4.76, p = 0.49, treatment 2 of 17 (11.8%), control 0 of 15 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), day 6 from ARDS. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 2.9% higher, RR 1.03, p = 1.00, treatment 14 of 17 (82.4%), control 8 of 10 (80.0%), day 6 from treatment. | |
| Huang (D), 5/28/2020, prospective, China, peer-reviewed, 36 authors. | time to viral-, 67.0% lower, relative time 0.33, p < 0.001, treatment 197, control 176. |
| time to viral-, 59.1% lower, relative time 0.41, p < 0.001, treatment 32, control 37, early treatment. | |
| Ip (B), 5/25/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, peer-reviewed, 32 authors, average treatment delay 5.0 days. | risk of death, 1.0% lower, HR 0.99, p = 0.93, treatment 432 of 1,914 (22.6%), control 115 of 598 (19.2%), adjusted per study. |
| Jacobs, 7/6/2021, prospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 14 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically. | risk of death, 6.6% lower, RR 0.93, p = 0.74, treatment 24 of 46 (52.2%), control 86 of 154 (55.8%), NNT 27. |
| Johnston, 12/9/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, peer-reviewed, 30 authors, study period 15 April, 2020 - 27 July, 2020, average treatment delay 5.9 days, dosage 400mg bid day 1, 200mg bid days 2-10, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo, trial NCT04354428 (history). | risk of hospitalization, 29.9% lower, RR 0.70, p = 0.73, treatment 5 of 148 (3.4%), control 4 of 83 (4.8%), NNT 69, HCQ + folic acid and HCQ + AZ vs. vitamin C + folic acid. |
| risk of no recovery, 2.0% lower, RR 0.98, p = 0.95, treatment 30 of 60 (50.0%), control 34 of 72 (47.2%), adjusted per study, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, HCQ + folic acid vs. vitamin C + folic acid. | |
| risk of no recovery, 9.9% higher, RR 1.10, p = 0.70, treatment 34 of 65 (52.3%), control 34 of 72 (47.2%), adjusted per study, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, HCQ + AZ vs. vitamin C + folic acid. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 38.3% lower, RR 0.62, p = 0.047, treatment 6 of 49 (12.2%), control 12 of 52 (23.1%), NNT 9.2, adjusted per study, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, HCQ + folic acid vs. vitamin C + folic acid. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 20.0% lower, RR 0.80, p = 0.49, treatment 11 of 51 (21.6%), control 12 of 52 (23.1%), adjusted per study, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, HCQ + AZ vs. vitamin C + folic acid. | |
| Kalligeros, 8/5/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 13 authors, average treatment delay 6.0 days. | risk of death, 67.0% higher, HR 1.67, p = 0.57, treatment 36, control 72. |
| Kamran, 8/4/2020, prospective, Pakistan, preprint, 10 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | risk of progression, 5.0% lower, RR 0.95, p = 1.00, treatment 11 of 349 (3.2%), control 5 of 151 (3.3%), NNT 627. |
| risk of progression, 54.8% lower, RR 0.45, p = 0.30, treatment 4 of 31 (12.9%), control 2 of 7 (28.6%), NNT 6.4, with comorbidities. | |
| risk of viral+ at day 14, 10.0% higher, RR 1.10, p = 0.52, treatment 349, control 151. | |
| Karruli, 9/1/2021, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 13 authors, study period March 2020 - May 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 4.8% lower, RR 0.95, p = 1.00, treatment 20 of 28 (71.4%), control 3 of 4 (75.0%), NNT 28. |
| Kelly, 7/22/2020, retrospective, Ireland, peer-reviewed, 14 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 143.0% higher, RR 2.43, p = 0.03, treatment 23 of 82 (28.0%), control 6 of 52 (11.5%). |
| Kim, 10/22/2024, retrospective, South Korea, peer-reviewed, 7 authors, study period 8 October, 2020 - 31 December, 2021. | risk of death, 15.0% lower, OR 0.85, p = 0.62, treatment 135, control 63,234, adjusted per study, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. |
| Kim (C), 5/18/2020, retrospective, South Korea, preprint, 12 authors. | hospitalization time, 51.0% lower, relative time 0.49, p = 0.01, treatment 22, control 40. |
| time to viral-, 56.0% lower, relative time 0.44, p = 0.005, treatment 22, control 40. | |
| Kokturk, 4/28/2021, retrospective, database analysis, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 68 authors. | risk of death, 3.8% higher, RR 1.04, p = 0.97, treatment 62 of 1,382 (4.5%), control 5 of 118 (4.2%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Komissarov, 6/30/2020, retrospective, Russia, preprint, 8 authors. | risk of viral load, 25.0% higher, RR 1.25, p = 0.45, treatment 26, control 10. |
| Krishnan (B), 4/5/2023, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, mean age 52.8, 48 authors, study period March 2020 - March 2021. | risk of death, 40.0% lower, OR 0.60, p = 0.05, treatment 603, control 1,828, adjusted per study, case control OR, multivariable. |
| Krishnan, 7/20/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 13 authors, dosage not specified, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 20.4% lower, RR 0.80, p = 0.48, treatment 86 of 144 (59.7%), control 6 of 8 (75.0%), NNT 6.5. |
| Kuderer, 5/28/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 73 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 134.2% higher, RR 2.34, p < 0.001, treatment 45 of 181 (24.9%), control 76 of 747 (10.2%), odds ratio converted to relative risk, HCQ+AZ. |
| Lagier, 6/4/2021, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, 32 authors. | risk of death, 32.0% lower, HR 0.68, p = 0.004, treatment 93 of 1,270 (7.3%), control 146 of 841 (17.4%), NNT 10.0, adjusted per study, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards. |
| Lagier (B), 6/25/2020, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, 22 authors, dosage 200mg tid days 1-10. | risk of death, 59.0% lower, HR 0.41, p = 0.048, treatment 35 of 3,119 (1.1%), control 58 of 618 (9.4%), adjusted per study. |
| Lamback, 2/19/2021, retrospective, Brazil, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically. | risk of death, 8.9% lower, RR 0.91, p = 0.83, treatment 11 of 101 (10.9%), control 11 of 92 (12.0%), NNT 94. |
| risk of ICU admission, 19.9% higher, RR 1.20, p = 0.61, treatment 25 of 101 (24.8%), control 19 of 92 (20.7%). | |
| Lambermont, 11/28/2020, retrospective, Belgium, peer-reviewed, 15 authors. | risk of death, 32.3% lower, RR 0.68, p = 0.46, treatment 97 of 225 (43.1%), control 14 of 22 (63.6%), NNT 4.9, adjusted per study. |
| Lammers, 9/29/2020, prospective, Netherlands, peer-reviewed, 18 authors. | risk of death/ICU, 32.0% lower, HR 0.68, p = 0.02, treatment 30 of 189 (15.9%), control 101 of 498 (20.3%), adjusted per study. |
| Lano, 10/21/2020, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, median age 73.5, 30 authors. | risk of death, 33.1% lower, RR 0.67, p = 0.28, treatment 56, control 66, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| risk of death/ICU, 38.9% lower, RR 0.61, p = 0.23, treatment 17 of 56 (30.4%), control 28 of 66 (42.4%), NNT 8.3, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| risk of death/ICU, 68.7% lower, RR 0.31, p = 0.11, treatment 4 of 36 (11.1%), control 11 of 31 (35.5%), NNT 4.1, not requiring O2 on diagnosis (relatively early treatment). | |
| Lauriola, 9/14/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, mean age 71.8, 10 authors. | risk of death, 73.5% lower, HR 0.27, p < 0.001, treatment 102 of 297 (34.3%), control 35 of 63 (55.6%), NNT 4.7, adjusted per study. |
| Lavilla Olleros, 1/21/2022, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 22 authors. | risk of death, 36.2% lower, RR 0.64, p < 0.001, treatment 2,285 of 12,772 (17.9%), control 774 of 2,149 (36.0%), NNT 5.5, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariable. |
| Lecronier, 7/11/2020, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, baseline oxygen required 100.0%, 26 authors, HCQ vs. control, excluded in exclusion analyses: very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline. | risk of death, 42.0% lower, RR 0.58, p = 0.24, treatment 9 of 38 (23.7%), control 9 of 22 (40.9%), NNT 5.8. |
| risk of treatment escalation, 6.0% lower, RR 0.94, p = 0.73, treatment 15 of 38 (39.5%), control 9 of 22 (40.9%), NNT 70. | |
| risk of viral+ at day 7, 15.0% lower, RR 0.85, p = 0.61, treatment 19 of 26 (73.1%), control 12 of 14 (85.7%), NNT 7.9. | Levi, 12/11/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04355052 (history) (COSTA). | Estimated 250 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Li (B), 1/18/2021, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, 21 authors. | risk of no hospital discharge, 50.0% lower, HR 0.50, p = 0.09, treatment 14, control 14, RCT patients vs. matched sample of non-treated patients. |
| Li (C), 1/12/2021, retrospective, database analysis, China, preprint, 5 authors. | time to viral-, 40.0% higher, relative time 1.40, p = 0.06, treatment 18, control 19. |
| Lora-Tamayo, 2/11/2021, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 10 authors. | risk of death, 50.5% lower, RR 0.50, p < 0.001, treatment 7,192, control 1,361, odds ratio converted to relative risk, univariate, control prevalence approximated with overall prevalence. |
| Lotfy, 1/1/2021, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, mean age 55.0, 3 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 24.8% higher, RR 1.25, p = 0.76, treatment 6 of 99 (6.1%), control 5 of 103 (4.9%). |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 41.2% higher, RR 1.41, p = 0.34, treatment 19 of 99 (19.2%), control 14 of 103 (13.6%). | |
| risk of ICU admission, 16.5% higher, RR 1.17, p = 0.53, treatment 28 of 99 (28.3%), control 25 of 103 (24.3%). | |
| Luo, 6/17/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 31 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 2.2% higher, RR 1.02, p = 0.99, treatment 11 of 35 (31.4%), control 4 of 13 (30.8%), odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Luo (B), 5/21/2020, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, 9 authors. | risk of death, 32.4% lower, OR 0.68, p = 0.72, treatment 19, control 264, inverted to make OR<1 favor treatment, multivariate, RR approximated with OR. |
| Lyashchenko, 8/12/2022, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, study period March 2020 - June 2020, average treatment delay 9.5 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 47.7% higher, RR 1.48, p < 0.001, treatment 389 of 1,419 (27.4%), control 341 of 1,837 (18.6%). |
| Lyngbakken, 7/17/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, Norway, peer-reviewed, median age 62.0, 11 authors, average treatment delay 8.0 days, trial NCT04316377 (history). | risk of death, 3.7% lower, RR 0.96, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 27 (3.7%), control 1 of 26 (3.8%), NNT 702. |
| improvement in viral load reduction rate, 71.0% lower, relative rate 0.29, p = 0.51, treatment 27, control 26. | |
| López, 11/2/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 7 authors. | risk of progression, 64.3% lower, RR 0.36, p = 0.02, treatment 5 of 36 (13.9%), control 14 of 36 (38.9%), NNT 4.0. |
| Magagnoli, 4/21/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, peer-reviewed, 7 authors. | risk of death, 11.0% lower, HR 0.89, p = 0.74, treatment 39 of 148 (26.4%), control 18 of 163 (11.0%), adjusted per study, HCQ+AZ w/dispositions. |
| risk of death, 1.0% lower, HR 0.99, p = 0.98, treatment 30 of 114 (26.3%), control 18 of 163 (11.0%), adjusted per study, HCQ w/dispositions. | |
| risk of death, 31.0% higher, HR 1.31, p = 0.28, treatment 49 of 214 (22.9%), control 37 of 395 (9.4%), adjusted per study, HCQ+AZ. | |
| risk of death, 83.0% higher, HR 1.83, p = 0.009, treatment 38 of 198 (19.2%), control 37 of 395 (9.4%), adjusted per study, HCQ. | |
| Mahale, 12/31/2020, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, 22 authors, study period 22 March, 2020 - 21 May, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 28.7% lower, RR 0.71, p = 0.36, treatment 25 of 102 (24.5%), control 11 of 32 (34.4%), NNT 10. |
| Mahévas, 5/14/2020, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, 34 authors, average treatment delay 7.0 days. | risk of death, 20.0% higher, HR 1.20, p = 0.75, treatment 9 of 84 (10.7%), control 8 of 89 (9.0%), adjusted per study. |
| Maldonado, 11/5/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: treatment or control group size extremely small. | risk of death, 90.9% lower, RR 0.09, p = 0.17, treatment 1 of 11 (9.1%), control 1 of 1 (100.0%), NNT 1.1. |
| Mallat, 5/2/2020, retrospective, United Arab Emirates, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, average treatment delay 4.0 days. | time to viral-, 203.0% higher, relative time 3.03, p = 0.02, treatment 23, control 11, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment. |
| Malundo, 7/14/2022, retrospective, Philippines, peer-reviewed, 16 authors, study period 12 March, 2021 - 9 September, 2021, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 24.4% higher, RR 1.24, p = 0.32, treatment 20 of 90 (22.2%), control 201 of 1,125 (17.9%). |
| Martin-Vicente, 3/8/2021, retrospective, Spain, preprint, 38 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details; treatment or control group size extremely small. | risk of death, 59.3% lower, RR 0.41, p = 0.41, treatment 37 of 91 (40.7%), control 1 of 1 (100.0%), NNT 1.7. |
| Martinez-Lopez, 6/30/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 71.0, 25 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 33.0% lower, RR 0.67, p = 0.20, treatment 47 of 148 (31.8%), control 9 of 19 (47.4%), NNT 6.4. |
| Matangila, 12/18/2020, retrospective, DR Congo, peer-reviewed, median age 54.0, 12 authors, average treatment delay 7.0 days. | risk of death, 54.9% lower, RR 0.45, p = 0.21, treatment 25 of 147 (17.0%), control 8 of 13 (61.5%), NNT 2.2, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| McGrail, 7/19/2020, retrospective, USA, preprint, 2 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | risk of death, 70.0% higher, RR 1.70, p = 0.69, treatment 4 of 33 (12.1%), control 3 of 42 (7.1%). |
| Meeus (B), 9/30/2023, retrospective, Belgium, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, study period 16 March, 2020 - 20 May, 2020, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with AZ) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 36.5% lower, RR 0.64, p = 0.005, treatment 59 of 352 (16.8%), control 916 of 3,533 (25.9%), NNT 11, adjusted per study, MI model. |
| Mehrizi, 12/18/2023, retrospective, Iran, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, study period 1 February, 2020 - 20 March, 2022. | risk of death, 26.0% lower, OR 0.74, p < 0.001, RR approximated with OR. |
| Membrillo de Novales, 5/5/2020, retrospective, Spain, preprint, 19 authors, average treatment delay 7.0 days. | risk of death, 55.1% lower, RR 0.45, p = 0.002, treatment 27 of 123 (22.0%), control 21 of 43 (48.8%), NNT 3.7. |
| Menardi, 9/30/2021, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 35.2% lower, RR 0.65, p = 0.12, treatment 32 of 200 (16.0%), control 19 of 77 (24.7%), NNT 12. | Mežnar, 7/31/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, trial NCT04355026 (history). | Estimated 90 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Mikami, 6/30/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 7 authors. | risk of death, 47.0% lower, HR 0.53, p < 0.001, treatment 575 of 2,077 (27.7%), control 231 of 743 (31.1%), adjusted per study. |
| Modrák, 12/4/2020, retrospective, Czech Republic, preprint, 27 authors. | risk of death, 59.0% lower, RR 0.41, p = 0.04, treatment 108, control 105, Cox (single). |
| Mohandas, 4/26/2021, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; unadjusted results with no group details; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically. | risk of death, 81.0% higher, RR 1.81, p = 0.007, treatment 27 of 384 (7.0%), control 115 of 2,961 (3.9%). | Mordmüller, 2/26/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04342221 (history). | 30 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Mulhem, 4/7/2021, retrospective, database analysis, USA, peer-reviewed, 3 authors, dosage not specified, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically. | risk of death, 28.3% higher, RR 1.28, p = 0.10, treatment 435 of 2,496 (17.4%), control 81 of 723 (11.2%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, logistic regression. |
| Nachega, 10/2/2020, retrospective, database analysis, DR Congo, peer-reviewed, median age 46.0, 25 authors. | risk of death, 27.6% lower, RR 0.72, p = 0.17, treatment 69 of 630 (11.0%), control 28 of 96 (29.2%), NNT 5.5, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| risk of no improvement, 25.8% better, RR 0.74, p = 0.13, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| Naseem, 12/14/2020, retrospective, Pakistan, preprint, 5 authors. | risk of death, 33.3% lower, RR 0.67, p = 0.34, treatment 77, control 1,137, multivariate Cox. |
| Niwas, 11/1/2020, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, mean age 45.5, 17 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | recovery time, 29.2% lower, relative time 0.71, p = 0.008, treatment mean 6.3 (±2.7) n=12, control mean 8.9 (±2.2) n=17. |
| risk of no viral clearance, 183.3% higher, RR 2.83, p = 0.55, treatment 2 of 12 (16.7%), control 1 of 17 (5.9%). | |
| Novartis, 7/27/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, preprint, 1 author, trial NCT04358081 (history). | risk of death, 70.6% lower, RR 0.29, p = 0.42, treatment 0 of 7 (0.0%), control 1 of 5 (20.0%), NNT 5.0, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), day 15. |
| risk of no hospital discharge, 70.6% lower, RR 0.29, p = 0.42, treatment 0 of 7 (0.0%), control 1 of 5 (20.0%), NNT 5.0, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), day 15. | |
| risk of no improvement, 70.6% lower, RR 0.29, p = 0.42, treatment 0 of 7 (0.0%), control 1 of 5 (20.0%), NNT 5.0, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), clinical response, day 15. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 78.6% higher, RR 1.79, p = 0.56, treatment 5 of 7 (71.4%), control 2 of 5 (40.0%), day 10. | |
| Núñez-Gil, 9/9/2022, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 32 authors. | risk of death, 53.0% lower, OR 0.47, p < 0.001, treatment 581, control 581, propensity score matching, RR approximated with OR. |
| Núñez-Gil (B), 11/9/2020, retrospective, database analysis, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, median age 68.0, 49 authors. | risk of death, 7.9% lower, RR 0.92, p = 0.005, treatment 200 of 686 (29.2%), control 100 of 268 (37.3%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Omma, 1/31/2022, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, study period 1 April, 2020 - 31 December, 2020. | risk of death, 28.2% lower, RR 0.72, p = 0.30, treatment 17 of 213 (8.0%), control 20 of 180 (11.1%), NNT 32. |
| risk of ICU admission, 50.2% lower, RR 0.50, p = 0.004, treatment 23 of 213 (10.8%), control 39 of 180 (21.7%), NNT 9.2. | |
| hospitalization time, 16.7% lower, relative time 0.83, p = 0.007, treatment 213, control 180. | |
| Orioli, 12/14/2020, retrospective, Belgium, peer-reviewed, 9 authors. | risk of death, 12.7% lower, RR 0.87, p = 1.00, treatment 8 of 55 (14.5%), control 3 of 18 (16.7%), NNT 47. |
| Osawa, 7/1/2022, retrospective, Brazil, peer-reviewed, mean age 62.7, 2 authors, study period 18 March, 2020 - 26 October, 2020. | risk of death, 28.6% lower, RR 0.71, p = 0.07, treatment 25 of 71 (35.2%), control 71 of 144 (49.3%), NNT 7.1. |
| Ouedraogo, 2/5/2021, retrospective, Burkina Faso, peer-reviewed, 14 authors. | risk of death, 33.0% lower, HR 0.67, p = 0.38, treatment 397, control 59, multivariate. |
| risk of ARDS, 68.0% lower, OR 0.32, p = 0.001, treatment 397, control 59, multivariate, RR approximated with OR. | |
| Ozturk, 12/4/2020, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 71 authors. | risk of death, 43.9% lower, RR 0.56, p = 0.14, treatment 165 of 1,127 (14.6%), control 6 of 23 (26.1%), NNT 8.7, CQ/HCQ. |
| Pablos, 8/12/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, mean age 63.0, 15 authors. | risk of severe case, 126.0% higher, OR 2.26, p = 0.002, treatment 172, control 56, RR approximated with OR. |
| Paccoud, 6/18/2020, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, 20 authors. | risk of death, 11.0% lower, HR 0.89, p = 0.88, treatment 21 of 38 (55.3%), control 26 of 46 (56.5%), NNT 79, adjusted per study. |
| Panda, 9/30/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, India, peer-reviewed, 13 authors, study period June 2020 - May 2021, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with ribavirin) - results of individual treatments may vary, trial CTRI/2020/06/025575. | risk of death, 47.5% lower, RR 0.53, p = 0.45, treatment 3 of 20 (15.0%), control 6 of 21 (28.6%), NNT 7.4. |
| Pasquini, 8/23/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 9 authors, average treatment delay 10.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 16.4% lower, RR 0.84, p = 0.34, treatment 23 of 33 (69.7%), control 15 of 18 (83.3%), NNT 7.3. |
| Peng, 12/4/2020, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, 21 authors. | risk of progression, 10.8% lower, RR 0.89, p = 0.63, treatment 29 of 453 (6.4%), control 256 of 3,567 (7.2%), NNT 129, CQ/HCQ risk of AKI. |
| Peters, 8/15/2020, retrospective, Netherlands, peer-reviewed, 21 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | risk of death, 9.0% higher, HR 1.09, p = 0.57, treatment 419 of 1,596 (26.3%), control 53 of 353 (15.0%), adjusted per study. |
| Pinato, 8/18/2020, retrospective, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, 72 authors. | risk of death, 59.0% lower, HR 0.41, p < 0.001, treatment 30 of 182 (16.5%), control 181 of 446 (40.6%), NNT 4.1. |
| Psevdos, 12/31/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 3 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details; no treatment details; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 63.5% higher, RR 1.63, p = 0.52, treatment 17 of 52 (32.7%), control 3 of 15 (20.0%). |
| Purwati (B), 2/9/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Indonesia, peer-reviewed, 29 authors, study period July 2020 - August 2020. | risk of no viral clearance, 66.3% lower, RR 0.34, p < 0.001, treatment 38 of 121 (31.4%), control 111 of 119 (93.3%), NNT 1.6, day 7. |
| Qin, 11/23/2020, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, 17 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 34.3% lower, RR 0.66, p = 0.61, treatment 3 of 43 (7.0%), control 75 of 706 (10.6%), NNT 27. |
| Ramírez-García, 5/31/2021, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 5 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 67.0% lower, RR 0.33, p < 0.001, treatment 48 of 350 (13.7%), control 22 of 53 (41.5%), NNT 3.6. |
| risk of ICU admission, 6.0% higher, RR 1.06, p = 1.00, treatment 35 of 350 (10.0%), control 5 of 53 (9.4%). | |
| RECOVERY Collaborative Group, 6/5/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, United Kingdom, preprint, baseline oxygen required 76.8%, 29 authors, study period 25 March, 2020 - 5 June, 2020, average treatment delay 9.0 days, trial NCT04381936 (history) (RECOVERY), excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive dosage in late stage patients, results do not apply to typical dosages. | risk of death, 9.0% higher, RR 1.09, p = 0.15, treatment 421 of 1,561 (27.0%), control 790 of 3,155 (25.0%). |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 15.0% higher, RR 1.15, p = 0.19, treatment 128 of 1,300 (9.8%), control 225 of 2,623 (8.6%). | |
| Reis, 4/22/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Brazil, peer-reviewed, 18 authors, study period 2 June, 2020 - 30 September, 2020, dosage 800mg day 1, 400mg days 2-10, trial NCT04403100 (history) (TOGETHER). | risk of death, 66.0% lower, RR 0.34, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 214 (0.0%), control 1 of 227 (0.4%), NNT 227, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of hospitalization, 24.0% lower, HR 0.76, p = 0.57, treatment 8 of 214 (3.7%), control 11 of 227 (4.8%), NNT 90, ITT, Cox proportional hazards. | |
| risk of no viral clearance, 4.1% lower, RR 0.96, p = 0.10, treatment 97 of 185 (52.4%), control 102 of 179 (57.0%), NNT 22, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, ITT, mixed-effect logistic model. | |
| Rivera, 7/22/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 45 authors. | risk of death, 2.4% higher, RR 1.02, p = 0.92, treatment 44 of 179 (24.6%), control 59 of 327 (18.0%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Rivera-Izquierdo, 7/9/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 21 authors. | risk of death, 19.0% lower, RR 0.81, p = 0.75, treatment 215, control 23. |
| Rodriguez, 11/9/2020, prospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 13 authors, average treatment delay 8.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 59.0% lower, RR 0.41, p = 0.23, treatment 8 of 39 (20.5%), control 2 of 4 (50.0%), NNT 3.4. |
| Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 11/28/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 20 authors, average treatment delay 6.0 days. | risk of death, 22.8% lower, RR 0.77, p = 0.26, treatment 251 of 1,148 (21.9%), control 17 of 60 (28.3%), NNT 15. |
| Rodriguez-Nava, 11/5/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, median age 68.0, 8 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; excessive unadjusted differences between groups; unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 6.3% higher, RR 1.06, p = 0.77, treatment 22 of 65 (33.8%), control 79 of 248 (31.9%), unadjusted. |
| Rogado, 5/29/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 9 authors. | risk of death, 91.6% lower, RR 0.08, p = 0.02, treatment 1 of 8 (12.5%), control 7 of 9 (77.8%), NNT 1.5, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariate logistic regression. |
| Roger, 7/10/2021, prospective, France, peer-reviewed, 34 authors, average treatment delay 8.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically. | risk of death, no change, RR 1.00, p = 0.94, treatment 53 of 289 (18.3%), control 120 of 677 (17.7%), odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Roig, 1/31/2021, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 15.6% lower, RR 0.84, p = 0.76, treatment 33 of 67 (49.3%), control 7 of 12 (58.3%), NNT 11. |
| Roomi, 8/13/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 37.7% higher, RR 1.38, p = 0.54, treatment 13 of 144 (9.0%), control 6 of 32 (18.8%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Rosenberg, 5/11/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 14 authors. | risk of death, 35.0% higher, HR 1.35, p = 0.31, treatment 189 of 735 (25.7%), control 28 of 221 (12.7%), adjusted per study. |
| Rosenthal, 12/10/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, peer-reviewed, 5 authors, dosage not specified, excluded in exclusion analyses: confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline. | risk of death, 8.0% higher, OR 1.08, p = 0.13, adjusted per study, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. |
| Rouamba, 2/26/2022, retrospective, Burkina Faso, peer-reviewed, mean age 42.2, 17 authors, study period 9 March, 2020 - 31 October, 2020, dosage 200mg tid days 1-10, HCQ 200mg tid daily or CQ 250mg bid daily, trial NCT04445441 (history). | risk of death, 80.0% lower, HR 0.20, p < 0.001, treatment 20 of 336 (6.0%), control 24 of 73 (32.9%), NNT 3.7, adjusted per study, inpatients, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards. |
| risk of progression, 20.0% lower, HR 0.80, p = 0.43, treatment 75 of 745 (10.1%), control 19 of 118 (16.1%), adjusted per study, all patients, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards. | |
| risk of progression, 7.0% higher, HR 1.07, p = 0.83, treatment 52 of 347 (15.0%), control 15 of 85 (17.6%), adjusted per study, inpatients, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards. | |
| time to viral clearance, 30.6% lower, HR 0.69, p = 0.26, treatment 746, control 118, adjusted per study, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, all patients, propensity score matching, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards, primary outcome. | |
| time to viral clearance, 13.0% lower, HR 0.87, p = 0.29, treatment 746, control 118, adjusted per study, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, all patients, without PSM, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards, primary outcome. | |
| time to viral clearance, 13.8% lower, HR 0.86, p = 0.37, treatment 345, control 86, adjusted per study, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment, inpatients, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards, primary outcome. | |
| Rubio-Sánchez, 3/3/2021, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 3 authors, study period 14 March, 2020 - 5 June, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of severe case, 40.0% lower, RR 0.60, p = 0.02, treatment 51 of 161 (31.7%), control 19 of 36 (52.8%), NNT 4.7. |
| Réa-Neto, 4/27/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Brazil, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, study period 16 April, 2020 - 6 August, 2020, average treatment delay 8.0 days, trial NCT04420247 (history). | risk of death, 57.0% higher, RR 1.57, p = 0.20, treatment 16 of 53 (30.2%), control 10 of 52 (19.2%). |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 115.0% higher, RR 2.15, p = 0.03, treatment 53, control 52. | |
| 9-point scale clinical status, 147.0% higher, OR 2.47, p = 0.02, treatment 53, control 52, RR approximated with OR. | |
| Saib, 6/9/2021, prospective, propensity score matching, France, peer-reviewed, 9 authors, average treatment delay 7.2 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death/intubation, 125.0% higher, RR 2.25, p = 0.23, treatment 9 of 52 (17.3%), control 4 of 52 (7.7%), PSM. |
| Said, 5/1/2023, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 12 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 77.5% lower, RR 0.22, p < 0.001, treatment 14 of 435 (3.2%), control 58 of 405 (14.3%), NNT 9.0. |
| Salazar, 11/4/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 19 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 37.0% higher, RR 1.37, p = 0.28, treatment 12 of 92 (13.0%), control 80 of 811 (9.9%). |
| Saleemi, 8/11/2020, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, preprint, 5 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | median time to PCR-, 21.0% higher, relative time 1.21, p < 0.05, treatment 65, control 20. |
| Salehi, 3/11/2022, retrospective, Iran, preprint, mean age 62.0, 11 authors, study period April 2021 - September 2021, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 14.5% higher, RR 1.14, p = 0.44, treatment 53 of 86 (61.6%), control 21 of 39 (53.8%). |
| Salvador, 3/4/2021, prospective, Portugal, peer-reviewed, 10 authors. | risk of death, 32.9% lower, RR 0.67, p = 0.10, treatment 28 of 121 (23.1%), control 58 of 124 (46.8%), NNT 4.2, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariate. |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 447.8% higher, RR 5.48, p = 0.003, treatment 32 of 121 (26.4%), control 12 of 124 (9.7%), odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariate. | |
| risk of death/intubation, 16.7% lower, RR 0.83, p = 0.21, treatment 51 of 121 (42.1%), control 63 of 124 (50.8%), NNT 12, odds ratio converted to relative risk, univariate. | |
| Sammartino, 5/10/2021, retrospective, propensity score matching, USA, peer-reviewed, 7 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically. | risk of death, 240.0% higher, OR 3.40, p = 0.002, treatment 137, control 191, PSM, model 1a, RR approximated with OR. |
| Sands, 1/1/2021, retrospective, database analysis, USA, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: includes PCR+ patients that may be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but in hospital for other reasons; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 69.9% higher, RR 1.70, p = 0.01, treatment 101 of 973 (10.4%), control 56 of 696 (8.0%), odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Santos (B), 7/27/2020, prospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 78.4, mean age 75.3, 6 authors, study period 1 March, 2020 - 1 June, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 25.8% lower, RR 0.74, p = 0.60, treatment 31, control 7, combined. |
| risk of death, 9.7% lower, RR 0.90, p = 1.00, treatment 8 of 31 (25.8%), control 2 of 7 (28.6%), NNT 36, HCQ. | |
| risk of death, 50.8% lower, RR 0.49, p = 0.65, treatment 1 of 7 (14.3%), control 9 of 31 (29.0%), NNT 6.8, CQ. | |
| Sarfaraz, 1/2/2021, retrospective, Pakistan, preprint, 7 authors, average treatment delay 7.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; significant unadjusted confounding possible; unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 45.0% higher, RR 1.45, p = 0.07, treatment 40 of 94 (42.6%), control 27 of 92 (29.3%). |
| Sarhan, 11/2/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Egypt, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, study period 1 October, 2020 - 10 March, 2021, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo, trial NCT04779047 (history), excluded in exclusion analyses: very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline; significant unadjusted differences between groups. | risk of death, 25.7% lower, RR 0.74, p = 0.39, treatment 12 of 56 (21.4%), control 15 of 52 (28.8%), NNT 13. |
| risk of no hospital discharge, 25.7% lower, RR 0.74, p = 0.39, treatment 12 of 56 (21.4%), control 15 of 52 (28.8%), NNT 13. | |
| hospitalization time, 25.0% higher, relative time 1.25, p = 0.06, treatment 56, control 52. | |
| Sbidian, 6/19/2020, retrospective, database analysis, France, preprint, 21 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: significant issues found with adjustments. | risk of death, 5.0% higher, RR 1.05, p = 0.74, treatment 111 of 623 (17.8%), control 830 of 3,792 (21.9%), adjusted per study, whole population HCQ AIPTW adjusted. |
| risk of no hospital discharge, 20.0% lower, RR 0.80, p = 0.002, treatment 623, control 3,792, adjusted per study, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, whole population HCQ AIPTW adjusted. | |
| Schmidt, 11/12/2021, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 42 authors, study period 17 March, 2020 - 11 February, 2021, excluded in exclusion analyses: confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline. | risk of death, 333.0% higher, OR 4.33, p < 0.001, treatment 70, control 407, adjusted per study, propensity score matching, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. |
| risk of severe case, 613.0% higher, OR 7.13, p < 0.001, treatment 70, control 407, adjusted per study, propensity score matching, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. | |
| Schwartz, 6/18/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Canada, peer-reviewed, 20 authors, study period April 2020 - September 2020, average treatment delay 7.0 days, dosage 800mg day 1, 400mg days 2-5. | risk of ICU admission, 133.3% higher, RR 2.33, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 111 (0.9%), control 0 of 37 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of hospitalization, 533.3% higher, RR 6.33, p = 0.57, treatment 4 of 111 (3.6%), control 0 of 37 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). | |
| risk of ICU admission, 141.9% higher, RR 2.42, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 74 (1.4%), control 0 of 31 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), per-protocol. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 141.9% higher, RR 2.42, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 74 (1.4%), control 0 of 31 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), per-protocol. | |
| lack of improvement ≥1 year, 37.0% lower, OR 0.63, p = 0.15, treatment 90, control 89, day 365, RR approximated with OR. | |
| persistence ≥1 year, 14.0% lower, OR 0.86, p = 0.16, treatment 90, control 89, day 365, RR approximated with OR. | |
| presence of symptoms, 19.0% lower, OR 0.81, p = 0.37, treatment 90, control 89, RR approximated with OR. | |
| ongoing symptoms, 27.8% higher, RR 1.28, p = 0.64, treatment 23 of 111 (20.7%), control 6 of 37 (16.2%), day 30. | |
| Self, 11/9/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, peer-reviewed, 33 authors, study period 2 April, 2020 - 19 June, 2020, average treatment delay 5.0 days, trial NCT04332991 (history) (ORCHID). | risk of death, 6.2% higher, RR 1.06, p = 0.85, treatment 25 of 241 (10.4%), control 25 of 236 (10.6%), NNT 455, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| risk of death, 51.0% higher, RR 1.51, p = 0.28, treatment 18 of 241 (7.5%), control 14 of 236 (5.9%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, day 14. | |
| risk of 7-point scale, 3.1% higher, OR 1.03, p = 0.87, treatment 241, control 236, inverted to make OR<1 favor treatment, day 28, RR approximated with OR. | |
| risk of 7-point scale, 2.0% lower, OR 0.98, p = 0.91, treatment 241, control 236, inverted to make OR<1 favor treatment, day 14, RR approximated with OR. | |
| risk of 7-point scale, 39.0% lower, OR 0.61, p = 0.09, treatment 241, control 236, inverted to make OR<1 favor treatment, subgroup not on oxygen at baseline, day 14, RR approximated with OR. | |
| Serrano, 9/22/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 8 authors. | risk of death, 43.0% lower, RR 0.57, p = 0.14, treatment 6 of 14 (42.9%), control 6 of 8 (75.0%), NNT 3.1. |
| Shabrawishi, 5/11/2020, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, preprint, mean age 43.9, 5 authors. | risk of no virological cure at day 5, 14.7% lower, RR 0.85, p = 0.66, treatment 12 of 45 (26.7%), control 15 of 48 (31.2%), NNT 22. |
| Shamsi, 7/17/2023, retrospective, Iran, peer-reviewed, 4 authors, study period 1 March, 2020 - 1 August, 2021, dosage not specified, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 39.1% higher, RR 1.39, p = 0.51, treatment 4 of 23 (17.4%), control 20 of 160 (12.5%). |
| Sheshah, 11/13/2020, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 8 authors. | risk of death, 80.0% lower, RR 0.20, p < 0.001, treatment 267, control 33, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Shoaibi, 9/24/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, preprint, 5 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 15.4% lower, RR 0.85, p < 0.001, treatment 686 of 5,047 (13.6%), control 3,923 of 24,404 (16.1%), NNT 40. |
| Signes-Costa, 12/16/2020, retrospective, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, 28 authors. | risk of death, 47.0% lower, RR 0.53, p < 0.001, treatment 4,854, control 993, adjusted per study. |
| Silva, 5/20/2022, retrospective, Brazil, peer-reviewed, mean age 58.4, 28 authors, study period 25 March, 2020 - 21 October, 2020. | risk of death, 46.1% higher, RR 1.46, p = 0.21, treatment 21, control 374, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariable, control prevalance approximated with overall prevalence. |
| Singh (C), 6/8/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, India, preprint, 13 authors, study period March 2020 - October 2020, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with ribavirin) - results of individual treatments may vary. | risk of death, 47.5% lower, RR 0.53, p = 0.45, treatment 3 of 20 (15.0%), control 6 of 21 (28.6%), NNT 7.4, severe. |
| risk of death, 50.0% lower, RR 0.50, p = 0.48, treatment 3 of 37 (8.1%), control 6 of 37 (16.2%), NNT 12, all patients. | |
| risk of no recovery, 14.1% lower, RR 0.86, p = 0.76, treatment 9 of 20 (45.0%), control 11 of 21 (52.4%), NNT 14, severe. | |
| risk of no recovery, 8.3% lower, RR 0.92, p = 1.00, treatment 11 of 37 (29.7%), control 12 of 37 (32.4%), NNT 37, all patients. | |
| Singh, 5/19/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, preprint, 4 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline. | risk of death, 5.0% lower, RR 0.95, p = 0.72, treatment 104 of 910 (11.4%), control 109 of 910 (12.0%), NNT 182. |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 19.0% lower, RR 0.81, p = 0.26, treatment 46 of 910 (5.1%), control 57 of 910 (6.3%), NNT 83. | |
| Sivapalan, 6/3/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Denmark, peer-reviewed, 32 authors, study period 6 April, 2020 - 21 December, 2020, average treatment delay 8.0 days, trial NCT04322396 (history) (ProPAC-COVID). | risk of death, 92.0% lower, RR 0.08, p = 0.32, treatment 1 of 61 (1.6%), control 2 of 56 (3.6%), adjusted per study. |
| risk of ICU admission, 22.4% higher, RR 1.22, p = 1.00, treatment 4 of 61 (6.6%), control 3 of 56 (5.4%). | |
| relative days alive and discharged from hospital within 14 days (inverse), 8.4% worse, RR 1.08, p = 0.36, treatment 61, control 56, adjusted per study. | |
| Smith, 5/31/2021, retrospective, USA, preprint, 4 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: immortal time bias may significantly affect results. | risk of death, 27.2% lower, RR 0.73, p = 0.002, treatment 19 of 37 (51.4%), control 182 of 218 (83.5%), NNT 3.1, odds ratio converted to relative risk, >3g HCQ and >1g AZ, multivariable cox proportional hazard regression. |
| Solh, 10/20/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, preprint, 5 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 18.0% higher, HR 1.18, p = 0.17, treatment 131 of 265 (49.4%), control 134 of 378 (35.4%), adjusted per study. |
| SOLIDARITY Trial Consortium, 10/15/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, baseline oxygen required 64.0%, 15 authors, study period 22 March, 2020 - 4 October, 2020, trial NCT04315948 (history) (SOLIDARITY), excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive dosage in late stage patients, results do not apply to typical dosages; very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline. | risk of death, 19.0% higher, RR 1.19, p = 0.23, treatment 104 of 947 (11.0%), control 84 of 906 (9.3%). |
| Sosa-García, 6/29/2020, retrospective, Mexico, peer-reviewed, baseline oxygen required 100.0%, 6 authors, average treatment delay 9.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 10.5% higher, RR 1.11, p = 1.00, treatment 7 of 38 (18.4%), control 3 of 18 (16.7%). |
| Soto, 3/2/2022, retrospective, Peru, peer-reviewed, median age 58.0, 10 authors, study period April 2020 - August 2020, dosage not specified, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time possible due to significant changes in SOC and treatment propensity near the start of the pandemic. | risk of death, 6.0% higher, HR 1.06, p = 0.46, treatment 292 of 590 (49.5%), control 362 of 828 (43.7%), Cox proportional hazards. |
| Soto-Becerra, 10/8/2020, retrospective, database analysis, Peru, preprint, median age 59.4, 4 authors, study period 1 April, 2020 - 19 July, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; includes PCR+ patients that may be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but in hospital for other reasons. | risk of death, 18.1% lower, HR 0.82, p < 0.001, treatment 346 of 692 (50.0%), control 1,606 of 2,630 (61.1%), NNT 9.0, day 54 (last day available) weighted KM. |
| risk of death, 84.0% higher, HR 1.84, p = 0.02, treatment 165 of 692 (23.8%), control 401 of 2,630 (15.2%), adjusted per study, day 30. | |
| Souza-Silva, 9/30/2023, retrospective, Brazil, peer-reviewed, median age 60.0, 29 authors, study period March 2020 - September 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; authors discussion of prior research exhibits strong bias, raising concern for bias in analysis. | risk of death, 5.5% higher, RR 1.05, p = 0.68, treatment 135 of 673 (20.1%), control 128 of 673 (19.0%). |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 21.1% higher, RR 1.21, p = 0.08, treatment 145 of 538 (27.0%), control 120 of 539 (22.3%). | |
| risk of ICU admission, 9.5% higher, RR 1.09, p = 0.31, treatment 196 of 559 (35.1%), control 179 of 559 (32.0%). | |
| hospitalization time, 12.5% higher, relative time 1.12, p = 0.03, treatment median 9.0 IQR 13.0 n=673, control median 8.0 IQR 10.0 n=673. | |
| Spivak, 3/2/2023, Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, peer-reviewed, mean age 41.9, 13 authors, study period April 2020 - April 2021, dosage 800mg day 1, 400mg days 2-5, trial NCT04342169 (history). | risk of hospitalization, 72.7% higher, RR 1.73, p = 0.54, treatment 7 of 152 (4.6%), control 4 of 150 (2.7%), day 28. |
| symptom score difference, 20.4% lower, RR 0.80, p = 0.19, treatment 167, control 165, adjusted per study, adjusted symptom score difference relative to placebo score. | |
| viral shedding, 17.4% lower, HR 0.83, p = 0.19, treatment 185, control 182, inverted to make HR<1 favor treatment. | |
| Stewart, 3/17/2021, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 37 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; includes PCR+ patients that may be asymptomatic for COVID-19 but in hospital for other reasons. | risk of death, 27.6% higher, RR 1.28, p = 0.03, treatment 4,191, control 5,359, adjusted per study, all databases combined. |
| risk of death, 18.0% higher, RR 1.18, p = 0.27, treatment 90 of 429 (21.0%), control 141 of 737 (19.1%), adjusted per study, VA, HCQ+AZ. | |
| risk of death, 1.0% lower, RR 0.99, p = 0.95, treatment 66 of 578 (11.4%), control 188 of 1,243 (15.1%), adjusted per study, TriNetX, HCQ+AZ. | |
| risk of death, 129.9% higher, RR 2.30, p < 0.001, treatment 32 of 108 (29.6%), control 33 of 256 (12.9%), Synapse, HCQ+AZ. | |
| risk of death, 9.0% higher, RR 1.09, p = 0.65, treatment 212 of 1,157 (18.3%), control 203 of 1,101 (18.4%), NNT 873, adjusted per study, Health Catalyst, HCQ+AZ. | |
| risk of death, 90.0% higher, RR 1.90, p = 0.09, treatment 46 of 208 (22.1%), control 47 of 1,334 (3.5%), adjusted per study, Dascena, HCQ+AZ. | |
| risk of death, 16.0% higher, RR 1.16, p = 0.26, treatment 428 of 1,711 (25.0%), control 123 of 688 (17.9%), adjusted per study, COTA/HMH, HCQ+AZ. | |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 29.0% higher, RR 1.29, p = 0.09, treatment 48 of 305 (15.7%), control 95 of 1,302 (7.3%), adjusted per study, Aetion, HCQ. | |
| Synolaki, 9/5/2020, retrospective, Greece, preprint, 20 authors. | risk of death, 23.6% lower, RR 0.76, p = 0.27, treatment 21 of 98 (21.4%), control 60 of 214 (28.0%), NNT 15. |
| Sánchez-Álvarez, 4/27/2020, retrospective, database analysis, Spain, peer-reviewed, mean age 67.0, 10 authors. | risk of death, 45.9% lower, RR 0.54, p = 0.005, treatment 322, control 53, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Taccone, 12/23/2020, retrospective, Belgium, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, average treatment delay 5.0 days. | risk of death, 24.7% lower, RR 0.75, p = 0.02, treatment 449 of 1,308 (34.3%), control 183 of 439 (41.7%), NNT 14, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Taieb, 6/30/2021, retrospective, Senegal, peer-reviewed, 29 authors, average treatment delay 6.0 days. | risk of no hospital discharge, 38.7% lower, OR 0.61, p = 0.02, treatment 674, control 252, inverted to make OR<1 favor treatment, multivariate, RR approximated with OR. |
| Tamura, 7/13/2021, retrospective, Brazil, peer-reviewed, 4 authors, study period 10 March, 2020 - 13 November, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically. | risk of death, 299.0% higher, OR 3.99, p = 0.04, treatment 25, control 163, adjusted per study, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. |
| Tan, 12/14/2020, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, 7 authors. | hospitalization time, 35.2% lower, relative time 0.65, p = 0.04, treatment 8, control 277. |
| Tang, 4/14/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, China, peer-reviewed, 24 authors, study period 11 February, 2020 - 19 February, 2020, average treatment delay 16.6 days. | risk of no virological cure at day 21, 21.4% lower, RR 0.79, p = 0.51, treatment 11 of 75 (14.7%), control 14 of 75 (18.7%), NNT 25. |
| Tehrani, 10/30/2020, retrospective, Sweden, peer-reviewed, 5 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 13.4% lower, RR 0.87, p = 0.63, treatment 16 of 65 (24.6%), control 54 of 190 (28.4%), NNT 26. |
| Texeira, 12/31/2020, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details; no treatment details; substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 79.3% higher, RR 1.79, p = 0.10, treatment 17 of 65 (26.2%), control 14 of 96 (14.6%). |
| Trullàs, 7/14/2020, retrospective, Spain, preprint, median age 75.0, 8 authors, average treatment delay 9.0 days. | risk of death, 35.6% lower, RR 0.64, p = 0.12, treatment 20 of 66 (30.3%), control 16 of 34 (47.1%), NNT 6.0. |
| Tsanovska, 3/3/2022, prospective, Bulgaria, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, study period 6 November, 2020 - 28 December, 2020. | risk of death, 57.9% lower, RR 0.42, p = 0.03, treatment 8 of 70 (11.4%), control 19 of 70 (27.1%), NNT 6.4, propensity score matching. |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 73.9% lower, RR 0.26, p < 0.001, treatment 6 of 70 (8.6%), control 23 of 70 (32.9%), NNT 4.1, propensity score matching. | |
| risk of ICU admission, 70.4% lower, RR 0.30, p < 0.001, treatment 8 of 70 (11.4%), control 27 of 70 (38.6%), NNT 3.7, propensity score matching. | |
| Tu, 1/13/2022, retrospective, Sierra Leone, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, study period 31 March, 2020 - 11 August, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 17.2% lower, RR 0.83, p = 0.81, treatment 6 of 37 (16.2%), control 28 of 143 (19.6%), NNT 30. |
| Turrini, 6/11/2021, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, 16 authors. | risk of death, 9.8% lower, RR 0.90, p = 0.15, treatment 103 of 160 (64.4%), control 33 of 45 (73.3%), NNT 11, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariate. |
| Ubaldo, 2/1/2021, retrospective, Philippines, peer-reviewed, 3 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely; very late stage, ICU patients; unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 18.4% lower, RR 0.82, p = 0.64, treatment 17 of 25 (68.0%), control 5 of 6 (83.3%), NNT 6.5, COVID-19 positive patients. |
| Ulrich, 9/23/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, peer-reviewed, baseline oxygen required 63.3%, mean age 66.2, 18 authors, study period 17 April, 2020 - 12 May, 2020, average treatment delay 7.0 days, trial NCT04369742 (history) (TEACH), excluded in exclusion analyses: very late stage, >50% on oxygen/ventilation at baseline. | risk of death, 6.0% higher, RR 1.06, p = 1.00, treatment 7 of 67 (10.4%), control 6 of 61 (9.8%). |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 51.7% higher, RR 1.52, p = 0.72, treatment 5 of 67 (7.5%), control 3 of 61 (4.9%). | |
| risk of ICU admission, 173.1% higher, RR 2.73, p = 0.13, treatment 9 of 67 (13.4%), control 3 of 61 (4.9%). | |
| Uyaroğlu, 3/17/2022, retrospective, propensity score matching, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, study period 20 March, 2020 - 30 September, 2020, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo. | risk of death, 200.0% higher, RR 3.00, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 42 (2.4%), control 0 of 42 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of ICU admission, 66.7% lower, RR 0.33, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 42 (0.0%), control 1 of 42 (2.4%), NNT 42, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). | |
| hospitalization time, 9.8% lower, relative time 0.90, p = 0.90, treatment 42, control 42. | |
| Uygen, 9/15/2021, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 4 authors. | time to viral-, 12.2% lower, relative time 0.88, p = 0.05, treatment 15, control 25. |
| van Halem, 11/27/2020, retrospective, Belgium, peer-reviewed, 10 authors. | risk of death, 31.6% lower, RR 0.68, p = 0.049, treatment 34 of 164 (20.7%), control 47 of 155 (30.3%), NNT 10. |
| Vernaz, 12/31/2020, retrospective, propensity score matching, Switzerland, peer-reviewed, 15 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically; substantial unadjusted confounding by indication likely. | risk of death, 15.3% lower, RR 0.85, p = 0.71, treatment 12 of 93 (12.9%), control 16 of 105 (15.2%), NNT 43, HCQ vs. SOC, PSM. |
| hospitalization time, 49.0% higher, relative time 1.49, p = 0.002, treatment 93, control 105, HCQ vs. SOC, PSM. | |
| Wang (C), 6/10/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, preprint, 3 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: confounding by indication is likely and adjustments do not consider COVID-19 severity at baseline. | risk of death, 5.8% lower, RR 0.94, p = 0.63, treatment 1,866, control 5,726, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | WellStar, 12/7/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04429867 (history). | Estimated 700 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Xia, 2/11/2020, retrospective, China, preprint, 1 author, excluded in exclusion analyses: minimal details provided. | risk of no viral clearance, 37.5% lower, RR 0.62, p = 0.17, treatment 5 of 10 (50.0%), control 12 of 15 (80.0%), NNT 3.3. |
| Yegerov, 1/8/2021, retrospective, Kazakhstan, preprint, 8 authors, average treatment delay 1.0 days, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 95.3% lower, RR 0.05, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 23 (0.0%), control 20 of 1,049 (1.9%), NNT 52, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| Yilgwan, 5/11/2023, retrospective, Nigeria, peer-reviewed, 12 authors, study period 25 February, 2020 - 30 August, 2021. | risk of death, 93.0% lower, OR 0.07, p < 0.001, treatment 1,039, control 2,423, adjusted per study, RR approximated with OR. |
| Yu (B), 8/3/2020, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, median age 62.0, 6 authors. | risk of progression to critical, 82.5% lower, RR 0.17, p = 0.049, treatment 1 of 231 (0.4%), control 32 of 1,291 (2.5%), NNT 49, baseline critical cohort reported separately in Yu et al. |
| risk of death, 85.0% lower, RR 0.15, p = 0.02, treatment 1 of 73 (1.4%), control 238 of 2,604 (9.1%), NNT 13, HCQ treatment started early vs. non-HCQ. | |
| Yu (C), 5/15/2020, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, 8 authors. | risk of death, 60.5% lower, RR 0.40, p = 0.002, treatment 9 of 48 (18.8%), control 238 of 502 (47.4%), NNT 3.5. |
| Zhong Nanshan (钟南山), 3/26/2020, retrospective, China, preprint, 1 author. | risk of no virological cure at day 10, 80.0% lower, RR 0.20, p < 0.001, treatment 5 of 115 (4.3%), control 17 of 82 (20.7%), NNT 6.1, adjusted per study. |
| Águila-Gordo, 11/11/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, mean age 84.4, 6 authors. | risk of death, 67.0% lower, RR 0.33, p = 0.10, treatment 151 of 346 (43.6%), control 47 of 70 (67.1%), NNT 4.3, adjusted per study. |
| Çivriz Bozdağ, 9/15/2021, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 64 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: substantial confounding by time likely due to declining usage over the early stages of the pandemic when overall treatment protocols improved dramatically. | risk of death, 399.2% higher, RR 4.99, p = 0.003, treatment 35, control 140. |
| Çiyiltepe, 4/30/2021, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 5 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: treatment group only includes patients where treatment failed resulting in ICU admission. | risk of death, 3.2% lower, RR 0.97, p = 0.85, treatment 69 of 95 (72.6%), control 39 of 52 (75.0%), NNT 42. |
| Ñamendys-Silva, 10/21/2020, retrospective, database analysis, Mexico, peer-reviewed, mean age 57.3, 18 authors, average treatment delay 7.0 days. | risk of death, 32.3% lower, RR 0.68, p = 0.18, treatment 24 of 54 (44.4%), control 42 of 64 (65.6%), NNT 4.7, HCQ+AZ vs. neither HCQ or CQ. |
| risk of death, 37.1% lower, RR 0.63, p = 0.09, treatment 19 of 46 (41.3%), control 42 of 64 (65.6%), NNT 4.1, CQ vs. neither HCQ or CQ. | |
| risk of death, 34.5% lower, RR 0.66, p = 0.006, treatment 43 of 100 (43.0%), control 42 of 64 (65.6%), NNT 4.4, HCQ+AZ or CQ. |
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above
and gives priority to more serious outcomes. Only the first (most serious)
outcome is used in pooled analysis, which may differ from the effect a paper
focuses on. Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.
| Abella, 9/30/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, peer-reviewed, 18 authors, study period 9 April, 2020 - 14 July, 2020, PATCH trial. | risk of case, 5.0% lower, RR 0.95, p = 1.00, treatment 4 of 64 (6.2%), control 4 of 61 (6.6%), NNT 325. |
| Agarwal, 9/14/2021, prospective, India, preprint, 17 authors. | risk of hospitalization, 94.8% lower, RR 0.05, p = 0.61, treatment 0 of 29 (0.0%), control 17 of 455 (3.7%), NNT 27, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| relative severity, 26.9% better, RR 0.73, p = 0.21, treatment 29, control 455. | |
| risk of case, 4.6% higher, RR 1.05, p = 0.81, treatment 6 of 29 (20.7%), control 90 of 455 (19.8%). | |
| Ahmed, 11/23/2021, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 7 authors. | risk of case, 99.3% lower, OR 0.007, p = 0.08, treatment 0 of 50 (0.0%) cases, 13 of 50 (26.0%) controls, NNT 1.7, case control OR. | Ajili, 7/31/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04377646 (history) (COVID-Milit). | Estimated 660 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Alegiani, 4/15/2021, retrospective, case control, database analysis, Italy, peer-reviewed, 16 authors. | risk of death, 8.0% higher, OR 1.08, p = 0.64, HCQ vs. other cDMARDs, RR approximated with OR. |
| risk of hospitalization, 18.0% lower, OR 0.82, p = 0.03, HCQ vs. other cDMARDs, RR approximated with OR. | |
| risk of death, 19.0% higher, OR 1.19, p = 0.32, HCQ vs. MTX, RR approximated with OR. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 12.0% lower, OR 0.88, p = 0.17, HCQ vs. MTX, RR approximated with OR. | |
| Alqatari, 6/1/2023, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 15 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of mechanical ventilation, 89.0% lower, RR 0.11, p = 0.13, treatment 0 of 13 (0.0%), control 5 of 21 (23.8%), NNT 4.2, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of ICU admission, 64.1% lower, RR 0.36, p = 0.14, treatment 2 of 13 (15.4%), control 9 of 21 (42.9%), NNT 3.6. | |
| critical case, 64.1% lower, RR 0.36, p = 0.14, treatment 2 of 13 (15.4%), control 9 of 21 (42.9%), NNT 3.6. | |
| Alzahrani, 4/15/2021, retrospective, Saudi Arabia, peer-reviewed, 3 authors. | risk of death, 58.7% lower, RR 0.41, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 14 (0.0%), control 1 of 33 (3.0%), NNT 33, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of mechanical ventilation, 81.0% lower, RR 0.19, p = 0.54, treatment 0 of 14 (0.0%), control 3 of 33 (9.1%), NNT 11, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). | |
| risk of severe case, 32.7% lower, RR 0.67, p = 0.70, treatment 2 of 14 (14.3%), control 7 of 33 (21.2%), NNT 14. | |
| Arleo, 10/27/2020, retrospective, USA, preprint, 5 authors. | risk of death, 50.0% lower, RR 0.50, p = 0.67, treatment 1 of 20 (5.0%), control 5 of 50 (10.0%), NNT 20, all patients. |
| risk of death, 52.0% lower, RR 0.48, p = 0.64, treatment 1 of 10 (10.0%), control 5 of 24 (20.8%), NNT 9.2, inpatients. | |
| Badyal, 6/7/2021, prospective, India, peer-reviewed, 18 authors, study period May 2020 - September 2020. | risk of case, 60.1% lower, RR 0.40, p < 0.001, treatment 247 of 617 (40.0%), control 611 of 1,473 (41.5%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, ≥6 weeks. |
| risk of case, 35.1% lower, RR 0.65, p = 0.003, treatment 88 of 185 (47.6%), control 611 of 1,473 (41.5%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, 4-5 weeks. | |
| risk of case, 23.2% lower, RR 0.77, p = 0.03, treatment 80 of 181 (44.2%), control 611 of 1,473 (41.5%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, 2-3 weeks. | |
| Bae, 2/20/2021, retrospective, propensity score matching, South Korea, peer-reviewed, 8 authors. | risk of case, 30.3% lower, RR 0.70, p = 0.18, treatment 16 of 743 (2.2%), control 91 of 2,698 (3.4%), NNT 82, odds ratio converted to relative risk, PSM. |
| risk of case, 19.5% lower, RR 0.81, p = 0.50, treatment 16 of 743 (2.2%), control 91 of 2,698 (3.4%), odds ratio converted to relative risk, PSM, adjusted for region. | |
| risk of case, 30.3% lower, RR 0.70, p = 0.30, treatment 16 of 743 (2.2%), control 91 of 2,698 (3.4%), NNT 82, odds ratio converted to relative risk, PSM, adjusted for immunosuppresant use. | |
| Becetti, 8/5/2022, retrospective, Qatar, peer-reviewed, mean age 43.2, 12 authors, study period 1 April, 2020 - 31 July, 2020. | risk of case, 36.8% lower, RR 0.63, p = 0.17, treatment 26 of 314 (8.3%), control 49 of 386 (12.7%), NNT 23, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariable. |
| risk of case, 52.0% lower, RR 0.48, p < 0.001, treatment 16 of 46 (34.8%), control 29 of 40 (72.5%), NNT 2.7, patients with close contact to cases, close contact. | |
| Behera, 11/3/2020, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, 13 authors. | risk of case, 27.9% lower, RR 0.72, p = 0.29, treatment 7 of 19 (36.8%), control 179 of 353 (50.7%), NNT 7.2, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, model 2 conditional logistic regression. |
| risk of case, 26.3% lower, RR 0.74, p = 0.25, treatment 7 of 19 (36.8%), control 179 of 353 (50.7%), NNT 7.2, odds ratio converted to relative risk, matched pair analysis. | |
| Belmont, 10/6/2021, prospective, USA, preprint, 1 author, trial NCT04354870 (history). | risk of symptomatic case, 78.6% lower, RR 0.21, p = 0.21, treatment 1 of 56 (1.8%), control 2 of 24 (8.3%), NNT 15. |
| risk of case, 14.3% lower, RR 0.86, p = 1.00, treatment 4 of 56 (7.1%), control 2 of 24 (8.3%), NNT 84. | |
| Bhatt, 8/4/2021, prospective, India, preprint, 4 authors. | risk of case, 49.3% higher, RR 1.49, p = 0.02, treatment 167 of 731 (22.8%), control 30 of 196 (15.3%). |
| Bhattacharya, 6/9/2020, retrospective, India, preprint, 7 authors. | risk of case, 80.7% lower, RR 0.19, p = 0.001, treatment 4 of 54 (7.4%), control 20 of 52 (38.5%), NNT 3.2. | Burney, 10/15/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04370015 (history). | Estimated 374 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Cassione, 5/12/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, survey, median age 52.5, 6 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of case, 49.6% higher, RR 1.50, p = 0.59, treatment 10 of 127 (7.9%), control 2 of 38 (5.3%). |
| Chatterjee, 5/28/2020, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, survey, 11 authors. | risk of case, 66.8% lower, RR 0.33, p < 0.001, treatment 12 of 68 (17.6%), control 206 of 387 (53.2%), NNT 2.8, full course vs. unused. | Chauffe, 6/1/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04363450 (history) (HCQPreP). | Estimated 1,700 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Chevalier, 3/22/2023, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, mean age 70.3, 24 authors. | risk of death, 34.7% lower, RR 0.65, p = 0.19, treatment 7 of 55 (12.7%), control 109 of 535 (20.4%), NNT 13, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| risk of hospitalization, 19.1% lower, RR 0.81, p = 0.36, treatment 15 of 116 (12.9%), control 180 of 1,097 (16.4%), NNT 29, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| Chouhdari, 1/21/2024, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Iran, peer-reviewed, 14 authors, study period 20 August, 2020 - 20 October, 2020, dosage 800mg day 1, 200mg day 8, 200mg day 15, 200mg day 22, 200mg day 29, 200mg day 36, 200mg day 43, trial IRCT20200421047153N1. | risk of hospitalization, 80.1% lower, RR 0.20, p = 0.25, treatment 0 of 439 (0.0%), control 2 of 432 (0.5%), NNT 216, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of case, 42.8% lower, RR 0.57, p = 0.005, treatment 36 of 439 (8.2%), control 61 of 432 (14.1%), NNT 17, adjusted per study, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariable. | Connor, 8/24/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04352946 (history) (HERO). | Estimated 374 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Cordtz, 8/27/2021, retrospective, population-based cohort, Denmark, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, study period 1 March, 2020 - 2 February, 2021. | risk of hospitalization, 40.0% lower, HR 0.60, p = 0.39, treatment 1,170, control 1,363, adjusted per study. |
| Cordtz (B), 12/28/2020, retrospective, population-based cohort, Denmark, peer-reviewed, 10 authors. | risk of hospitalization, 24.0% lower, HR 0.76, p = 0.67, treatment 3 of 2,722 (0.1%), control 38 of 26,718 (0.1%), NNT 3124, adjusted per study, time-dependent exposure model. |
| risk of hospitalization, 55.0% lower, HR 0.45, p = 0.28, treatment 3 of 2,722 (0.1%), control 38 of 26,718 (0.1%), adjusted per study, time-fixed exposure model. | |
| Datta, 11/6/2020, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, 7 authors. | risk of case, 22.1% lower, RR 0.78, p = 0.47, treatment 16 of 146 (11.0%), control 19 of 135 (14.1%), NNT 32. |
| de la Iglesia, 9/2/2020, retrospective, database analysis, Spain, preprint, 17 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of hospitalization, 50.0% higher, RR 1.50, p = 1.00, treatment 3 of 687 (0.4%), control 2 of 688 (0.3%). |
| risk of case, 42.6% higher, RR 1.43, p = 0.15, treatment 42 of 648 (6.5%), control 30 of 660 (4.5%), suspected COVID-19. | |
| risk of case, 7.8% lower, RR 0.92, p = 0.84, treatment 12 of 678 (1.8%), control 13 of 677 (1.9%), NNT 665, confirmed COVID-19. | |
| Desbois, 7/20/2020, retrospective, France, preprint, mean age 58.8, 13 authors. | risk of case, 16.9% lower, RR 0.83, p = 1.00, treatment 3 of 27 (11.1%), control 23 of 172 (13.4%), NNT 44. |
| Dev, 3/24/2021, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, 5 authors. | risk of case, 26.0% lower, RR 0.74, p = 0.003, treatment 260, control 499, any number of HCQ doses vs. no HCQ prophylaxis. |
| Dey, 6/30/2024, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, mean age 41.1, 6 authors, study period 26 August, 2020 - 25 November, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 91.5% lower, RR 0.08, p = 0.09, treatment 0 of 41 (0.0%), control 7 of 76 (9.2%), NNT 11, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of moderate/severe case, 27.5% lower, RR 0.73, p = 0.39, treatment 9 of 41 (22.0%), control 23 of 76 (30.3%), NNT 12. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 16.3% lower, RR 0.84, p = 0.55, treatment 14 of 41 (34.1%), control 31 of 76 (40.8%), NNT 15. | |
| Dulcey, 5/31/2023, retrospective, Colombia, peer-reviewed, 8 authors. | risk of case, 21.0% lower, OR 0.79, p = 0.27, treatment 322, control 645, RR approximated with OR. |
| Erden, 1/23/2022, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 150.0% higher, RR 2.50, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 6 (16.7%), control 0 of 3 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of hospitalization, 75.0% lower, RR 0.25, p = 0.23, treatment 1 of 6 (16.7%), control 2 of 3 (66.7%), NNT 2.0. | |
| Ferreira (B), 6/29/2020, retrospective, population-based cohort, database analysis, Portugal, peer-reviewed, 3 authors. | risk of case, 47.1% lower, RR 0.53, p < 0.001, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Ferri, 8/27/2020, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, survey, 29 authors. | risk of COVID-19 case, 63.0% lower, RR 0.37, p = 0.01, treatment 9 of 994 (0.9%), control 16 of 647 (2.5%), NNT 64. |
| Finkelstein, 6/29/2023, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 2 authors, study period January 2020 - September 2020. | risk of case, 21.0% lower, OR 0.79, p < 0.001, treatment 13,932, control 27,864, adjusted per study, propensity score matching, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. |
| Fitzgerald, 2/5/2021, retrospective, USA, preprint, 34 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of case, 8.5% lower, RR 0.91, p = 0.54, treatment 65 of 1,072 (6.1%), control 200 of 3,594 (5.6%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Fung, 10/1/2021, retrospective, population-based cohort, USA, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of death, 13.0% lower, HR 0.87, p = 0.15, vs. past use (better match for systemic autoimmune diseases). |
| risk of hospitalization, 3.0% lower, HR 0.97, p = 0.63, vs. past use (better match for systemic autoimmune diseases). | |
| risk of case, 9.0% lower, HR 0.91, p = 0.02, vs. past use (better match for systemic autoimmune diseases). | |
| risk of death, 8.0% higher, HR 1.08, p = 0.26, vs. never used. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 6.0% higher, HR 1.06, p = 0.13, vs. never used. | |
| risk of case, 5.0% lower, HR 0.95, p = 0.03, vs. never used. | Gagneux-Brunon, 3/30/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, France, peer-reviewed, study period 14 April, 2020 - 30 March, 2022, trial NCT04328285 (history). | 118 patient RCT with results unknown and over 2 years late. |
| Gendebien, 6/25/2020, retrospective, Belgium, peer-reviewed, survey, 9 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of case, 3.9% lower, RR 0.96, p = 0.93, treatment 12 of 152 (7.9%), control 6 of 73 (8.2%), NNT 308. |
| Gendelman, 5/5/2020, retrospective, database analysis, Israel, peer-reviewed, 5 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of case, 8.1% lower, RR 0.92, p = 0.88, treatment 3 of 36 (8.3%), control 1,314 of 14,484 (9.1%), NNT 135. |
| Gentry, 9/21/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, peer-reviewed, 6 authors. | risk of death, 91.3% lower, RR 0.09, p = 0.10, treatment 0 of 10,703 (0.0%), control 7 of 21,406 (0.0%), NNT 3058, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), COVID-19 mortality within all patients. |
| risk of death, 90.7% lower, RR 0.09, p = 0.19, treatment 0 of 31 (0.0%), control 7 of 78 (9.0%), NNT 11, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), mortality for infected patients. | |
| risk of case, 20.9% lower, RR 0.79, p = 0.27, treatment 31 of 10,703 (0.3%), control 78 of 21,406 (0.4%), NNT 1338, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| Gianfrancesco, 5/28/2020, retrospective, database analysis, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, 28 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of hospitalization, 3.3% lower, RR 0.97, p = 0.82, treatment 58 of 130 (44.6%), control 219 of 470 (46.6%), NNT 50, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Goenka, 10/24/2020, retrospective, India, preprint, 11 authors. | risk of IgG positive, 87.2% lower, RR 0.13, p = 0.03, treatment 1 of 77 (1.3%), control 115 of 885 (13.0%), NNT 8.6, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | Granados-Montiel, 6/30/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Mexico, peer-reviewed, this trial uses multiple treatments in the treatment arm (combined with bromhexine) - results of individual treatments may vary, trial NCT04340349 (history) (ELEVATE). | Estimated 214 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Grau-Pujol, 9/21/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, Spain, peer-reviewed, 22 authors, study period 4 April, 2020 - 12 June, 2020. | risk of case, 10.6% lower, RR 0.89, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 142 (0.7%), control 1 of 127 (0.8%), NNT 1202. |
| Guillaume, 9/16/2021, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, survey, 25 authors, study period 17 April, 2020 - 30 April, 2020, trial NCT04345159 (history), excluded in exclusion analyses: statistical analysis shows significant mismatch with prior research, potential overfitting. | risk of hospitalization, 2.4% higher, RR 1.02, p = 1.00, treatment 2 of 181 (1.1%), control 3 of 278 (1.1%). |
| risk of case, 2.9% higher, RR 1.03, p = 0.96, treatment 6 of 181 (3.3%), control 12 of 278 (4.3%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| risk of case, 23.2% lower, RR 0.77, p = 0.63, treatment 6 of 181 (3.3%), control 12 of 278 (4.3%), NNT 100. | |
| Gönenli, 12/16/2020, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, survey, mean age 36.0, 9 authors, study period 14 May, 2020 - 13 June, 2020. | risk of pneumonia, 29.7% lower, RR 0.70, p = 0.77, treatment 3 of 148 (2.0%), control 12 of 416 (2.9%), NNT 117. |
| risk of case, 18.9% higher, RR 1.19, p = 0.58, treatment 8 of 148 (5.4%), control 20 of 416 (4.8%), odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| Huang (B), 12/12/2023, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, 9 authors, study period 1 January, 2023 - 28 February, 2023. | risk of hospitalization, 43.4% lower, OR 0.57, p = 0.09, treatment 141, control 291, RR approximated with OR. |
| risk of case, 6.3% higher, RR 1.06, p = 0.25, treatment 118 of 141 (83.7%), control 229 of 291 (78.7%). | |
| Huang, 6/16/2020, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, 15 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: significant unadjusted confounding possible. | risk of hospitalization, 80.0% lower, RR 0.20, p < 0.001, treatment 8, control 1,247. |
| Huh, 12/19/2020, retrospective, database analysis, South Korea, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of progression, 96.8% higher, RR 1.97, p = 0.11, treatment 5 of 8 (62.5%), control 873 of 2,797 (31.2%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariable. |
| risk of case, 6.0% lower, OR 0.94, p = 0.82, treatment 17 of 7,341 (0.2%) cases, 105 of 36,705 (0.3%) controls, adjusted per study, case control OR, multivariable. | |
| Isnardi, 10/6/2022, retrospective, Argentina, peer-reviewed, mean age 51.4, 198 authors, study period 13 August, 2020 - 31 July, 2021, trial NCT04568421 (history). | risk of death, 33.9% lower, RR 0.66, p = 0.23, treatment 11 of 361 (3.0%), control 72 of 1,554 (4.6%), NNT 63, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| risk of severe case, 48.0% lower, RR 0.52, p = 0.02, treatment 14 of 361 (3.9%), control 117 of 1,554 (7.5%), NNT 27, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 17.0% lower, RR 0.83, p = 0.09, treatment 83 of 512 (16.2%), control 429 of 1,554 (27.6%), NNT 8.8, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | James, 4/30/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04352933 (history) (PROLIFIC). | Estimated 500 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Juneja, 1/7/2022, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, 9 authors, study period 2 April, 2020 - 3 September, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | risk of severe case, 141.8% higher, RR 2.42, p = 0.59, treatment 2 of 996 (0.2%), control 1 of 1,204 (0.1%). |
| risk of case, 6.4% higher, RR 1.06, p = 0.67, treatment 103 of 996 (10.3%), control 117 of 1,204 (9.7%). | |
| Jung, 12/11/2020, retrospective, South Korea, peer-reviewed, 6 authors. | risk of death, 59.3% lower, RR 0.41, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 649 (0.0%), control 1 of 1,417 (0.1%), NNT 1417, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of case, 13.1% higher, RR 1.13, p = 0.86, treatment 15 of 649 (2.3%), control 31 of 1,417 (2.2%), adjusted per study. | |
| Kadnur, 7/22/2020, prospective, India, peer-reviewed, mean age 31.2, 16 authors, study period 23 April, 2020 - 11 June, 2020. | risk of case, 62.3% lower, RR 0.38, p = 0.01, treatment 10 of 258 (3.9%), control 15 of 100 (15.0%), NNT 9.0, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariate logistic regression. |
| Kamstrup, 6/1/2021, retrospective, population-based cohort, Denmark, peer-reviewed, 21 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of hospitalization, 44.0% higher, OR 1.44, p = 0.25, treatment 5,488, control 54,846, RR approximated with OR. |
| risk of case, 10.0% lower, HR 0.90, p = 0.23, treatment 188 of 5,488 (3.4%), control 2,040 of 54,846 (3.7%), NNT 340, adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression. | |
| Khoubnasabjafari, 1/13/2021, retrospective, Iran, peer-reviewed, 10 authors. | risk of case, 16.7% lower, RR 0.83, p = 0.59, treatment 34 of 1,436 (2.4%), control 12 of 422 (2.8%), NNT 210. |
| Khurana, 7/24/2020, retrospective, India, preprint, survey, 6 authors. | risk of case, 51.0% lower, RR 0.49, p = 0.02, treatment 6 of 22 (27.3%), control 88 of 159 (55.3%), NNT 3.6, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Klebanov, 7/1/2023, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 10 authors. | risk of death, 30.6% lower, RR 0.69, p = 0.80, treatment 3 of 3,074 (0.1%), control 83 of 58,995 (0.1%), NNT 2320. |
| risk of case, 5.9% higher, RR 1.06, p = 0.70, treatment 51 of 3,074 (1.7%), control 973 of 58,995 (1.6%), odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| Konig, 5/7/2020, retrospective, database analysis, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, 11 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients; unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of hospitalization, 3.0% lower, RR 0.97, p = 0.88, treatment 16 of 29 (55.2%), control 29 of 51 (56.9%), NNT 59. |
| Korkmaz, 6/1/2021, retrospective, Turkey, preprint, 4 authors. | risk of death, 82.1% lower, RR 0.18, p = 0.19, treatment 0 of 385 (0.0%), control 2 of 299 (0.7%), NNT 150, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of case, 93.7% lower, RR 0.06, p < 0.001, treatment 2 of 395 (0.5%), control 24 of 299 (8.0%), NNT 13. | |
| Küçükakkaş, 7/20/2021, retrospective, Turkey, preprint, 2 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: minimal details of groups provided. | risk of ICU admission, 42.9% higher, RR 1.43, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 7 (14.3%), control 1 of 10 (10.0%). |
| Laplana, 9/9/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, survey, 3 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of case, 56.0% higher, RR 1.56, p = 0.24, treatment 17 of 319 (5.3%), control 11 of 319 (3.4%). |
| Liu (B), 2/5/2024, retrospective, China, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, study period December 2022 - February 2023. | risk of severe case, 39.0% lower, OR 0.61, p = 0.26, treatment 55, control 246, adjusted per study, multivariable, model 2, RR approximated with OR. |
| Llanos-Cuentas, 2/28/2023, Randomized Controlled Trial, Peru, peer-reviewed, mean age 39.2, 10 authors, study period July 2020 - November 2020, trial NCT04414241 (history). | risk of case, 69.0% higher, RR 1.69, p = 0.46, treatment 5 of 36 (13.9%), control 3 of 32 (9.4%), adjusted per study. |
| Loucera, 8/16/2022, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, study period January 2020 - November 2020. | risk of death, 69.3% lower, HR 0.31, p < 0.001, treatment 320, control 15,648, Cox proportional hazards, day 30. |
| MacFadden, 3/29/2022, retrospective, Canada, peer-reviewed, 9 authors, study period 15 January, 2020 - 31 December, 2020. | risk of case, 12.0% lower, OR 0.88, p = 0.01, RR approximated with OR. |
| Macias, 5/16/2020, retrospective, database analysis, Spain, preprint, 12 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of hospitalization, 25.5% lower, RR 0.74, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 290 (0.3%), control 2 of 432 (0.5%), NNT 846. |
| risk of case, 49.0% higher, RR 1.49, p = 0.53, treatment 5 of 290 (1.7%), control 5 of 432 (1.2%). | |
| Mahto, 2/15/2021, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of IgG positive, 26.9% lower, RR 0.73, p = 0.38, treatment 9 of 89 (10.1%), control 84 of 600 (14.0%), NNT 26, unadjusted, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Mathai, 11/6/2020, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, 3 authors. | risk of case, 89.5% lower, RR 0.10, p < 0.001, treatment 10 of 491 (2.0%), control 22 of 113 (19.5%), NNT 5.7. |
| risk of case, 88.5% lower, RR 0.12, p < 0.001, treatment 5 of 491 (1.0%), control 10 of 113 (8.8%), NNT 13, symptomatic. | |
| Mathew, 2/28/2023, prospective, India, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, study period April 2020 - October 2021. | risk of death, 20.0% lower, OR 0.80, p = 0.80, treatment 23, control 41, RR approximated with OR. |
| risk of hospitalization, no change, OR 1.00, p = 0.94, treatment 23, control 41, RR approximated with OR. | |
| risk of severe case, 40.0% lower, OR 0.60, p = 0.37, treatment 23, control 41, RR approximated with OR. | |
| McCullough, 8/20/2021, prospective, USA, preprint, 1 author. | risk of case, 51.7% lower, RR 0.48, p = 0.01, treatment 13 of 101 (12.9%), control 32 of 120 (26.7%), NNT 7.2. |
| McKinnon, 12/23/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, study period 7 April, 2020 - 15 December, 2020, trial NCT04341441 (history) (WHIP COVID-19). | risk of symptomatic case, 2.5% lower, RR 0.98, p = 1.00, treatment 2 of 365 (0.5%), control 1 of 178 (0.6%), NNT 7219, daily and weekly HCQ combined. |
| risk of symptomatic case, no change, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 178 (0.6%), control 1 of 178 (0.6%), daily HCQ. | |
| risk of symptomatic case, 4.8% lower, RR 0.95, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 187 (0.5%), control 1 of 178 (0.6%), NNT 3698, weekly HCQ. | |
| risk of symptomatic case, 53.3% lower, RR 0.47, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 25 (0.0%), control 1 of 178 (0.6%), NNT 178, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), AD patients. | |
| risk of case, 51.2% lower, RR 0.49, p = 0.60, treatment 2 of 365 (0.5%), control 2 of 178 (1.1%), NNT 174, daily and weekly HCQ combined. | |
| risk of case, 50.0% lower, RR 0.50, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 178 (0.6%), control 2 of 178 (1.1%), NNT 178, daily HCQ. | |
| risk of case, 52.4% lower, RR 0.48, p = 0.61, treatment 1 of 187 (0.5%), control 2 of 178 (1.1%), NNT 170, weekly HCQ. | |
| risk of case, 69.5% lower, RR 0.30, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 25 (0.0%), control 2 of 178 (1.1%), NNT 89, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), AD patients. | Moraes, 4/30/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo, trial NCT04384458 (history). | Estimated 400 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. | Morales-Asencio, 4/1/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04400019 (history) (PREVICHARM). | Estimated 1,930 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Naggie, 8/25/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, peer-reviewed, mean age 43.6, 23 authors, study period April 2020 - November 2020, trial NCT04334148 (history) (HERO-HCQ). | risk of symptomatic case, 23.5% lower, RR 0.76, p = 0.18, treatment 41 of 683 (6.0%), control 53 of 676 (7.8%), NNT 54, odds ratio converted to relative risk, logistic regression. |
| risk of symptomatic case, 29.3% lower, RR 0.71, p = 0.18, treatment 41 of 683 (6.0%), control 53 of 676 (7.8%), NNT 54, odds ratio converted to relative risk, Mantel-Haenszel. | |
| risk of symptomatic case, 50.5% lower, RR 0.49, p = 0.34, treatment 3 of 683 (0.4%), control 6 of 676 (0.9%), NNT 223, PCR confirmed. | Nanni, 9/30/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Italy, peer-reviewed, trial NCT04363827 (history) (PROTECT). | Estimated 2,300 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Nasri, 1/27/2023, Randomized Controlled Trial, Iran, peer-reviewed, mean age 29.7, 11 authors, study period 11 August, 2020 - 11 November, 2020, trial IRCT20200414047076N1. | risk of symptomatic case, 92.2% lower, RR 0.08, p = 0.03, treatment 0 of 70 (0.0%), control 6 of 73 (8.2%), NNT 12, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), severe cases. |
| risk of symptomatic case, 85.1% lower, RR 0.15, p = 0.003, treatment 2 of 70 (2.9%), control 14 of 73 (19.2%), NNT 6.1, moderate or severe cases. | |
| risk of symptomatic case, 47.9% lower, RR 0.52, p = 0.16, treatment 7 of 70 (10.0%), control 14 of 73 (19.2%), NNT 11, all cases. | Niriella, 7/3/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial SLCTR/2020/011. | 402 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Obrișcă, 9/28/2022, prospective, Romania, peer-reviewed, mean age 39.0, 12 authors, study period 26 February, 2020 - 1 May, 2021. | risk of case, 86.7% lower, RR 0.13, p = 0.01, treatment 10 of 81 (12.3%), control 5 of 14 (35.7%), NNT 4.3, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariable. |
| Oku, 9/6/2022, retrospective, Japan, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, study period 3 June, 2020 - 30 June, 2021. | risk of death, 92.2% lower, RR 0.08, p = 1.00, treatment 0 of 14 (0.0%), control 11 of 206 (5.3%), NNT 19, unadjusted, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| risk of hospitalization, 11.5% lower, RR 0.88, p = 0.34, treatment 9 of 14 (64.3%), control 177 of 206 (85.9%), NNT 4.6, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariable. | |
| Opdam, 2/23/2022, retrospective, Netherlands, peer-reviewed, 9 authors. | risk of hospitalization, 45.0% lower, OR 0.55, p = 0.18, treatment 8 of 81 (9.9%) cases, 59 of 396 (14.9%) controls, NNT 17, case control OR. |
| Oztas, 3/21/2022, retrospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 15 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients; excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | risk of hospitalization, 215.1% higher, RR 3.15, p = 0.36, treatment 3 of 317 (0.9%), control 1 of 333 (0.3%). |
| risk of symptomatic case, 40.1% higher, RR 1.40, p = 0.44, treatment 16 of 317 (5.0%), control 12 of 333 (3.6%). | |
| risk of case, 5.0% higher, RR 1.05, p = 0.88, treatment 22 of 317 (6.9%), control 22 of 333 (6.6%). | |
| Patel, 7/15/2022, retrospective, USA, preprint, mean age 60.0, 12 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of case, 46.3% lower, RR 0.54, p = 0.001, treatment 28 of 18,358 (0.2%), control 223 of 78,509 (0.3%), cases vs. total person-months, unadjusted. |
| Patil, 8/24/2021, prospective, India, preprint, 21 authors. | risk of death, 65.9% lower, RR 0.34, p = 0.10, treatment 5,266, control 3,946. |
| risk of case, 9.1% lower, RR 0.91, p = 0.43, treatment 167 of 5,266 (3.2%), control 147 of 3,946 (3.7%), NNT 181, adjusted per study. | Pellegrini, 9/12/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial ACTRN12620000501943 (COVID-SHIELD). | Estimated 2,250 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Pham, 3/2/2021, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 5 authors. | risk of death, 19.7% lower, RR 0.80, p = 0.77, treatment 2 of 14 (14.3%), control 5 of 28 (17.9%), NNT 28, odds ratio converted to relative risk, univariate. |
| risk of ICU admission, 35.5% higher, RR 1.35, p = 0.61, treatment 4 of 14 (28.6%), control 6 of 28 (21.4%), odds ratio converted to relative risk, univariate. | |
| Piñana, 8/25/2020, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 64.0, 46 authors, study period 1 March, 2020 - 15 May, 2020. | risk of death, 36.0% lower, OR 0.64, p = 0.11, RR approximated with OR. |
| Polo, 8/5/2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 38.0, 189 authors, study period 15 April, 2020 - 11 July, 2021, trial NCT04334928 (history) (EPICOS). | risk of symptomatic case, 51.0% lower, RR 0.49, p = 0.79, treatment 3 of 224 (1.3%), control 5 of 211 (2.4%), NNT 97, Kaplan–Meier, primary outcome. |
| risk of case, 27.0% lower, RR 0.73, p = 0.31, treatment 21 of 224 (9.4%), control 23 of 211 (10.9%), Kaplan–Meier. | |
| Raabe, 7/3/2022, prospective, USA, preprint, 7 authors, trial NCT04354870 (history). | risk of symptomatic case, 82.2% lower, RR 0.18, p = 0.17, treatment 1 of 59 (1.7%), control 2 of 21 (9.5%), NNT 13. |
| risk of symptomatic case, 88.4% lower, RR 0.12, p = 0.07, treatment 0 of 59 (0.0%), control 2 of 21 (9.5%), NNT 10, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), fever. | |
| risk of case, 28.8% lower, RR 0.71, p = 0.65, treatment 4 of 59 (6.8%), control 2 of 21 (9.5%), NNT 36, seroconversion. | |
| Rabe, 11/22/2023, retrospective, United Kingdom, peer-reviewed, mean age 45.2, 7 authors, study period 1 May, 2020 - 31 October, 2020. | risk of case, 28.6% lower, RR 0.71, p = 0.22, treatment 24 of 3,248 (0.7%), control 30 of 2,897 (1.0%), NNT 337. |
| Rajasingham, 9/21/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, peer-reviewed, 22 authors, study period 6 April, 2020 - 13 July, 2020, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo, trial NCT04328467 (history) (COVID PREP). | risk of hospitalization, 50.1% lower, RR 0.50, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 989 (0.1%), control 1 of 494 (0.2%), NNT 987, COVID-19. |
| risk of hospitalization, 39.0% lower, RR 0.61, p = 0.34, treatment 11 of 989 (1.1%), control 9 of 494 (1.8%), NNT 141, all cause. | |
| risk of case, 27.0% lower, HR 0.73, p = 0.07, treatment 58 of 989 (5.9%), control 39 of 494 (7.9%), NNT 49, adjusted per study, both arms combined, primary outcome. | |
| risk of case, 28.0% lower, HR 0.72, p = 0.18, treatment 29 of 495 (5.9%), control 39 of 494 (7.9%), NNT 49, adjusted per study, twice weekly, primary outcome. | |
| risk of case, 26.0% lower, HR 0.74, p = 0.22, treatment 29 of 494 (5.9%), control 39 of 494 (7.9%), NNT 49, adjusted per study, once weekly, primary outcome. | |
| Rangel, 1/10/2021, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 5 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of death, 25.1% lower, RR 0.75, p = 0.77, treatment 4 of 50 (8.0%), control 11 of 103 (10.7%), NNT 37, from all patients. |
| risk of hospitalization, 22.2% lower, RR 0.78, p = 0.29, treatment 17 of 50 (34.0%), control 45 of 103 (43.7%), NNT 10. | |
| hospitalization time, 41.2% lower, relative time 0.59, p = 0.12, treatment 21, control 54. | |
| Rao, 12/4/2021, prospective, India, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with minimal group details. | risk of case, 11.0% lower, RR 0.89, p = 0.68, treatment 16 of 273 (5.9%), control 67 of 1,021 (6.6%), NNT 143. |
| Rentsch, 9/9/2020, retrospective, population-based cohort, database analysis, United Kingdom, peer-reviewed, 34 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients; medication adherence unknown and may significantly change results. | risk of death, 3.0% higher, HR 1.03, p = 0.83, treatment 70 of 30,569 (0.2%), control 477 of 164,068 (0.3%), adjusted per study. |
| Revollo, 11/21/2020, retrospective, propensity score matching, Spain, peer-reviewed, 16 authors. | risk of case, 23.0% lower, RR 0.77, p = 0.52, treatment 16 of 69 (23.2%), control 65 of 418 (15.6%), adjusted per study, PSM, risk of PCR+. |
| risk of case, 43.0% higher, RR 1.43, p = 0.42, treatment 17 of 60 (28.3%), control 62 of 404 (15.3%), adjusted per study, PSM, risk of IgG+. | |
| Rojas-Serrano, 5/16/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Mexico, peer-reviewed, median age 31.5, 8 authors, study period 14 April, 2020 - 31 March, 2021, trial NCT04318015 (history). | risk of symptomatic case, 82.0% lower, RR 0.18, p = 0.12, treatment 1 of 62 (1.6%), control 6 of 65 (9.2%), NNT 13, adjusted per study. |
| Rutskaya-Moroshan, 8/23/2024, retrospective, Kazakhstan, peer-reviewed, mean age 56.1, 6 authors, study period January 2022 - July 2023, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of severe case, 38.1% lower, RR 0.62, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 10 (10.0%), control 21 of 130 (16.2%), NNT 16. |
| risk of hospitalization, 23.5% lower, RR 0.76, p = 1.00, treatment 2 of 10 (20.0%), control 34 of 130 (26.2%), NNT 16. | |
| Sahebari, 9/7/2022, retrospective, Iran, peer-reviewed, 6 authors. | risk of case, 56.0% lower, RR 0.44, p = 0.02, treatment 10 of 108 (9.3%), control 56 of 368 (15.2%), odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Salesi, 12/18/2023, retrospective, Iran, peer-reviewed, 2 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of severe case, 85.0% lower, RR 0.15, p = 0.003, treatment 2 of 44 (4.5%), control 10 of 33 (30.3%), NNT 3.9. |
| risk of moderate/severe case, 18.2% lower, RR 0.82, p = 0.35, treatment 24 of 44 (54.5%), control 22 of 33 (66.7%), NNT 8.2. | |
| Salvarani, 8/6/2020, retrospective, population-based cohort, Italy, peer-reviewed, 18 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of case, 6.0% lower, OR 0.94, p = 0.75, RR approximated with OR. |
| Samajdar, 11/17/2021, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, 9 authors, study period 1 September, 2020 - 31 December, 2020, dosage not specified, excluded in exclusion analyses: minimal details provided; unadjusted results with no group details; results may be significantly affected by survey bias. | risk of case, 74.5% lower, RR 0.25, p < 0.001, treatment 12 of 129 (9.3%), control 29 of 81 (35.8%), NNT 3.8, odds ratio converted to relative risk, physician survey. |
| risk of case, 48.6% lower, RR 0.51, p = 0.03, treatment 11 of 109 (10.1%), control 39 of 200 (19.5%), NNT 11, odds ratio converted to relative risk, combined ivermectin or HCQ in community. | |
| Santos, 7/27/2020, prospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, median age 78.4, mean age 75.3, 6 authors, study period 1 March, 2020 - 1 June, 2020, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of death, 92.5% lower, RR 0.08, p = 0.19, treatment 0 of 7 (0.0%), control 10 of 31 (32.3%), NNT 3.1, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
| Satti, 4/22/2022, retrospective, Qatar, peer-reviewed, 6 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: unadjusted results with no group details. | risk of case, 61.5% lower, RR 0.39, p = 0.04, treatment 10 of 63 (15.9%), control 7 of 17 (41.2%), NNT 4.0. |
| Schilling, 9/12/2024, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, median age 29.0, 88 authors, study period 29 April, 2020 - 10 March, 2022, trial NCT04303507 (history) (COPCOV). | risk of symptomatic case, 56.9% lower, RR 0.43, p < 0.001, treatment 24 of 2,320 (1.0%), control 56 of 2,332 (2.4%), NNT 73, PCR confirmed COVID-19. |
| risk of symptomatic case, 39.4% lower, RR 0.61, p = 0.009, treatment 44 of 2,320 (1.9%), control 73 of 2,332 (3.1%), NNT 81, PCR confirmed respiratory infections. | |
| risk of symptomatic case, 15.1% lower, RR 0.85, p = 0.05, treatment 240 of 2,320 (10.3%), control 284 of 2,332 (12.2%), NNT 55, post-hoc primary outcome. | |
| risk of miscellaneous, 23.5% lower, RR 0.77, p < 0.001, treatment 700 of 181,263 (0.4%), control 932 of 184,688 (0.5%), NNT 844, work days lost. | |
| severe adverse events, 46.3% lower, RR 0.54, p = 0.005, treatment 31 of 2,320 (1.3%), control 58 of 2,332 (2.5%), NNT 87, severe adverse events. | |
| risk of miscellaneous, 42.0% lower, RR 0.58, p < 0.001. | |
| risk of miscellaneous, 20.0% lower, RR 0.80, p < 0.001, meta analysis of (post-hoc in some cases) primary outcomes. | |
| Scirocco, 10/17/2023, retrospective, Italy, peer-reviewed, mean age 48.9, 14 authors. | risk of death/intubation, 41.3% lower, OR 0.59, p = 0.38, treatment 183, control 444, meta analysis of SLE and RA, RR approximated with OR. |
| risk of death/intubation, 65.0% lower, OR 0.35, p = 0.03, treatment 71, control 32, SLE, RR approximated with OR. | |
| risk of death/intubation, no change, OR 1.00, p = 0.87, treatment 112, control 412, RA, RR approximated with OR. | |
| Seet, 4/14/2021, Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial, Singapore, peer-reviewed, 15 authors, study period 13 May, 2020 - 31 August, 2020, dosage 400mg day 1, 200mg days 2-42, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo, trial NCT04446104 (history). | risk of symptomatic case, 35.1% lower, RR 0.65, p = 0.047, treatment 29 of 432 (6.7%), control 64 of 619 (10.3%), NNT 28. |
| risk of case, 32.0% lower, RR 0.68, p = 0.009, treatment 212 of 432 (49.1%), control 433 of 619 (70.0%), NNT 4.8, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, model 6. | |
| Sen, 4/24/2023, retrospective, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, survey, 8 authors, study period 31 January, 2022 - 21 May, 2022, COVAD trial. | risk of PASC, 40.0% lower, OR 0.60, p = 0.08, RR approximated with OR. |
| Shahrin, 12/7/2022, retrospective, Bangladesh, peer-reviewed, median age 34.0, 11 authors, study period 31 March, 2020 - 12 July, 2020. | risk of case, 87.8% higher, RR 1.88, p = 0.09, treatment 43 of 230 (18.7%), control 11 of 106 (10.4%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariable. |
| risk of case, 8.0% lower, OR 0.92, p = 0.89, adjusted per study, excluding the first 14 days and including participants that worked for at least 16 days, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. | |
| Shaw, 7/1/2021, retrospective, USA, peer-reviewed, 10 authors, study period 1 March, 2020 - 15 May, 2020. | risk of case, 13.0% lower, OR 0.87, p = 0.006, treatment 45, control 99, adjusted per study, propensity score matching, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. |
| Shukla, 12/13/2022, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, survey, 31 authors, study period July 2021 - October 2021, trial CTRI/2021/06/034255. | risk of PASC, 5.0% lower, RR 0.95, p = 0.78, treatment 22 of 76 (28.9%), control 184 of 603 (30.5%), NNT 64, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| Singer, 8/5/2020, retrospective, database analysis, USA, peer-reviewed, 3 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the baseline risk differences within systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of case, 9.0% higher, RR 1.09, p = 0.62, treatment 55 of 10,700 (0.5%), control 104 of 22,058 (0.5%). |
| Strangfeld, 1/27/2021, retrospective, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, 37 authors, study period 24 March, 2020 - 1 July, 2020. | risk of death, 48.0% lower, RR 0.52, p < 0.001, treatment 27 of 426 (6.3%), control 124 of 739 (16.8%), NNT 9.6, adjusted per study, inverted to make RR<1 favor treatment, odds ratio converted to relative risk, HCQ/CQ vs. no DMARD therapy, multivariable. |
| Sukumar, 11/14/2022, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, survey, 5 authors, study period July 2020 - September 2020. | risk of case, 37.6% lower, OR 0.62, p = 0.30, treatment 10 of 57 (17.5%) cases, 15 of 59 (25.4%) controls, NNT 8.6, case control OR. |
| Syed, 5/17/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, Pakistan, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, study period 1 May, 2020 - 25 September, 2020, trial NCT04359537 (history). | risk of symptomatic case, 59.7% higher, RR 1.60, p = 0.41, treatment 10 of 48 (20.8%), control 6 of 46 (13.0%), group 1. |
| risk of symptomatic case, 110.5% higher, RR 2.10, p = 0.13, treatment 14 of 51 (27.5%), control 6 of 46 (13.0%), group 2. | |
| risk of symptomatic case, 16.4% lower, RR 0.84, p = 0.77, treatment 6 of 55 (10.9%), control 6 of 46 (13.0%), NNT 47, group 3. | |
| risk of case, 91.7% higher, RR 1.92, p = 0.12, treatment 15 of 38 (39.5%), control 7 of 34 (20.6%), group 1. | |
| risk of case, 136.6% higher, RR 2.37, p = 0.02, treatment 19 of 39 (48.7%), control 7 of 34 (20.6%), group 2. | |
| risk of case, 21.4% higher, RR 1.21, p = 0.77, treatment 8 of 32 (25.0%), control 7 of 34 (20.6%), group 3. | |
| Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan, 6/1/2022, Randomized Controlled Trial, India, peer-reviewed, mean age 32.1, 21 authors, study period 29 June, 2020 - 4 February, 2021, trial CTRI/2020/05/025067 (HOPE). | risk of progression, 196.2% higher, RR 2.96, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 211 (0.5%), control 0 of 203 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), ICU/HDU. |
| risk of hospitalization, 51.9% lower, RR 0.48, p = 0.62, treatment 1 of 211 (0.5%), control 2 of 203 (1.0%), NNT 196. | |
| risk of case, 14.2% lower, RR 0.86, p = 0.73, treatment 11 of 211 (5.2%), control 12 of 203 (5.9%), NNT 143, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, confirmed cases, multivariable. | |
| risk of case, 5.7% lower, RR 0.94, p = 0.90, treatment 12 of 211 (5.7%), control 12 of 203 (5.9%), NNT 446, adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariable. | |
| Trefond, 1/27/2021, retrospective, France, peer-reviewed, 21 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients; significant unadjusted confounding possible; excessive unadjusted differences between groups. | risk of death, 16.6% higher, RR 1.17, p = 0.80, treatment 4 of 68 (5.9%), control 12 of 183 (6.6%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. |
| risk of death/ICU, 78.2% higher, RR 1.78, p = 0.21, treatment 8 of 71 (11.3%), control 18 of 191 (9.4%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | |
| risk of hospitalization, 44.9% higher, RR 1.45, p = 0.12, treatment 24 of 71 (33.8%), control 53 of 191 (27.7%), adjusted per study, odds ratio converted to relative risk. | Treluyer, 6/18/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04344379 (history) (PREP-COVID). | 122 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Ugarte-Gil, 2/16/2022, retrospective, multiple countries, peer-reviewed, 58 authors. | risk of severe case, 44.4% lower, OR 0.56, p = 0.007, treatment 665, control 230, adjusted per study, inverted to make OR<1 favor treatment, HCQ/CQ only vs. no SLE medication, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. |
| Vivanco-Hidalgo, 3/9/2021, retrospective, Spain, peer-reviewed, 8 authors, excluded in exclusion analyses: not fully adjusting for the different baseline risk of systemic autoimmune patients. | risk of hospitalization, 46.0% higher, RR 1.46, p = 0.10, treatment 40 of 6,746 (0.6%), control 50 of 13,492 (0.4%), adjusted per study. |
| risk of case, 8.0% higher, RR 1.08, p = 0.50, treatment 97 of 6,746 (1.4%), control 183 of 13,492 (1.4%), adjusted per study. | |
| Yadav (B), 7/11/2022, retrospective, India, peer-reviewed, mean age 34.1, 3 authors, study period 21 August, 2020 - 20 November, 2020. | risk of seropositive, 20.0% lower, OR 0.80, p = 0.10, treatment 1,255, control 969, adjusted per study, multivariable, RR approximated with OR. |
| Yadav (C), 9/30/2020, retrospective, India, preprint, 11 authors. | risk of hospitalization, 82.4% lower, RR 0.18, p = 0.01, treatment 2 of 279 (0.7%), control 9 of 221 (4.1%), NNT 30, PCR+. |
| risk of IgG+, 41.8% lower, RR 0.58, p = 0.049, treatment 17 of 178 (9.6%), control 27 of 221 (12.2%), odds ratio converted to relative risk, multivariate logistic regression. | |
| risk of IgG+, 79.0% lower, RR 0.21, p = 0.09, treatment 1 of 39 (2.6%), control 27 of 221 (12.2%), NNT 10, HCQ >10 weeks. | |
| risk of IgG+, 52.4% lower, RR 0.48, p = 0.14, treatment 5 of 86 (5.8%), control 27 of 221 (12.2%), NNT 16, HCQ 6-10 weeks. | |
| risk of IgG+, 69.9% higher, RR 1.70, p = 0.12, treatment 11 of 53 (20.8%), control 27 of 221 (12.2%), HCQ <6 weeks. | |
| Zhong, 7/3/2020, retrospective, database analysis, China, peer-reviewed, 20 authors. | risk of case, 91.0% lower, RR 0.09, p = 0.04, treatment 7 of 16 (43.8%), control 20 of 27 (74.1%), NNT 3.3, adjusted per study. |
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above
and gives priority to more serious outcomes. Only the first (most serious)
outcome is used in pooled analysis, which may differ from the effect a paper
focuses on. Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.
| Abu-Helalah, 1/31/2021, Randomized Controlled Trial, trial NCT04597775 (history) (APCC-19). | Estimated 93 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. | Al Ansari, 12/31/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, trial NCT04437693 (history) (HCQ-COVID19). | Estimated 500 patient RCT with results unknown and over 2 years late. |
| Barnabas, 12/7/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, peer-reviewed, 30 authors, study period 31 March, 2020 - 21 August, 2020, trial NCT04328961 (history) (HCQ COVID-19 PEP). | risk of hospitalization, 3.7% higher, RR 1.04, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 407 (0.2%), control 1 of 422 (0.2%). |
| risk of case, 27.0% higher, HR 1.27, p = 0.33, treatment 43 of 353 (12.2%), control 33 of 336 (9.8%), adjusted per study, day 14 symptomatic mITT PCR+ AIM. | |
| risk of case, 23.0% higher, HR 1.23, p = 0.41, treatment 40 of 317 (12.6%), control 32 of 309 (10.4%), adjusted per study, day 14 symptomatic mITT PCR+ IDWeek. | |
| risk of case, 10.0% higher, HR 1.10, p = 0.66, treatment 53 of 353 (15.0%), control 45 of 336 (13.4%), adjusted per study, day 14 PCR+ mITT AIM. | |
| risk of case, 1.0% lower, HR 0.99, p = 0.97, treatment 46 of 317 (14.5%), control 43 of 309 (13.9%), adjusted per study, day 14 PCR+ mITT IDWeek. | |
| risk of case, 19.0% lower, HR 0.81, p = 0.23, treatment 82 of 387 (21.2%), control 99 of 393 (25.2%), NNT 25, adjusted per study, day 14 PCR+ ITT AIM. | Borrie, 4/30/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04397328 (history). | Estimated 336 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Boulware (B), 6/3/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, peer-reviewed, 24 authors, study period 17 March, 2020 - 6 May, 2020, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo. | risk of case, 17.0% lower, RR 0.83, p = 0.35, treatment 49 of 414 (11.8%), control 58 of 407 (14.3%), NNT 41. |
| risk of case, 25.1% lower, RR 0.75, p = 0.22, treatment 32 of 414 (7.7%), control 42 of 407 (10.3%), NNT 39, probable COVID-19 cases. | |
| Dhibar, 1/7/2023, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, India, peer-reviewed, mean age 35.0, 14 authors, study period 22 March, 2021 - 17 June, 2021, trial NCT04858633 (history). | risk of symptomatic case, 26.7% lower, RR 0.73, p = 0.32, treatment 17 of 574 (3.0%), control 24 of 594 (4.0%), NNT 93. |
| risk of case, 21.2% lower, RR 0.79, p = 0.21, treatment 16 of 574 (2.8%), control 21 of 594 (3.5%), NNT 134, PCR+. | |
| risk of case, 8.0% lower, RR 0.92, p = 0.21, treatment 24 of 574 (4.2%), control 27 of 594 (4.5%), NNT 275. | |
| Dhibar (B), 11/6/2020, prospective, India, peer-reviewed, 13 authors, trial NCT04408456 (history). | risk of symptomatic case, 43.9% lower, RR 0.56, p = 0.21, treatment 6 of 132 (4.5%), control 15 of 185 (8.1%), NNT 28, adjusted per study. |
| risk of case, 50.0% lower, RR 0.50, p = 0.04, treatment 10 of 132 (7.6%), control 28 of 185 (15.1%), NNT 13, adjusted per study, PCR+. | |
| risk of case, 41.0% lower, RR 0.59, p = 0.03, treatment 14 of 132 (10.6%), control 36 of 185 (19.5%), NNT 11, adjusted per study. | Ghanem-Zoubi, 6/30/2022, Randomized Controlled Trial, trial NCT04438837 (history). | Estimated 582 patient RCT with results unknown and over 2 years late. | González, 10/31/2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, Spain, peer-reviewed, trial NCT04410562 (history). | 129 patient RCT with results unknown and over 3 years late. |
| Mitjà (B), 7/26/2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, Spain, peer-reviewed, 49 authors, study period 17 March, 2020 - 28 April, 2020, BCN-PEP-CoV2 trial. | risk of death, 45.6% lower, RR 0.54, p = 0.39, treatment 4 of 1,196 (0.3%), control 8 of 1,301 (0.6%), NNT 357, per supplemental appendix table S7, excluding patient that did not take any study medication and had an unknown cause of death. |
| risk of hospitalization, 16.8% lower, RR 0.83, p = 0.71, treatment 13 of 1,196 (1.1%), control 17 of 1,301 (1.3%), NNT 455, per supplemental appendix table S7, excluding patient that did not take any study medication and had an unknown cause of death. | |
| baseline PCR- risk of cases, 32.0% lower, RR 0.68, p = 0.27, treatment 29 of 958 (3.0%), control 45 of 1,042 (4.3%), NNT 77. | |
| Polat, 9/30/2020, prospective, Turkey, peer-reviewed, 3 authors. | risk of case, 57.0% lower, RR 0.43, p = 0.03, treatment 12 of 138 (8.7%), control 14 of 70 (20.0%), NNT 8.8. | Sarwar (B), 8/30/2020, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, trial NCT04346667 (history) (PEACE). | 125 patient RCT with results unknown and over 4 years late. |
| Shabani, 8/10/2021, prospective, Iran, peer-reviewed, 16 authors. | risk of symptomatic case, 19.0% lower, RR 0.81, p = 1.00, treatment 2 of 51 (3.9%), control 3 of 62 (4.8%), NNT 109, day 7. |
| risk of case, 6.4% higher, RR 1.06, p = 1.00, treatment 7 of 51 (13.7%), control 8 of 62 (12.9%), day 7, PCR+ and symptomatic. | |
| risk of case, 21.6% higher, RR 1.22, p = 0.78, treatment 7 of 51 (13.7%), control 7 of 62 (11.3%), day 7, PCR+ only. | |
| Simova (B), 11/12/2020, retrospective, Bulgaria, peer-reviewed, 5 authors. | risk of case, 92.7% lower, RR 0.07, p = 0.01, treatment 0 of 156 (0.0%), control 3 of 48 (6.2%), NNT 16, relative risk is not 0 because of continuity correction due to zero events (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm). |
Ruiz et al., Hydroxychloroquine lung pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients infected with COVID-19, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106247.
Prodromos et al., Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so used early, for Covid-19: A systematic review, New Microbes and New Infections, doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100776.
Ladapo et al., Randomized Controlled Trials of Early Ambulatory Hydroxychloroquine in the Prevention of COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death: Meta-Analysis, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.09.30.20204693.
Risch, H., Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis, American Journal of Epidemiology, kwaa093, 27 May 2020, doi:10.1093/aje/kwaa093.
Risch (B), H., Response to: “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients” and “Re: Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis”, American Journal of Epidemiology, July 20, 2020, doi:10.1093/aje/kwaa152.
García-Albéniz et al., Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19, European Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1007/s10654-022-00891-4.
Landsteiner de Sampaio Amêndola et al., COVID-19 Infection in Rheumatic Patients on Chronic Antimalarial Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Journal of Clinical Medicine, doi:10.3390/jcm11226865.
Stricker et al., Hydroxychloroquine Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers from India: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Infection and Public Health, doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2021.08.001.
Han et al., The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis and clinical assessment: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials, Journal of Thoracic Disease, doi:10.21037/jtd-23-1043.
Yang et al., SARS-CoV-2 infection causes dopaminergic neuron senescence, Cell Stem Cell, doi:10.1016/j.stem.2023.12.012.
Scardua-Silva et al., Microstructural brain abnormalities, fatigue, and cognitive dysfunction after mild COVID-19, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-024-52005-7.
Hampshire et al., Cognition and Memory after Covid-19 in a Large Community Sample, New England Journal of Medicine, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2311330.
Duloquin et al., Is COVID-19 Infection a Multiorganic Disease? Focus on Extrapulmonary Involvement of SARS-CoV-2, Journal of Clinical Medicine, doi:10.3390/jcm13051397.
Sodagar et al., Pathological Features and Neuroinflammatory Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 in the Brain and Potential Therapeutic Approaches, Biomolecules, doi:10.3390/biom12070971.
Sagar et al., COVID-19-associated cerebral microbleeds in the general population, Brain Communications, doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcae127.
Verma et al., Persistent Neurological Deficits in Mouse PASC Reveal Antiviral Drug Limitations, bioRxiv, doi:10.1101/2024.06.02.596989.
Panagea et al., Neurocognitive Impairment in Long COVID: A Systematic Review, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, doi:10.1093/arclin/acae042.
Ariza et al., COVID-19: Unveiling the Neuropsychiatric Maze—From Acute to Long-Term Manifestations, Biomedicines, doi:10.3390/biomedicines12061147.
Vashisht et al., Neurological Complications of COVID-19: Unraveling the Pathophysiological Underpinnings and Therapeutic Implications, Viruses, doi:10.3390/v16081183.
Ahmad et al., Neurological Complications and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: Results From International Neurological Study Group From the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, The Neurohospitalist, doi:10.1177/19418744241292487.
Eberhardt et al., SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers pro-atherogenic inflammatory responses in human coronary vessels, Nature Cardiovascular Research, doi:10.1038/s44161-023-00336-5.
Van Tin et al., Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Activates Cardiac Fibrogenesis through NLRP3 Inflammasomes and NF-κB Signaling, Cells, doi:10.3390/cells13161331.
Borka Balas et al., COVID-19 and Cardiac Implications—Still a Mystery in Clinical Practice, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, doi:10.31083/j.rcm2405125.
Malone et al., Structures and functions of coronavirus replication–transcription complexes and their relevance for SARS-CoV-2 drug design, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, doi:10.1038/s41580-021-00432-z.
Murigneux et al., Proteomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 particles unveils a key role of G3BP proteins in viral assembly, Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/s41467-024-44958-0.
Lv et al., Host proviral and antiviral factors for SARS-CoV-2, Virus Genes, doi:10.1007/s11262-021-01869-2.
Lui et al., Nsp1 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 replication through calcineurin-NFAT signaling, Virology, doi:10.1128/mbio.00392-24.
Niarakis et al., Drug-target identification in COVID-19 disease mechanisms using computational systems biology approaches, Frontiers in Immunology, doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1282859.
Katiyar et al., SARS-CoV-2 Assembly: Gaining Infectivity and Beyond, Viruses, doi:10.3390/v16111648.
González-Paz et al., Biophysical Analysis of Potential Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Cell Recognition and Their Effect on Viral Dynamics in Different Cell Types: A Computational Prediction from In Vitro Experimental Data, ACS Omega, doi:10.1021/acsomega.3c06968.
Alkafaas et al., A study on the effect of natural products against the transmission of B.1.1.529 Omicron, Virology Journal, doi:10.1186/s12985-023-02160-6.
Guimarães Silva et al., Are Non-Structural Proteins From SARS-CoV-2 the Target of Hydroxychloroquine? An in Silico Study, ACTA MEDICA IRANICA, doi:10.18502/acta.v61i2.12533.
Nguyen et al., The Potential of Ameliorating COVID-19 and Sequelae From Andrographis paniculata via Bioinformatics, Bioinformatics and Biology Insights, doi:10.1177/11779322221149622.
Yadav et al., Repurposing the Combination Drug of Favipiravir, Hydroxychloroquine and Oseltamivir as a Potential Inhibitor Against SARS-CoV-2: A Computational Study, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-628277/v1.
Hussein et al., Molecular Docking Identification for the efficacy of Some Zinc Complexes with Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine against Main Protease of COVID-19, Journal of Molecular Structure, doi:10.1016/j.molstruc.2021.129979.
Baildya et al., Inhibitory capacity of Chloroquine against SARS-COV-2 by effective binding with Angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptor: An insight from molecular docking and MD-simulation studies, Journal of Molecular Structure, doi:10.1016/j.molstruc.2021.129891.
Noureddine et al., Quantum chemical studies on molecular structure, AIM, ELF, RDG and antiviral activities of hybrid hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19: molecular docking and DFT calculations, Journal of King Saud University - Science, doi:10.1016/j.jksus.2020.101334.
Tarek et al., Pharmacokinetic Basis of the Hydroxychloroquine Response in COVID-19: Implications for Therapy and Prevention, European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, doi:10.1007/s13318-020-00640-6.
Rowland Yeo et al., Impact of Disease on Plasma and Lung Exposure of Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: Application of PBPK Modeling, Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, doi:10.1002/cpt.1955.
Hitti et al., Hydroxychloroquine attenuates double-stranded RNA-stimulated hyper-phosphorylation of tristetraprolin/ZFP36 and AU-rich mRNA stabilization, Immunology, doi:10.1111/imm.13835.
Yan et al., Super-resolution imaging reveals the mechanism of endosomal acidification inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2 infection, ChemBioChem, doi:10.1002/cbic.202400404.
Mohd Abd Razak et al., In Vitro Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Activities of Curcumin and Selected Phenolic Compounds, Natural Product Communications, doi:10.1177/1934578X231188861.
Alsmadi et al., The In Vitro, In Vivo, and PBPK Evaluation of a Novel Lung-Targeted Cardiac-Safe Hydroxychloroquine Inhalation Aerogel, AAPS PharmSciTech, doi:10.1208/s12249-023-02627-3.
Wen et al., Cholinergic α7 nAChR signaling suppresses SARS-CoV-2 infection and inflammation in lung epithelial cells, Journal of Molecular Cell Biology, doi:10.1093/jmcb/mjad048.
Kamga Kapchoup et al., In vitro effect of hydroxychloroquine on pluripotent stem cells and their cardiomyocytes derivatives, Frontiers in Pharmacology, doi:10.3389/fphar.2023.1128382.
Milan Bonotto et al., Cathepsin inhibitors nitroxoline and its derivatives inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection, Antiviral Research, doi:10.1016/j.antiviral.2023.105655.
Miao et al., SIM imaging resolves endocytosis of SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD in living cells, Cell Chemical Biology, doi:10.1016/j.chembiol.2023.02.001.
Yuan et al., Hydroxychloroquine blocks SARS-CoV-2 entry into the endocytic pathway in mammalian cell culture, Communications Biology, doi:10.1038/s42003-022-03841-8.
Faísca et al., Enhanced In Vitro Antiviral Activity of Hydroxychloroquine Ionic Liquids against SARS-CoV-2, Pharmaceutics, doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics14040877.
Delandre et al., Antiviral Activity of Repurposing Ivermectin against a Panel of 30 Clinical SARS-CoV-2 Strains Belonging to 14 Variants, Pharmaceuticals, doi:10.3390/ph15040445.
Purwati et al., An in vitro study of dual drug combinations of anti-viral agents, antibiotics, and/or hydroxychloroquine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus isolated from hospitalized patients in Surabaya, Indonesia, PLOS One, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0252302.
Zhang et al., SARS-CoV-2 spike protein dictates syncytium-mediated lymphocyte elimination, Cell Death & Differentiation, doi:10.1038/s41418-021-00782-3.
Dang et al., Structural basis of anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of hydroxychloroquine: specific binding to NTD/CTD and disruption of LLPS of N protein, bioRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.03.16.435741.
Shang et al., Inhibitors of endosomal acidification suppress SARS-CoV-2 replication and relieve viral pneumonia in hACE2 transgenic mice, Virology Journal, doi:10.1186/s12985-021-01515-1.
Wang et al., Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as ACE2 blockers to inhibit viropexis of 2019-nCoV Spike pseudotyped virus, Phytomedicine, doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2020.153333.
Sheaff, R., A New Model of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Based on (Hydroxy)Chloroquine Activity, bioRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.08.02.232892.
Ou et al., Hydroxychloroquine-mediated inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 entry is attenuated by TMPRSS2, PLOS Pathogens, doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1009212.
Andreani et al., In vitro testing of combined hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on SARS-CoV-2 shows synergistic effect, Microbial Pathogenesis, doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104228.
Clementi et al., Combined Prophylactic and Therapeutic Use Maximizes Hydroxychloroquine Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Effects in vitro, Front. Microbiol., 10 July 2020, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.01704.
Liu et al., Hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine, is effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro, Cell Discovery 6, 16 (2020), doi:10.1038/s41421-020-0156-0.
Yao et al., In Vitro Antiviral Activity and Projection of Optimized Dosing Design of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Clin. Infect. Dis., 2020 Mar 9, doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa237.
Wang (B) et al., Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro, Cell Res. 30, 269–271, doi:10.1038/s41422-020-0282-0.
Shu-Han Lin et al., Inhalable Chitosan-Based Hydrogel as a Mucosal Adjuvant for Hydroxychloroquine in the Treatment for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Hamster Model, Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, doi:10.1016/j.jmii.2023.08.001.
Zelenko, Z., Nebulized Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 Treatment: 80x Improvement in Breathing, Preprint, faculty.utrgv.edu/eleftherios.gkioulekas/zelenko/Zelenko-nebulized-hcq.pdf.
Kavanagh et al., Inhaled hydroxychloroquine to improve efficacy and reduce harm in the treatment of COVID-19, Med. Hypotheses, doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110110.
Klimke et al., Hydroxychloroquine as an aerosol might markedly reduce and even prevent severe clinical symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection, Med. Hypotheses, doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109783.
Jadad et al., Randomized Controlled Trials: Questions, Answers, and Musings, Second Edition, doi:10.1002/9780470691922.
Gøtzsche, P., Bias in double-blind trials, Doctoral Thesis, University of Copenhagen, www.scientificfreedom.dk/2023/05/16/bias-in-double-blind-trials-doctoral-thesis/.
Als-Nielsen et al., Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials, JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.290.7.921.
Anglemyer et al., Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4, doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2.
Lee et al., Analysis of Overall Level of Evidence Behind Infectious Diseases Society of America Practice Guidelines, Arch Intern Med., 2011, 171:1, 18-22, doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.482.
Deaton et al., Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials, Social Science & Medicine, 210, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005.
Nichol et al., Challenging issues in randomised controlled trials, Injury, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.03.033, www.injuryjournal.com/article/S0020-1383(10)00233-0/fulltext.
IHU Marseille, Meta-analysis on chloroquine derivatives and COVID-19 mortality, www.mediterranee-infection.com/meta-analysis-on-chloroquine-derivatives-and-covid-19-mortality-october20-2020-update/.
Axfors et al., Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials, Nature, doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22446-z.
RECOVERY Collaborative Group, Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial, NEJM, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2022926.
Borba et al., Chloroquine diphosphate in two different dosages as adjunctive therapy of hospitalized patients with severe respiratory syndrome in the context of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection: Preliminary safety results of a randomized, double-blinded, phase IIb clinical trial (CloroCovid-19 Study), JAMA Network Open, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8857.
SOLIDARITY Trial Consortium, Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19; interim WHO SOLIDARITY trial results, NEJM, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2023184.
Aboulenain et al., The Effect of Hydroxychloroquine on In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19, HCA Healthcare Journal of Medicine, doi:10.36518/2689-0216.1169.
Ader et al., An open-label randomized, controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-beta-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 - Final results from the DisCoVeRy trial, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2022.02.16.22271064.
Afşin et al., Factors affecting prognosis and mortality in severe COVID-19 pneumonia patients, Acta Clinica Croatica, doi:10.20471/acc.2023.62.01.13.
Alamdari et al., Mortality Risk Factors among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in a Major Referral Center in Iran, The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, doi:10.1620/tjem.252.73.
Albanghali et al., Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Mild to Moderate Covid-19 Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Single Centre Study, Journal of Infection and Public Health, doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2022.02.001.
Albani et al., Impact of Azithromycin and/or Hydroxychloroquine on Hospital Mortality in COVID-19, J, Clinical Medicine, doi:10.3390/jcm9092800.
Alghamdi et al., Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of severe (ICU) COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia: A single centre study, Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2021.08.008.
Alghamdi (B) et al., Clinical Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine in Patients with COVID-19: Findings from an Observational Comparative Study in Saudi Arabia, Antibiotics, doi:10.3390/antibiotics10040365.
Alhamlan et al., Epidemiology and Clinical Characteristics in Individuals with Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic in Saudi Arabia, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.07.13.21260428.
Alqatari et al., COVID-19 in patients with rheumatological diseases in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, Journal of Medicine and Life, doi:10.25122/jml-2023-0037.
AlShehhi et al., Utilizing machine learning for survival analysis to identify risk factors for COVID-19 intensive care unit admission: A retrospective cohort study from the United Arab Emirates, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0291373.
Alwafi et al., Negative Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR Conversion in Response to Different Therapeutic Interventions, Cureus, doi:10.7759/cureus.21442.
Annie et al., Hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Real world experience assessing mortality, Pharmacotherapy, doi:10.1002/phar.2467.
Aparisi et al., Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels are associated with poor clinical outcomes in COVID-19, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.06.20207092.
Assad, H., Pharmacotherapy prescribing pattern and outcome for hospitalized patients with severe and critical COVID-19, Current Issues in Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, doi:10.2478/cipms-2022-0020.
Awad et al., Impact of hydroxychloroquine on disease progression and ICU admissions in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxab056.
Azaña Gómez et al., Mortality risk factors in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and atrial fibrillation: Data from the SEMI-COVID-19 registry, Medicina Clínica, doi:10.1016/j.medcli.2022.01.008.
Azimi Pirsaraei et al., Anticoagulant Use in COVID-19 Patients: A Longitudinal Study From Zanjan, Iran, Cureus, doi:10.7759/cureus.66798.
Barbosa et al., Clinical outcomes of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a quasi-randomized comparative study, Preprint, www.sefq.es/_pdfs/NEJM_Hydroxychlorquine.pdf.
Barra et al., COVID-19 in hospitalized patients in 4 hospitals in San Isidro, Buenos Aires, Argentina, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.07.30.21261220.
Bielza et al., Clinical characteristics, frailty and mortality of residents with COVID-19 in nursing homes of a region of Madrid, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2020.12.003.
Boari et al., Prognostic factors and predictors of outcome in patients with COVID-19 and related pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study, Bioscience Reports, doi:10.1042/BSR20203455.
Bosaeed et al., Favipiravir and Hydroxychloroquine Combination Therapy in Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID19 (FACCT Trial): An Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial, Infect. Dis. Ther., doi:10.1007/s40121-021-00496-6.
Budhiraja et al., Clinical Profile of First 1000 COVID-19 Cases Admitted at Tertiary Care Hospitals and the Correlates of their Mortality: An Indian Experience, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.11.16.20232223.
Cassione et al., COVID-19 infection in a northern-Italian cohort of systemic lupus erythematosus assessed by telemedicine, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217717.
Chari et al., Clinical features associated with COVID-19 outcome in multiple myeloma: first results from the International Myeloma Society data set, Blood, doi:10.1182/blood.2020008150.
Charif et al., Predictive Factors of Death and the Clinical Profile of Hospitalized Covid-19 Patients in Morocco: A One-Year Mixed Cohort Study, Cureus, doi:10.7759/cureus.32462.
Chechter et al., Evaluation of patients treated by telemedicine in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in São Paulo, Brazil: A non-randomized clinical trial preliminary study, Heliyon, doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15337.
Choi et al., Comparison of antiviral effect for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 cases between lopinavir/ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine: A nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.10.062.
Coll et al., Covid-19 in transplant recipients: the spanish experience, American Journal of Transplantation, doi:10.1111/ajt.16369.
Cortez et al., Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients in a tertiary hospital in Baguio City, Philippines, Western Pacific Surveillance and Response Journal, doi:10.5365/wpsar.2021.12.4.852.
Cravedi et al., COVID-19 and kidney transplantation: Results from the TANGO International Transplant Consortium, American Journal of Transplantation, doi:10.1111/ajt.16185.
Cárdenas-Jaén et al., Gastrointestinal symptoms and complications in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, an international multicentre prospective cohort study (TIVURON project), Gastroenterología y Hepatología (English Edition), doi:10.1016/j.gastre.2023.05.002.
de Gonzalo-Calvo et al., A blood microRNA classifier for the prediction of ICU mortality in COVID-19 patients: a multicenter validation study, Respiratory Research, doi:10.1186/s12931-023-02462-x.
de la Iglesia et al., Hydroxicloroquine for pre-exposure prophyylaxis for SARS-CoV-2, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.08.31.20185314.
De Luna et al., Clinical and Demographic Characteristics of COVID-19 Patients Admitted in a Tertiary Care Hospital in the Dominican Republic, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.12.11.20247437.
Dey et al., Hydroxy Chloroquine Prophylaxis Experience in Doctor Community with COVID-19 in West Bengal, Journal of College of Medical Sciences-Nepal, doi:10.3126/jcmsn.v20i2.43302.
Erden et al., COVID-19 outcomes in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: a retrospective cohort study, Bratislava Medical Journal, doi:10.4149/BLL_2022_018.
Fernández-Cruz et al., Higher mortality of hospitalized haematologic patients with COVID-19 compared to non-haematologic is driven by thrombotic complications and development of ARDS: An age-matched cohorts study, Clinical Infection in Practice, doi:10.1016/j.clinpr.2022.100137.
Fitzgerald et al., Risk Factors for Infection and Health Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic in People with Autoimmune Diseases, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.02.03.21251069.
Fried et al., Patient Characteristics and Outcomes of 11,721 Patients with COVID19 Hospitalized Across the United States, Clinical Infectious Disease, doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1268.
Fung et al., Effect of common maintenance drugs on the risk and severity of COVID-19 in elderly patients, PLoS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266922.
Gadhiya et al., Clinical characteristics of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and the impact on mortality: a single-network, retrospective cohort study from Pennsylvania state, BMJ Open, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042549.
Gautret et al., Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949.
Geleris et al., Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19, NEJM, May 7, 2020, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2012410.
Gendebien et al., Systematic analysis of COVID-19 infection and symptoms in a systemic lupus erythematosus population: correlation with disease characteristics, hydroxychloroquine use and immunosuppressive treatments, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218244.
Gendelman et al., Continuous Hydroxychloroquine or Colchicine Therapy Does Not Prevent Infection With SARS-CoV-2: Insights From a Large Healthcare Database Analysis, Autoimmunity Reviews, 19:7, July 2020, doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102566.
Gianfrancesco et al., Characteristics associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 in people with rheumatic disease: data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 79:7, 859-866, doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217871.
Goldman et al., Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19, NEJM, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2015301.
Guillaume et al., Antirheumatic Drug Intake Influence on Occurrence of COVID-19 Infection in Ambulatory Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Cohort Study, Rheumatology and Therapy, doi:10.1007/s40744-021-00373-1.
Gupta et al., Factors Associated With Death in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the US, JAMA Intern. Med., doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3596.
Hall et al., Multi-institutional Analysis of 505 COVID-19 Patients Supported with ECMO: Predictors of Survival, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.01.043.
Ho et al., Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: A Single Center, Retrospective Cohort Study, Malaysian Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences, doi:10.47836/mjmhs.19.2.3.
Hraiech et al., Lack of viral clearance by the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin or lopinavir and ritonavir in SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome, Ann. Intensive Care, doi:10.1186/s13613-020-00678-4.
Huang et al., Clinical characteristics of 17 patients with COVID-19 and systemic autoimmune diseases: a retrospective study, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217425.
Huh et al., Association of prescribed medications with the risk of COVID-19 infection and severity among adults in South Korea, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.12.041.
Jacobs et al., Multi-institutional Analysis of 200 COVID-19 Patients treated with ECMO:Outcomes and Trends, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.06.026.
Juneja et al., Hydroxychloroquine pre-exposure prophylaxis provides no protection against COVID-19 among health care workers: a cross-sectional study in a tertiary care hospital in North India, Journal of Basic and Clinical Physiology and Pharmacology, doi:10.1515/jbcpp-2021-0221.
Kamran et al., Clearing the fog: Is HCQ effective in reducing COVID-19 progression: A randomized controlled trial, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.07.30.20165365.
Kamstrup et al., Hydroxychloroquine as a primary prophylactic agent against sars-cov-2 infection: a cohort study, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.05.076.
Karruli et al., Multidrug-Resistant Infections and Outcome of Critically Ill Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Single Center Experience, Microbial Drug Resistance, doi:10.1089/mdr.2020.0489.
Kelly et al., Clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients hospitalised with COVID-19, treated with off-label hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, doi:10.1111/bcp.14482.
Konig et al., Baseline use of hydroxychloroquine in systemic lupus erythematosus does not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217690.
Krishnan et al., Clinical comorbidities, characteristics, and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients in the State of Michigan with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110005.
Kuderer et al., Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study, Lancet, June 20, 2020, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31187-9.
Küçükakkaş et al., The effect of hydroxychloroquine against SARS-CoV-2 infection in rheumatoid arthritis patients, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-43812/v1.
Lamback et al., Hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin in patients hospitalized for mild and moderate COVID-19, The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.bjid.2021.101549.
Laplana et al., Lack of protective effect of chloroquine derivatives on COVID-19 disease in a Spanish sample of chronically treated patients, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243598.
Lecronier et al., Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: an opportunistic retrospective analysis, Critical Care, 24:418, 2020, doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03117-9.
Lotfy et al., Use of Hydroxychloroquine in Patients with COVID-19: A Retrospective Observational Study, Turk. Thorac. J., doi:10.5152/TurkThoracJ.2021.20180.
Luo et al., COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer, Annals of Oncology, 31:10, 1386-1396, doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.007.
Lyashchenko et al., Systemic Exposure to Hydroxychloroquine and its relationship with outcome in severely ill COVID-19 patients in New York City, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, doi:10.1111/bcp.15489.
Macias et al., Similar incidence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with rheumatic diseases with and without hydroxychloroquine therapy, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.05.16.20104141.
Mahale et al., A Retrospective Observational Study of Hypoxic COVID-19 Patients Treated with Immunomodulatory Drugs in a Tertiary Care Hospital, Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23599.
Mahto et al., Seroprevalence of IgG against SARS-CoV-2 and its determinants among healthcare workers of a COVID-19 dedicated hospital of India, American Journal of Blood Research, 11:1, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8010601/.
Maldonado et al., COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in a home dialysis unit in Madrid (Spain) at the height of the pandemic, Nefrología, doi:10.1016/j.nefro.2020.09.002.
Malundo et al., Predictors of Mortality among inpatients with COVID-19 Infection in a Tertiary Referral Center in the Philippines, IJID Regions, doi:10.1016/j.ijregi.2022.07.009.
Martin-Vicente et al., Absent or insufficient anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies at ICU admission are associated to higher viral loads in plasma, antigenemia and mortality in COVID-19 patients, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.03.08.21253121.
Martinez-Lopez et al., Multiple Myeloma and SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Clinical Characteristics and Prognostic Factors of Inpatient Mortality, Blood Cancer Journal, doi:10.1038/s41408-020-00372-5.
McGrail et al., COVID-19 Case Series at UnityPoint Health St. Luke’s Hospital in Cedar Rapids, IA, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.07.17.20156521.
Menardi et al., A retrospective analysis on pharmacological approaches to COVID-19 patients in an Italian hub hospital during the early phase of the pandemic, PharmAdvances, doi:10.36118/pharmadvances.2021.15.
Mohandas et al., Clinical review of COVID-19 patients presenting to a quaternary care private hospital in South India: A retrospective study, Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health, doi:10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100751.
Mulhem et al., 3219 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in Southeast Michigan: a retrospective case cohort study, BMJ Open, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042042.
Niwas et al., Clinical outcome, viral response and safety profile of chloroquine in COVID-19 patients — initial experience, Advances in Respiratory Medicine, doi:10.5603/ARM.a2020.0139.
Oztas et al., Frequency and Severity of COVID-19 in Patients with Various Rheumatic Diseases Treated Regularly with Colchicine or Hydroxychloroquine, Journal of Medical Virology, doi:10.1002/jmv.27731.
Pasquini et al., Effectiveness of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19 under mechanical ventilation in an Italian ICU, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, doi:10.1093/jac/dkaa321.
Patel et al., Factors Associated with COVID-19 Breakthrough Infection in the Pre-Omicron Era Among Vaccinated Patients with Rheumatic Diseases: A Cohort Study, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2022.07.13.22277606.
Peters et al., Outcomes of Persons With COVID-19 in Hospitals With and Without Standard Treatment With (Hydroxy)chloroquine, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.10.004.
Psevdos et al., Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) in a Veterans Affairs Hospital at Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.721.
Qin et al., Low molecular weight heparin and 28-day mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A cohort study in the early epidemic era, Thrombosis Research, doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2020.11.020.
Ramírez-García et al., Hydroxychloroquine and Tocilizumab in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Longitudinal Observational Study, Archivos de Medicina Universitaria, 3:1, digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/69170.
Rangel et al., Chronic Hydroxychloroquine Therapy and COVID-19 Outcomes: A Retrospective Case-Control Analysis, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.10.098.
Rao et al., Hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers: a prospective cohort study, Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy, doi:10.1080/14787210.2022.2015326.
Rentsch et al., Effect of pre-exposure use of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 mortality: a population-based cohort study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus using the OpenSAFELY platform, The Lancet Rheumatology, doi:10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30378-7.
Rodriguez et al., Severe infection due to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus: Experience of a tertiary hospital with COVID-19 patients during the 2020 pandemic, Medicina Intensiva, doi:10.1016/j.medine.2020.05.005.
Roger et al., French Multicentre Observational Study on SARS-CoV-2 infections Intensive care initial management: the FRENCH CORONA Study, Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine, doi:10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100931.
Roig et al., Clinical and pharmacological data in COVID-19 hospitalized nonagenarian patients, Revista Espanola de Quimioterapia, doi:10.37201/req/130.2020.
Roomi et al., Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19: A single-center retrospective chart review, J. Medical Internet Research, doi:10.2196/21758.
Rosenthal et al., Risk Factors Associated With In-Hospital Mortality in a US National Sample of Patients With COVID-19, JAMA Network Open, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.29058.
Roy et al., Outcome of Different Therapeutic Interventions in Mild COVID-19 Patients in a Single OPD Clinic of West Bengal: A Retrospective study, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.03.08.21252883.
Rubio-Sánchez et al., Prognostic factors for the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Advances in Laboratory Medicine / Avances en Medicina de Laboratorio, doi:10.1515/almed-2021-0017.
Rutskaya-Moroshan et al., Clinical Characteristics, Prognostic Factors, and Outcomes of COVID-19 in Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease Patients: A Retrospective Case–Control Study from Astana, Kazakhstan, Medicina, doi:10.3390/medicina60091377.
Saib et al., Lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia: A retrospective study, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0252388.
Said et al., Profiles of Independent-Comorbidity Groups in Senior COVID-19 Patients Reveal Low Fatality Associated with Standard Care and Low-Dose Hydroxychloroquine over Antivirals, Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, doi:10.2147/JMDH.S403700.
Salazar et al., Significantly Decreased Mortality in a Large Cohort of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients Transfused Early with Convalescent Plasma Containing High-Titer Anti–Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Spike Protein IgG, The American Journal of Pathology, doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2020.10.008.
Saleemi et al., Time to negative PCR from symptom onset in COVID-19 patients on Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin - A real world experience, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.08.05.20151027.
Salehi et al., Risk factors of death in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients: a retrospective multi-center study, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1362678/v1.
Salesi et al., Clinical signs, symptoms, and severity of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 epidemic, Immunopathologia Persa, doi:10.34172/ipp.2023.40568.
Salvarani et al., Susceptibility to COVID-19 in Patients Treated With Antimalarials: A Population-Based Study in Emilia-Romagna, Northern Italy, Arthritis & Rheumatology, doi:10.1002/art.41475.
Samajdar et al., Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine for Chemo-Prophylaxis of COVID-19: A Questionnaire Survey of Perception and Prescribing Practice of Physicians vis-a-vis Outcomes, Journal of the Association of Physicians India, 69:11, www.researchgate.net/publication/356294136_Ivermectin_and_Hydroxychloroquine_for_Chemo-Prophylaxis_of_COVID-19_A_Questionnaire_Survey_of_Perception_and_Prescribing_Practice_of_Physicians_vis-a-vis_Outcomes.
Sammartino et al., Predictors for inpatient mortality during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A retrospective analysis, PLOS One, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251262.
Sands et al., No clinical benefit in mortality associated with hydroxychloroquine treatment in patients with COVID-19, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.12.060.
Santos et al., Determinants of COVID-19 disease severity in patients with underlying rheumatic disease, Clinical Rheumatology, doi:10.1007/s10067-020-05301-2.
Santos (B) et al., Determinants of COVID-19 disease severity in patients with underlying rheumatic disease, Clinical Rheumatology, doi:10.1007/s10067-020-05301-2.
Sarfaraz et al., Determinants of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19; a prospective cohort study from Pakistan, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.12.28.20248920.
Sarhan et al., Efficacy of the early treatment with tocilizumab-hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab-remdesivir in severe COVID-19 Patients, Journal of Infection and Public Health, doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2021.10.024.
Satti et al., Characteristics and Obstetric Outcomes in Women With Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Qatar, Cureus, doi:10.7759/cureus.24382.
Sbidian et al., Hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin and in-hospital mortality or discharge in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection: a cohort study of 4,642 in-patients in France, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.06.16.20132597.
Schmidt et al., Association Between Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Mortality Among Patients With Prostate Cancer and COVID-19, JAMA Network Open, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.34330.
Shamsi et al., Survival and Mortality in Hospitalized Children with COVID-19: A Referral Center Experience in Yazd, Iran, Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, doi:10.1155/2023/5205188.
Shoaibi et al., Comparative Effectiveness of Famotidine in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.09.23.20199463.
Singer et al., Hydroxychloroquine ineffective for COVID-19 prophylaxis in lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218500.
Singh et al., Outcomes of Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in the United States- Real-World Evidence From a Federated Electronic Medical Record Network, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.05.12.20099028.
Smith et al., Observational Study on 255 Mechanically Ventilated Covid Patients at the Beginning of the USA Pandemic, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012.
Solh et al., Clinical course and outcome of COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: data from a national repository, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.16.20214130.
Sosa-García et al., Experience in the management of severe COVID-19 patients in an intensive care unit, Cir Cir. 2020, 88:5, 569-575, doi:10.24875/CIRU.20000675.
Soto et al., Mortality and associated risk factors in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 in a Peruvian reference hospital, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264789.
Soto-Becerra et al., Real-World Effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and ivermectin among hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Results of a target trial emulation using observational data from a nationwide Healthcare System in Peru, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.06.20208066.
Souza-Silva et al., Dados de Vida Real sobre o Uso da Hidroxicloroquina ou da Cloroquina Combinadas ou Não à Azitromicina em Pacientes com Covid-19: Uma Análise Retrospectiva no Brasil, Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, doi:10.36660/abc.20220935.
Stewart et al., COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator: A parallel analysis to describe the use of Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, PLoS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248128.
Tamura et al., Outcome and death risk of diabetes patients with Covid-19 receiving pre-hospital and in-hospital metformin therapies, Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, doi:10.1186/s13098-021-00695-8.
Tehrani et al., Risk factors for mortality in adult COVID-19 patients: frailty predicts fatal outcome in older patients, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.10.071.
Texeira et al., Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to a regional health system in the southeast, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.560.
Trefond et al., Effet d’un traitement par hydroxychloroquine prescrit comme traitement de fond de rhumatismes inflammatoires chroniques ou maladies auto-immunes systémiques sur les tests diagnostiques et l’évolution de l’infection à SARS CoV-2: étude de 871 patients, Revue du Rhumatisme, doi:10.1016/j.rhum.2021.09.004.
Tu et al., Risk Factors for Severity and Mortality in Adult Patients Confirmed with COVID-19 in Sierra Leone: A Retrospective Study, Infectious Diseases & Immunity, doi:10.1097/ID9.0000000000000037.
Ubaldo et al., COVID-19: A Single-Center ICU Experience of the First Wave in the Philippines, Critical Care Research and Practice, doi:10.1155/2021/7510306.
Ulrich et al., Treating Covid-19 With Hydroxychloroquine (TEACH): A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial in Hospitalized Patients, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa446.
Vernaz et al., Early experimental COVID-19 therapies: associations with length of hospital stay, mortality and related costs, Swiss Medical Weekly, doi:10.4414/smw.2020.20446.
Vivanco-Hidalgo et al., Incidence of COVID-19 in patients exposed to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine: results from a population-based prospective cohort in Catalonia, Spain, 2020, Eurosurveillance, doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.9.2001202.
Wang (C) et al., Comorbidity and Sociodemographic determinants in COVID-19 Mortality in an US Urban Healthcare System, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.06.11.20128926.
Xia et al., Efficacy of Chloroquine and Lopinavir/ Ritonavir in mild/general novel coronavirus (CoVID-19) infections: a prospective, open-label, multicenter randomized controlled clinical study, ChiCTR2000029741, www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=49263.
Yegerov et al., Epidemiological and Clinical Characteristics, and Virologic Features of COVID-19 Patients in Kazakhstan: a Nation-Wide, Retrospective, Cohort Study, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.01.06.20249091.
Çivriz Bozdağ et al., Clinical Characteristics and Outcome of COVID-19 in Turkish Hematological Malignancy Patients, Turk. J. Haematol., doi:10.4274/tjh.galenos.2021.2021.0287.
Çiyiltepe et al., The Effect of Pre-admission Hydroxychloroquine Treatment on COVID-19-Related Intensive Care Follow-up in Geriatric Patients, South. Clin. Ist. Euras., doi:10.14744/scie.2021.89847.
Treanor et al., Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Neuraminidase Inhibitor Oseltamivir in Treating Acute Influenza: A Randomized Controlled Trial, JAMA, 2000, 283:8, 1016-1024, doi:10.1001/jama.283.8.1016.
McLean et al., Impact of Late Oseltamivir Treatment on Influenza Symptoms in the Outpatient Setting: Results of a Randomized Trial, Open Forum Infect. Dis. September 2015, 2:3, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofv100.
Ikematsu et al., Baloxavir Marboxil for Prophylaxis against Influenza in Household Contacts, New England Journal of Medicine, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1915341.
Hayden et al., Baloxavir Marboxil for Uncomplicated Influenza in Adults and Adolescents, New England Journal of Medicine, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1716197.
Kumar et al., Combining baloxavir marboxil with standard-of-care neuraminidase inhibitor in patients hospitalised with severe influenza (FLAGSTONE): a randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority trial, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00469-2.
López-Medina et al., Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.2021.3071.
Korves et al., SARS-CoV-2 Genetic Variants and Patient Factors Associated with Hospitalization Risk, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2024.03.08.24303818.
Faria et al., Genomics and epidemiology of the P.1 SARS-CoV-2 lineage in Manaus, Brazil, Science, doi:10.1126/science.abh2644.
Nonaka et al., SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern P.1 (Gamma) infection in young and middle-aged patients admitted to the intensive care units of a single hospital in Salvador, Northeast Brazil, February 2021, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.08.003.
Karita et al., Trajectory of viral load in a prospective population-based cohort with incident SARS-CoV-2 G614 infection, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.08.27.21262754.
Zavascki et al., Advanced ventilatory support and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 caused by Gamma (P.1) variant of concern compared to other lineages: cohort study at a reference center in Brazil, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-910467/v1.
Willett et al., The hyper-transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant exhibits significant antigenic change, vaccine escape and a switch in cell entry mechanism, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2022.01.03.21268111.
Peacock et al., The SARS-CoV-2 variant, Omicron, shows rapid replication in human primary nasal epithelial cultures and efficiently uses the endosomal route of entry, bioRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.12.31.474653.
Jitobaom et al., Favipiravir and Ivermectin Showed in Vitro Synergistic Antiviral Activity against SARS-CoV-2, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-941811/v1.
Jitobaom (B) et al., Synergistic anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of repurposed anti-parasitic drug combinations, BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, doi:10.1186/s40360-022-00580-8.
Jeffreys et al., Remdesivir-ivermectin combination displays synergistic interaction with improved in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106542.
Ostrov et al., Highly Specific Sigma Receptor Ligands Exhibit Anti-Viral Properties in SARS-CoV-2 Infected Cells, Pathogens, doi:10.3390/pathogens10111514.
Alsaidi et al., Griffithsin and Carrageenan Combination Results in Antiviral Synergy against SARS-CoV-1 and 2 in a Pseudoviral Model, Marine Drugs, doi:10.3390/md19080418.
De Forni et al., Synergistic drug combinations designed to fully suppress SARS-CoV-2 in the lung of COVID-19 patients, PLoS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276751.
Wan et al., Synergistic inhibition effects of andrographolide and baicalin on coronavirus mechanisms by downregulation of ACE2 protein level, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54722-5.
Said (B) et al., The effect of Nigella sativa and vitamin D3 supplementation on the clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial, Frontiers in Pharmacology, doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.1011522.
Fiaschi et al., In Vitro Combinatorial Activity of Direct Acting Antivirals and Monoclonal Antibodies against the Ancestral B.1 and BQ.1.1 SARS-CoV-2 Viral Variants, Viruses, doi:10.3390/v16020168.
Xing et al., Published anti-SARS-CoV-2 in vitro hits share common mechanisms of action that synergize with antivirals, Briefings in Bioinformatics, doi:10.1093/bib/bbab249.
Thairu et al., A Comparison of Ivermectin and Non Ivermectin Based Regimen for COVID-19 in Abuja: Effects on Virus Clearance, Days-to-discharge and Mortality, Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International, doi:10.9734/jpri/2022/v34i44A36328.
Williams, T., Not All Ivermectin Is Created Equal: Comparing The Quality of 11 Different Ivermectin Sources, Do Your Own Research, doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/not-all-ivermectin-is-created-equal.
Xu et al., A study of impurities in the repurposed COVID-19 drug hydroxychloroquine sulfate by UHPLC-Q/TOF-MS and LC-SPE-NMR, Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, doi:10.1002/rcm.9358.
Singh (B) et al., The relationship between viral clearance rates and disease progression in early symptomatic COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, doi:10.1093/jac/dkae045.
Berry et al., Unfavorable Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 Research Associated with Authors Having a History of Political Party Donations, SSRN, Berry, doi:10.2139/ssrn.3707327.
Bianet, Turkey begins distributing hydroxychloroquine to homes in capital city amid bed shortage, bianet.org/english/health/230676-turkey-begins-distributing-hydroxychloroquine-to-homes-in-capital-city-amid-bed-shortage.
Middle East Eye, Coronavirus: Turkey says hydroxychloroquine dramatically reduces pneumonia cases, www.middleeasteye.net/news/coronavirus-turkey-hydroxychloroquine-malaria-treatment-progress.
BBC, Coronavirus: How Turkey took control of Covid-19 emergency, www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52831017.
CBS News, Turkey claims success treating virus with drug touted by Trump, www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/turkey-claims-success-treating-virus-with-drug-touted-by-trump/ar-BB13oMXS.
Filipova et al., Is there a Correlation between Changes in Hydroxychloroquine Use and Mortality Rates from COVID-19?, Health Science Journal, www.hsj.gr/medicine/is-there-a-correlation-between-changesin-hydroxychloroquine-use-and-mortalityrates-from-covid19.pdf.
Barron's, Hydroxychloroquine: A Drug Dividing The World, www.barrons.com/news/hydroxychloroquine-a-drug-dividing-the-world-01591006809.
Rathi et al., Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis for COVID-19 contacts in India Lancet Infect. Dis. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30313-3, www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30313-3/fulltext.
Oneindia, No COVID-19 death in Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim so far: Govt, www.oneindia.com/india/no-covid-19-death-in-manipur-mizoram-nagaland-sikkim-so-far-health-ministry-3111048.html.
Dr. Goldin, Summary of HCQ usage in India from an MD in India, www.facebook.com/groups/hydroxychloroquine/permalink/2367454293560817/.
AFP, India backs hydroxychloroquine for virus prevention, www.msn.com/en-ph/news/world/india-backs-hydroxychloroquine-for-virus-prevention/ar-BB14EloP?ocid=st2.
The Indian Express, Vadodara administration drive: HCQ helping in containing Covid-19 cases, say docs as analysis begins, indianexpress.com/article/india/vadodara-administration-drive-hcq-helping-in-containing-covid-19-cases-say-docs-as-analysis-begins-6486049/.
Government of India, The caregiver and all close contacts of such cases should take HCQ prophylaxis, www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/RevisedHomeIsolationGuidelines.pdf.
The Australian, India and Indonesia stand by antimalarials, www.theaustralian.com.au/world/coronavirus-india-and-indonesia-stand-by-antimalarials/news-story/d7856d1371697fe69e4fcc39d7f1f97c.
The Tico Times, News briefs: Reopening plans on-track, hydroxychloroquine use to continue, partnership with Coursera, ticotimes.net/2020/06/15/news-briefs-reopening-plans-on-track-hydroxychloroquine-use-to-continue-partnership-with-coursera.
Q Costa Rica, Hydroxychloroquine: The Drug Costa Rica Uses Successfully To Fight Covid-19, qcostarica.com/hydroxychloroquine-the-drug-costa-rica-uses-successfully-to-fight-covid-19/.
NPR News, Senegal pledges a bed for every coronavirus patient, wfuv.org/content/senegal-pledges-bed-every-coronavirus-patient-%E2%80%94-and-their-contacts-too.
Teller Report, Coronavirus: a study in Senegal confirms the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, www.tellerreport.com/news/2020-05-02-coronavirus--a-study-in-senegal-confirms-the-effectiveness-of-hydroxychloroquine.BJeet4Kst8.html.
Africanews, Coronavirus patients on chloroquine heal faster - Senegalese medic, www.africanews.com/2020/04/06/coronavirus-patients-on-chloroquine-heal-faster-senegalese-medic/.
Belayneh, A., Off-Label Use of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 Treatment in Africa Against WHO Recommendation, www.dovepress.com/off-label-use-of-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-treat-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-RRTM.
Medical Xpress, Senegal says hydroxychloroquine virus treatment is promising, medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-senegal-hydroxychloroquine-virus-treatment.html.
Afrik.com, Edouard Philippe emporté par le Covid, Didier Raoult, l’hydroxychloroquine et le… remdésivir, www.afrik.com/edouard-philippe-emporte-par-le-covid-didier-raoult-l-hydroxychloroquine-et-le-remdesivir.
The Africa Report, Coronavirus: Didier Raoult the African and chloroquine, from Dakar to Brazzaville, www.theafricareport.com/26264/coronavirus-didier-raoult-the-african-and-chloroquine-from-dakar-to-brazzaville/.
Parola et al., COVID-19 in Africa: What else?, www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/COVIDAfricaJOUMII.pdf.
Franceinfo, Ces pays africains qui ont décidé de continuer à soigner le Covid-19 avec l'hydroxychloroquine, www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/afrique/senegal/ces-pays-africains-qui-ont-decide-de-continuer-a-soigner-le-covid-19-avec-l-hydroxychloroquine_3983239.html.
Medical Xpress (B), Amid global controversy, Greece moves forward with chloroquine, medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-global-controversy-greece-chloroquine.html.
Barron's (B), Amid Global Controversy, Greece Moves Forward With Chloroquine, www.barrons.com/news/amid-global-controversy-greece-moves-forward-with-chloroquine-01591781707.
Russian Government, ВРЕМЕННЫЕ МЕТОДИЧЕСКИЕ РЕКОМЕНДАЦИИ ПРОФИЛАКТИКА, ДИАГНОСТИКА И ЛЕЧЕНИЕ НОВОЙ КОРОНАВИРУСНОЙ ИНФЕКЦИИ (COVID-19), static-0.minzdrav.gov.ru/system/attachments/attaches/000/052/548/original/%D0%9C%D0%A0_COVID-19_%28v.9%29.pdf.
PledgeTimes, Russian Ministry of Health has updated recommendations for the treatment of COVID-19, pledgetimes.com/russian-ministry-of-health-has-updated-recommendations-for-the-treatment-of-covid-19/.
The Moscow Times, Russia Approves Unproven Malaria Drug to Treat Coronavirus, www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/04/17/russia-approves-unproven-malaria-drug-to-treat-coronavirus-a70025.
Russian Government (B), Распоряжение Правительства Российской Федерации от 16.04.2020 № 1030-р, publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202004160037#print.
The BL, Russia supports the use of hydroxychloroquine, the drug to treat the CCP Virus suggested by Trump, thebl.com/world-news/russia-supports-hydroxychloroquine-drug-ccp-virus-trump.html.
Vanguard, COVID-19: Nigerian study finds Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine effective as Prophylaxis, www.vanguardngr.com/2020/06/covid-19-nigerian-study-finds-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-effective-as-prophylaxis/.
Medical World Nigeria, Chloroquine potent for COVID-19 prevention, says NAFDAC, medicalworldnigeria.com/post/Chloroquine-Potent-For-COVID-19-Prevention-Says-NAFDAC?pid=45479.
Pilot News, Chloroquine Can Treat Coronavirus at Early Stage – NAFDAC DG, www.westafricanpilotnews.com/2020/08/26/chloroquine-cqb-treat-coronavirus-at-early-stage-nafdac-dg/.
Anadolu Agency, Nigeria goes on with hydroxychloroquine clinical trial, www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/nigeria-goes-on-with-hydroxychloroquine-clinical-trials/1854814.
The Guardian, Chloroquine potent for COVID-19 prevention, says NAFDAC, guardian.ng/news/nigeria/national/chloroquine-potent-for-covid-19-prevention-says-nafdac/.
Nigeria News World, COVID-19: Jigawa govt reveals secret behind mass recovery of patients, nigerianewsworld.com/news/covid-19-jigawa-govt-reveals-secret-behind-mass-recovery-of-patients/.
AfricaFeeds, Kenya approve the use of Chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients, africafeeds.com/2020/04/01/ghana-kenya-approve-use-of-chloroquine-to-treat-covid-19-patients/.
Pan African Medical Journal, Clinical characteristics, treatment regimen and duration of hospitalization among COVID-19 patients in Ghana: a retrospective cohort study, www.panafrican-med-journal.com/content/series/37/1/9/full/.
The East African, Algeria backs use of malaria drug despite WHO dropping trials, www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/africa/Algeria-backs-hydroxychloroquine-use/4552902-5564930-duphp6/index.html.
Al-bab, Covid-19: Algeria and Morocco continue using chloroquine despite concerns, al-bab.com/blog/2020/05/covid-19-algeria-and-morocco-continue-using-chloroquine-despite-concerns.
Le Nouvel Afrik, Covid-19 : pourquoi les Marocains décèdent plus en Europe qu’au Maroc, www.afrik.com/covid-19-pourquoi-les-marocains-decedent-plus-en-europe-qu-au-maroc.
Morocco World News, Moroccan Scientist: Morocco’s Chloroquine Success Reveals European Failures, www.moroccoworldnews.com/2020/06/306587/moroccan-scientist-moroccos-chloroquine-success-reveals-european-failures/.
The North Africa Post, Morocco continues use of Chloroquine despite controversy, northafricapost.com/41247-morocco-continues-use-of-chloroquine-despite-controversy.html.
Challenge, Coronavirus : ce que le Maroc a réussi, www.challenge.ma/coronavirus-ce-que-le-maroc-a-reussi-144484/.
Ukrinform, Ukraine receives batch of hydroxychloroquine tablets from India, www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3019049-uber-eats-to-close-down-in-ukraine-on-june-3.html.
Ministry of Health of Ukraine, ПРОТОКОЛ «НАДАННЯ МЕДИЧНОЇ ДОПОМОГИ ДЛЯ ЛІКУВАННЯ КОРОНАВІРУСНОЇ ХВОРОБИ (COVID-19)» , www.dec.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020_762_protokol_covid19-f.pdf.
Ministry of Health of Ukraine (B), «НАДАННЯ МЕДИЧНОЇ ДОПОМОГИ ДЛЯ ЛІКУВАННЯ КОРОНАВІРУСНОЇ ХВОРОБИ (COVID-19), moz.gov.ua/uploads/5/26129-dn_2106_17_09_2020_dod_1.pdf.
Pleno.News, Cuba stands out in combating Covid with hydroxychloroquine, pleno.news/saude/coronavirus/cuba-se-destaca-no-combate-a-covid-com-hidroxicloroquina.html.
Anadolu Agency (B), Cuba: Early hydroxychloroquine potent against COVID-19, www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/cuba-early-hydroxychloroquine-potent-against-covid-19/1905650.
Expats.cz, Czech Health Ministry permits temporary use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, news.expats.cz/weekly-czech-news/czech-health-ministry-permits-temporary-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-hospitals-to-treat-covid-19/.
Ministerstva Zdravotnictví, Rozhodnutí o dočasném povolení neregistrovaného humánního léčivého přípravku HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE SULFATE TABLETS, www.mzcr.cz/rozhodnuti-o-docasnem-povoleni-neregistrovaneho-humanniho-leciveho-pripravku-hydroxychloroquine-sulfate-tablets/.
Efecto Cocuyo, Venezuela empieza a usar la cloroquina para tratar COVID-19, anuncia Jorge Rodríguez, efectococuyo.com/coronavirus/venezuela-empieza-a-usar-la-cloroquina-para-tratar-covid-19-anuncia-jorge-rodriguez/.
Government of Venezuela, THERAPEUTIC MANAGEMENT GUIDE FOR COVID-19 PATIENTS AND CONTACTS, www.mpps.gob.ve/index.php/sistemas/descargas.
LifeSiteNews, Doctors insist this cheap, safe drug is “key to preventing huge loss of life” from Wuhan virus, www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctors-insist-this-drug-is-a-proven-safe-inexpensive-key-to-returning-society-toward-normal-functioning-and-to-preventing-huge-loss-of-life-from-covid-virus.
Mosaique Guinee, Traitement des malades de covid19 en Guinée: « nous continuons avec l’hydroxychloroquine » (ANSS), mosaiqueguinee.com/traitement-des-malades-de-covid19-en-guinee-nous-continuons-avec-lhydroxychloroquine-anss/.
Archyde, China approves chloroquine (instead of hydroxychloroquine) against covid-19, www.archyde.com/china-approves-chloroquine-instead-of-hydroxychloroquine-against-covid-19/.
Government of China, 关于印发新型冠状病毒肺炎诊疗方案（试行第八版）的通知, www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/s7653p/202008/0a7bdf12bd4b46e5bd28ca7f9a7f5e5a.shtml.
France 24, Covid-19: In Cameroon, chloroquine therapy hailed by French expert becomes state protocol, www.france24.com/en/20200503-covid-19-in-cameroon-a-chloroquine-therapy-hailed-by-french-expert-becomes-state-protocol.
Voice of America, Cameroon Begins Large-scale Chloroquine Production, www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/cameroon-begins-large-scale-chloroquine-production.
France 24 (B), Covid-19 : au Cameroun, la méthode Raoult érigée en protocole d'État, www.france24.com/fr/20200502-covid-19-au-cameroun-la-m%C3%A9thode-raoult-%C3%A9rig%C3%A9e-en-protocole-d-%C3%A9tat.
Global Times, Chinese medical expert decorated by Djibouti for COVID-19 prevention, www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189839.shtml.
Face 2 Face Africa, Djibouti, others warned about chloroquine despite big COVID-19 recoveries, face2faceafrica.com/article/djibouti-others-warned-about-chloroquine-despite-big-covid-19-recoveries.
Al Arabia, Bahrain among first countries to use Hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus, english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2020/03/26/Bahrain-one-of-the-first-countries-to-use-Hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-coronavirus.
GulfInsider, Coronavirus: Bahrain’s Therapeutic Medication Proved Effective, www.gulf-insider.com/coronavirus-bahrains-therapeutic-medication-proved-effective/.
Boulware, D., Comments regarding paper rejection, twitter.com/boulware_dr/status/1311331372884205570.
The New York Times, Malaria Drug Taken by Trump Is Tied to Increased Risk of Heart Problems and Death in New Study, www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/health/malaria-drug-trump-coronavirus.html.
The New York Times (B), Small Chloroquine Study Halted Over Risk of Fatal Heart Complications, www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/health/chloroquine-coronavirus-trump.html?smid=em-share.
The New York Times (C), Malaria Drug Promoted by Trump Did Not Prevent Covid Infections, Study Finds, www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-trump.html.
The New York Times (D), Coronavirus Can Be Deadly for Young Adults, Too, Study Finds, www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/world/covid-19-coronavirus.html.
United States National Institutes of Health, Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine With or Without Azithromycin, www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/chloroquine-or-hydroxychloroquine-with-or-without-azithromycin/.
Fincham et al., Exploring trial publication and research waste in COVID-19 randomised trials of hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, and vitamin D: a meta-epidemiological cohort study, BMC Medical Research Methodology, doi:10.1186/s12874-023-02110-4.
medicospelavidacovid19.com.br, medicospelavidacovid19.com.br/editoriais/folha-de-s-paulo-revela-numeros-de-david-uip-veja-a-comparacao-com-medicos-que-fazem-tratamento-precoce/.
Rothstein, H., Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments, www.wiley.com/en-ae/Publication+Bias+in+Meta+Analysis:+Prevention,+Assessment+and+Adjustments-p-9780470870143.
Stanley et al., Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias, Research Synthesis Methods, doi:10.1002/jrsm.1095.
Rücker et al., Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes, Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.2971.
Peters (B), J., Comparison of Two Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-analysis, JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.295.6.676.
Moreno et al., Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study, BMC Medical Research Methodology, doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-2.
Macaskill et al., A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis, Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.698.
Egger et al., Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test, BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
Harbord et al., A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints, Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.2380.
Xie et al., The role of reactive oxygen species in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection-induced cell death, Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters, doi:10.1186/s11658-024-00659-6.
Gkioulekas et al., Use of hydroxychloroquine in multidrug protocols for SARS-CoV-2, Tasman Medical Journal, 6:4, tasmanmedicaljournal.com/2024/10/use-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-multidrug-protocols-for-sars-cov-2a/.
Gortler et al., Those Published “17,000 Hydroxychloroquine Deaths” Never Happened, Brownstone Journal, brownstone.org/articles/those-published-17000-hydroxychloroquine-deaths-never-happened/.
Boretti et al., Correct Use of HCQ Did Not Cause Extra Fatalities in COVID-19 Infection, Coronaviruses, doi:10.2174/0126667975327612240902104505.
Gortler (B) et al., Trump’s 63 Million Doses of Hydroxychloroquine Could Have Been Great for America, Brownstone Journal, brownstone.org/articles/trumps-63-million-doses-of-hydroxychloroquine-could-have-been-great-for-america/.
Enyeji et al., Effective Treatment of COVID-19 Infection with Repurposed Drugs: Case Reports, Viral Immunology, doi:10.1089/vim.2024.0034.
Asaba et al., Interplay of TLR4 and SARS-CoV-2: Unveiling the Complex Mechanisms of Inflammation and Severity in COVID-19 Infections, Journal of Inflammation Research, doi:10.2147/jir.s474707.
Scheim et al., Back to the Basics of SARS-CoV-2 Biochemistry: Microvascular Occlusive Glycan Bindings Govern Its Morbidities and Inform Therapeutic Responses, Viruses, doi:10.3390/v16040647.
Ali et al., SARS-CoV-2 Syncytium under the Radar: Molecular Insights of the Spike-Induced Syncytia and Potential Strategies to Limit SARS-CoV-2 Replication, Journal of Clinical Medicine, doi:10.3390/jcm12186079.
Brouqui et al., There is no such thing as a Ministry of Truth and why it is important to challenge conventional “wisdom” - A personal view, New Microbes and New Infections, doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2023.101155.
Loo et al., Recent Advances in Inhaled Nanoformulations of Vaccines and Therapeutics Targeting Respiratory Viral Infections, Pharmaceutical Research, doi:10.1007/s11095-023-03520-1.
Boretti (B), A., Pharmacotherapy for Covid-19 infection in the countries of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States, Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, doi:10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.08.005.
Vigbedor et al., Review of four major biomolecular target sites for COVID-19 and possible inhibitors as treatment interventions, Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science, doi:10.7324/JAPS.2021.110825.
Kaur et al., Folic acid as placebo in controlled clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis in COVID-19: Is it scientifically justifiable?, Medical Hypotheses, doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2021.110539.
Matada et al., A comprehensive review on the biological interest of quinoline and its derivatives, Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, doi:10.1016/j.bmc.2020.115973.
IHU, Natural history and therapeutic options for COVID-19, Expert Review of Clinical Immunology, www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ERM-2020-0073.R1_Proof_hi.pdf.
Hecel et al., Zinc(II)—The Overlooked Éminence Grise of Chloroquine’s Fight against COVID-19?, Pharmaceuticals, 13:9, 228, doi:10.3390/ph13090228.
Li et al., Is hydroxychloroquine beneficial for COVID-19 patients?, Cell Death & Disease volume 11, doi:10.1038/s41419-020-2721-8.
Goldstein, L., Hydroxychloroquine-based COVID-19 Treatment, A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence and Expert Opinion from Physicians’ Surveys, Preprint, July 7, 2020, wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/07/hydroxychloroquine-based-covid-19-treatment-a-systematic-review-of-clinical-evidence-and-expert-opinion-from-physicians-surveys/.
Roussel et al., Influence of conflicts of interest on public positions in the COVID-19 era, the case of Gilead Sciences, New Microbes and New Infections, Volume 38
, doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100710.
Gao et al., Update on Use of Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine to Treat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Biosci Trends, May 21, 2020, 14:2, 156-158, doi:10.5582/bst.2020.03072.
Derwand et al., Does zinc supplementation enhance the clinical efficacy of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine to win today's battle against COVID-19?, Medical Hypotheses, doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109815.
Sahraei et al., Aminoquinolines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, April 2020, 55:4, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105945.
Todaro et al., An Effective Treatment for Coronavirus (COVID-19), github.com/covidtrial/info/raw/master/An%20Effective%20Treatment%20for%20Coronavirus%20(COVID-19).pdf.
Colson et al., Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine as Available Weapons to Fight COVID-19, Int J. Antimicrob Agents, doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105932. Epub 2020 Mar 4., www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7135139/.
Al-Bari, M., Targeting endosomal acidification by chloroquine analogs as a promising strategy for the treatment of emerging viral diseases, Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, doi:10.1002/prp2.293.
Amaravadi et al., Hydroxychloroquine for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients quarantined at home: The first interim analysis of a remotely conducted randomized clinical trial, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.02.22.21252228.
Skipper et al., Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19: A Randomized Trial, Annals of Internal Medicine, doi:10.7326/M20-4207.
Chaudhary et al., Impact of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine on ultrastructural impairment and cellular SARS-CoV-2 infection in different cells of bronchoalveolar lavage fluids of COVID-19 patients, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-023-39941-6.
Million et al., Cardiovascular Safety of Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin in 424 COVID-19 Patients, Preprints, doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0325.v1.
Kowatsch et al., Hydroxychloroquine reduces T cells activation recall antigen responses, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0287738.
Tchounga et al., Composition analysis of falsified chloroquine phosphate samples seized during the COVID-19 pandemic, Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2020.113761.
Gnegel et al., Identification of Falsified Chloroquine Tablets in Africa at the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic, The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.20-0363.
Kim et al., One-year mortality and associated factors in older hospitalized COVID-19 survivors: a Nationwide Cohort Study in Korea, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-024-76871-3.
Darcis et al., Long-term clinical follow-up of patients suffering from moderate-to-severe COVID-19 infection: a monocentric prospective observational cohort study, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.07.016.
Schilling et al., Evaluation of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19 (COPCOV): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, PLOS Medicine, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004428.
Brouqui (B) et al., SARS-CoV 2 Viral Clearance in 1276 Patients: Associated Factors and the Role of Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin, Acta Scientific Microbiology, doi:10.31080/ASMI.2024.07.1413.
Haji Aghajani et al., Decreased in-hospital mortality associated with aspirin administration in hospitalized patients due to severe COVID-19, Journal of Medical Virology, doi:10.1002/jmv.27053.
Novartis, Hydroxychloroquine Monotherapy and in Combination With Azithromycin in Patients With Moderate and Severe COVID-19 Disease, NCT04358081, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04358081.
Baguiya et al., Effect of Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine and Azithromycin on COVID-19 Patients' Recovery and Mortality: Evidence from a Hospital Based Retrospective Cohort Study Conducted in Burkina Faso, Journal of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology, doi:10.23937/2474-3658/1510192.
Piñana et al., Risk factors and outcome of COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies, Experimental Hematology & Oncology, doi:10.1186/s40164-020-00177-z.
Liu (B) et al., Factors affecting different COVID-19 outcomes in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during the second pandemic wave of COVID-19 in China, Lupus, doi:10.1177/09612033241230736.
Chouhdari et al., The prophylactic effect of hydroxychloroquine on the severity of COVID-19 infection in an asymptomatic population: A randomized clinical trial, Social Determinants of Health, doi:10.22037/sdh.v10i1.43032.
Huang (B) et al., Effect of traditional therapeutics on prevalence and clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in Chinese patients with autoimmune diseases, Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, doi:10.1016/j.jtauto.2023.100227.
Rabe et al., Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in England prior to vaccination: a retrospective observational cohort study, BMJ Open, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071072.
Meeus (B) et al., Efficacy and safety of in-hospital treatment of Covid-19 infection with low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in hospitalized patients: A retrospective controlled cohort study, New Microbes and New Infections, doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2023.101172.
Burhan et al., Characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 in Indonesia: Lessons from the first wave, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290964.
Sobngwi et al., Doxycycline vs Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin in the Management of COVID-19 Patients: An Open-Label Randomized Clinical Trial in Sub-Saharan Africa (DOXYCOV), Cureus, doi:10.7759/cureus.45619.
Klebanov et al., Antimalarials are not Effective as Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19: A Retrospective Matched Control Study, Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, doi:10.36849/jdd.6593.
Finkelstein et al., The Efficacy of Long-Term Hydroxychloroquine Use in the Prevention of COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, doi:10.3233/SHTI230489.
Rathod et al., Association of vitamin D with the severity of disease and mortality in COVID-19: Prospective study in central India, Annals of African Medicine, doi:10.4103/aam.aam_21_22.
Krishnan (B) et al., Predictors of Mortality among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 during the First Wave in India: A Multisite Case-Control Study, The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.22-0705.
McCullough et al., Hydroxychloroquine in the Prevention of COVID-19 Infection in Healthcare Workers, NCT04333225, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04333225.
Dulcey et al., Long-Term Hydroxychloroquine and Its Association with Covid-19 Infection, a Cohort Study from a South American Hospital, Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, doi:10.1097/RHU.0000000000001986.
Yilgwan et al., Clinical profile and Predictors of Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients with Laboratory-Confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Nigeria: A Retrospective Analysis of 13 High Burden States in Nigeria, Nigerian Medical Journal, 64:2, nigerianmedjournal.org/index.php/nmj/article/view/174.
AlQadheeb et al., Impact of common comorbidities on antimicrobial consumption and mortality amongst critically ill COVID-19 patients: A retrospective two center study in Saudi Arabia, Clinical Infection in Practice, doi:10.1016/j.clinpr.2023.100229.
Sen et al., Post-COVID-19 condition in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study, The Lancet Rheumatology, doi:10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00066-8.
Chevalier et al., CovAID: Identification of factors associated with severe COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory rheumatism or autoimmune diseases, Frontiers in Medicine, doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1152587.
Aweimer et al., Mortality rates of severe COVID-19-related respiratory failure with and without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the Middle Ruhr Region of Germany, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-023-31944-7.
Spivak et al., A Randomized Clinical Trial Testing Hydroxychloroquine for Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 Viral Shedding and Hospitalization in Early Outpatient COVID-19 Infection, Microbiology Spectrum, doi:10.1128/spectrum.04674-22.
Llanos-Cuentas et al., Hydroxychloroquine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers: early termination of a phase 3, randomised, open-label, controlled clinical trial, BMC Research Notes, doi:10.1186/s13104-023-06281-7.
Mathew et al., Predictors of COVID-19 severity and outcomes in Indian patients with rheumatic diseases: a prospective cohort study, Rheumatology Advances in Practice, doi:10.1093/rap/rkad025.
Delgado et al., Investigational medications in 9,638 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19: lessons from the “fail-and-learn” strategy during the first two waves of the pandemic in 2020, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2596201/v1.
Alshamrani et al., Comprehensive evaluation of six interventions for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score matching study, Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2023.02.004.
Nasri et al., Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in pre-exposure severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 prophylaxis among high-risk healthcare workers: A multicenter study, Advanced Biomedical Research, doi:10.4103/abr.abr_104_21.
Polo et al., Daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19: a double-blind placebo controlled randomized trial in healthcare workers, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2022.07.006.
Dhibar et al., The ‘myth of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of COVID-19’ is far from reality, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-022-26053-w.
Shukla et al., An observational multi-centric COVID-19 sequelae study among health care workers, The Lancet Regional Health - Southeast Asia, doi:10.1016/j.lansea.2022.100129.
Higgins et al., Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.2022.23257.
Alosaimi et al., Analyzing the Difference in the Length of Stay (LOS) in Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Patients Receiving Hydroxychloroquine or Favipiravir, Pharmaceuticals, doi:10.3390/ph15121456.
Shahrin et al., Hospital-Based Quasi-Experimental Study on Hydroxychloroquine Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 in Healthcare Providers with Its Potential Side-Effects, Life, doi:10.3390/life12122047.
Bubenek-Turconi et al., Clinical characteristics and factors associated with ICU mortality during the first year of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic in Romania, European Journal of Anaesthesiology, doi:10.1097/EJA.0000000000001776.
Sukumar et al., The Frontline War: A Case-control study of risk factors for COVID-19 among health care workers, F1000Research, doi:10.12688/f1000research.109023.1.
Isnardi et al., Sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in patients with rheumatic diseases: data from the SAR-COVID Registry, Clinical Rheumatology, doi:10.1007/s10067-022-06393-8.
Obrișcă et al., Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in an Actively Monitored Cohort of Patients with Lupus Nephritis, Biomedicines, doi:10.3390/biomedicines10102423.
Go et al., Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and methylprednisolone and in hospital survival in severe COVID-19 pneumonia, Frontiers in Pharmacology, doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.935370.
Núñez-Gil et al., Hydroxychloroquine and Mortality in SARS-Cov-2 Infection; The HOPE- Covid-19 Registry., Anti-Infective Agents, doi:10.2174/2211352520666220514112951.
Babayigit et al., The association of antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity: The retrospective analysis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, Frontiers in Medicine, doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.894126.
Pablos et al., Clinical outcomes of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and chronic inflammatory and autoimmune rheumatic diseases: a multicentric matched cohort study, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218296.
Sahebari et al., Influence of biologic and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on COVID-19 incidence among rheumatic patients during the first and second wave of the pandemic in Iran, Reumatologia/Rheumatology, doi:10.5114/reum.2022.119039.
Osawa et al., Characteristics and risk factors for mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation: the experience of a private network in Sao Paulo, Brazil, The Journal of Critical Care Medicine, doi:10.2478/jccm-2022-0015.
Oku et al., Risk factors for hospitalization or mortality for COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases: Results of a nation-wide JCR COVID-19 registry in Japan, Modern Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/mr/roac104.
Yadav (B) et al., Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine prophylaxis among health-care workers: Was it really preventive? – Evidence from a multicentric cross-sectional study, Indian Journal of Community Medicine, doi:10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_684_21.
Bowen et al., Reduction in risk of death among patients admitted with COVID-19 between first and second epidemic waves in New York City, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofac436.
Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan et al., Hydroxychloroquine plus personal protective equipment versus personal protective equipment alone for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial from India, BMJ Open, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059540.
Self et al., Effect of Hydroxychloroquine on Clinical Status at 14 Days in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.2020.22240.
Loucera et al., Real-world evidence with a retrospective cohort of 15,968 COVID-19 hospitalized patients suggests 21 new effective treatments, Virology Journal, doi:10.1186/s12985-023-02195-9.
Becetti et al., Prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 in a multiethnic cohort of patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases in Qatar, Qatar Medical Journal, doi:10.5339/qmj.2022.37.
Strangfeld et al., Factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219498.
Raabe et al., Hydroxychloroquine pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers at risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure: A nonrandomized controlled trial, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2022.07.01.22277058.
Shaw et al., COVID-19 in Individuals Treated With Long-Term Hydroxychloroquine: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Cicatricial Alopecia Patients, Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, doi:10.36849/JDD.5843.
Silva et al., Clinical-Epidemiology Aspect of Inpatients With Moderate or Severe COVID-19 in a Brazilian Macroregion: Disease and Countermeasures, Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, doi:10.3389/fcimb.2022.899702.
Uyaroğlu et al., Comparison of Favipiravir to Hydroxychloroquine Plus Azithromycin in the Treatment of Patients with Non-critical COVID-19: A Single-center, Retrospective, Propensity Score-matched Study, Acta Medica, doi:10.32552/2022.ActaMedica.719.
Hong et al., Early Hydroxychloroquine Administration for Rapid Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Eradication, Infection & Chemotherapy, 2020, doi:10.3947/ic.2020.52.3.396.
Kadnur et al., Hydroxychloroquine pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among healthcare workers: Initial experience from India, Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1177_21.
MacFadden et al., Screening Large Population Health Databases for Potential COVID-19 Therapeutics: A Pharmacopeia-Wide Association Study (PWAS) of Commonly Prescribed Medications, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofac156.
Roy-García et al., Efficacy and Safety of Fixed Combination of Hydroxychloroquine with Azithromycin Versus Hydroxychloroquine and Placebo in Patients with Mild COVID-19: Randomized, double blind, Placebo controlled trial, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2022.04.06.22273531.
Hafez et al., Antiviral Used among Non-Severe COVID-19 Cases in Relation to Time till Viral Clearance: A Retrospective Cohort Study, Antibiotics, doi:10.3390/antibiotics11040498.
Avezum et al., Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE – Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, The Lancet Regional Health - Americas, doi:10.1016/j.lana.2022.100243.
AlQahtani et al., Randomized controlled trial of favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, and standard care in patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 disease, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-022-08794-w.
Opdam et al., Identification of Risk Factors for COVID-19 Hospitalization in Patients with Anti-Rheumatic Drugs: Results from a Multicenter Nested Case Control Study, Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, doi:10.1002/cpt.2551.
Arabi et al., Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with COVID-19: REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial, Intensive Care Medicine, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-021-06448-5.
Ebongue et al., Factors predicting in-hospital all-cause mortality in COVID 19 patients at the Laquintinie Hospital Douala, Cameroon, Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, doi:10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.102292.
Khoubnasabjafari et al., Prevalence of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) already treated with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) compared with HCQ-naive patients with RA: a multicentre cross-sectional study, Postgraduate Medical Journal, doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139561.
Tsanovska et al., Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, Infectious Disorders - Drug Targets, doi:10.2174/1871526522666220303121209.
Soto (B) et al., Mortality and associated risk factors in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 in a Peruvian reference hospital, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264789.
Lavilla Olleros et al., Use of glucocorticoids megadoses in SARS-CoV-2 infection in a spanish registry: SEMI-COVID-19, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261711.
Beltran Gonzalez et al., Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine in Patients with Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial, Infectious Disease Reports, doi:10.3390/idr14020020.
Rouamba et al., Assessment of Recovery Time, Worsening and Death, among COVID-19 inpatients and outpatients, under treatment with Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine plus Azithromycin Combination in Burkina Faso, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2022.02.034.
Omma et al., Hydroxychloroquine shortened hospital stay and reduced intensive care unit admissions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, doi:10.3855/jidc.14933.
Tamura (B) et al., Outcome and death risk of diabetes patients with Covid-19 receiving pre-hospital and in-hospital metformin therapies, Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, doi:10.1186/s13098-021-00695-8.
Ugarte-Gil et al., Characteristics associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus: data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221636.
Cordtz et al., Incidence of COVID-19 Hospitalisation in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Nationwide Cohort Study from Denmark, Journal of Clinical Medicine, doi:10.3390/jcm10173842.
Beaumont et al., Factors associated with hospital admission and adverse outcome for COVID-19: role of social factors and medical care, Infectious Diseases Now, doi:10.1016/j.idnow.2022.02.001.
Belmont et al., COVID-19 PrEP HCW HCQ Study, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354870, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04354870.
Corradini et al., Clinical factors associated with death in 3044 COVID-19 patients managed in internal medicine wards in Italy: results from the SIMI-COVID-19 study of the Italian Society of Internal Medicine (SIMI), Internal and Emergency Medicine, doi:10.1007/s11739-021-02742-8.
AbdelGhaffar et al., Prediction of mortality in hospitalized Egyptian patients with Coronavirus disease-2019: A multicenter retrospective study, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262348.
Atipornwanich et al., Various Combinations of Favipiravir, Lopinavir-Ritonavir, Darunavir-Ritonavir, High-Dose Oseltamivir, and Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial (FIGHT-COVID-19 Study), SSRN Electronic Journal, doi:10.2139/ssrn.3936499.
Syed et al., Pre-exposure Prophylaxis With Various Doses of Hydroxychloroquine Among Healthcare Personnel With High-Risk Exposure to COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial, Cureus, doi:10.7759/cureus.20572.
McKinnon et al., Safety and Tolerability of Hydroxychloroquine in healthcare workers and first responders for the prevention of COVID-19: WHIP COVID-19 Study, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.12.343.
Crawford, M., Rapid Censorship of Highly Positive Hydroxychloroquine Research Chart, Rounding the Earth, roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/rapid-censorship-of-highly-positive.
Calderón et al., Treatment with hydroxychloroquine vs nitazoxanide in patients with COVID-19: brief report, PAMJ - Clinical Medicine, doi:10.11604/pamj-cm.2021.7.15.30981.
Ferreira et al., Outcomes associated with Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a single-center experience, Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, doi:10.1590/1806-9282.20210661.
Ahmed et al., Factors Affecting the Incidence, Progression, and Severity of COVID-19 in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus, BioMed Research International, doi:10.1155/2021/1676914.
Grau-Pujol et al., Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial, Trials, doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05758-9.
Guglielmetti et al., Severe COVID-19 pneumonia in Piacenza, Italy – a cohort study of the first pandemic wave, Journal of Infection and Public Health, doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2020.11.012.
Luo (B) et al., Metformin Treatment Was Associated with Decreased Mortality in COVID-19 Patients with Diabetes in a Retrospective Analysis, The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.20-0375.
Babalola et al., A Randomized Controlled Trial of Ivermectin Monotherapy Versus Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and Azithromycin Combination Therapy in Covid-19 Patients in Nigeria, Journal of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology, doi:10.23937/2474-3658/1510233.
Uygen et al., Effect of Hydroxychloroquine Use on the Length Of Hospital Stay in Children Diagnosed With Covid 19, Northern Clinics of Istanbul, doi:10.14744/nci.2021.65471.
Million (B) et al., Early Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in 10,429 COVID-19 Outpatients: A Monocentric Retrospective Cohort Study, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, doi:10.31083/j.rcm2203116.
Alotaibi et al., Effectiveness and Safety of Favipiravir Compared to Hydroxychloroquine for Management of Covid-19: A Retrospective Study, International Journal of General Medicine, 2021:14, www.dovepress.com/getfile.php?fileID=73585.
Agarwal et al., Low dose hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis for COVID-19 - a prospective study, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.09.13.21262971.
Sawanpanyalert et al., Assessment of outcomes following implementation of antiviral treatment guidelines for COVID-19 during the first wave in Thailand, Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 52:4, journal.seameotropmednetwork.org/index.php/jtropmed/article/view/490.
Patil et al., A Prospective Longitudinal Study Evaluating The Influence of Immunosuppressives and Other Factors On COVID-19 in Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-805748/v1.
Rodrigues et al., Hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin early treatment of mild COVID-19 in outpatient setting: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating viral clearance, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106428.
Naggie et al., Hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in health care workers: A randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial (HERO-HCQ), International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2023.01.019.
Berenguer et al., Characteristics and predictors of death among 4035 consecutively hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Spain, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.024.
Turrini et al., Clinical Course and Risk Factors for In-Hospital Mortality of 205 Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia in Como, Lombardy Region, Italy, Vaccines, doi:10.3390/vaccines9060640.
Shabani et al., Evaluation of the Prophylactic Effect of Hydroxychloroquine on People in Close-Contact with Patients with Covid-19, Pulmonary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, doi:10.1016/j.pupt.2021.102069.
Rogado et al., Covid-19 and lung cancer: A greater fatality rate?, Lung Cancer, doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.05.034.
Di Castelnuovo et al., Disentangling the Association of Hydroxychloroquine Treatment with Mortality in Covid-19 Hospitalized Patients through Hierarchical Clustering, Journal of Healthcare Engineering, doi:10.1155/2021/5556207.
Datta et al., No Role of HCQ in COVID-19 Prophylaxis: A Survey amongst Indian Doctors, Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination, S6:1000002, www.longdom.org/open-access/no-role-of-hcq-in-covid19-prophylaxis-a-survey-amongst-indian-doctors.pdf.
Yadav (C) et al., Sero-survey for health-care workers provides corroborative evidence for the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis against COVID-19 infection, ResearchGate, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.34411.77603.
Bhatt et al., Hydroxychloroquine Prophylaxis against Coronavirus Disease-19: Practice Outcomes among Health-Care Workers, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.08.02.21260750.
Barrat-Due et al., Evaluation of the Effects of Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine on Viral Clearance in COVID-19, Annals of Internal Medicine, doi:10.7326/M21-0653.
Cadegiani et al., Early COVID-19 Therapy with azithromycin plus nitazoxanide, ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in Outpatient Settings Significantly Improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to Known outcomes in untreated patients, New Microbes and New Infections, doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2021.100915.
Taieb et al., Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Treatment of Hospitalized Patients Infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Senegal from March to October 2020, Journal of Clinical Medicine, doi:10.3390/jcm10132954.
Schwartz et al., Assessing the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as outpatient treatment of COVID-19: a randomized controlled trial, CMAJ Open, doi:10.9778/cmajo.20210069.
Sivapalan et al., Azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19–a randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled trial, European Respiratory Journal, doi:10.1183/13993003.00752-2021.
Burdick et al., Is Machine Learning a Better Way to IdentifyCOVID-19 Patients Who Might Benefit fromHydroxychloroquineTreatment?—The IDENTIFY Trial, Journal of Clinical Medicine, doi:10.3390/jcm9123834.
Singh (C) et al., Safety and efficacy of antiviral therapy alone or in combination in COVID-19 - a randomized controlled trial (SEV COVID Trial), medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.06.06.21258091.
Badyal et al., Hydroxychloroquine for SARS CoV2 Prophylaxis in Healthcare Workers – A Multicentric Cohort Study Assessing Effectiveness and Safety, Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 69:6, June 2021, www.researchgate.net/publication/357700064_Hydroxychloroquine_for_SARS_CoV2_Prophylaxis_in_Healthcare_Workers_-_A_Multicentric_Cohort_Study_Assessing_Effectiveness_and_Safety.
Lagier et al., Outcomes of 2,111 COVID-19 hospitalised patients treated with 2 hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: a 3 monocentric retrospective analysis, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, doi:10.2147/TCRM.S364022.
Byakika-Kibwika et al., Safety and Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine for Treatment of Non-Severe COVID-19 in Adults in Uganda: A Randomized Open Label Phase II Clinical Trial, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-506195/v1.
Korkmaz et al., The effect of Hydroxychloroquine use due to rheumatic disease on the risk of Covid-19 infection and its course, Authorea, doi:10.22541/au.162257516.68665404/v1.
Rojas-Serrano et al., Hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 in health workers: A randomized clinical trial, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261980.
De Rosa et al., Risk Factors for Mortality in COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients in Piedmont, Italy: Results from the Multicenter, Regional, CORACLE Registry, Journal of Clinical Medicine, doi:10.3390/jcm10091951.
Réa-Neto et al., An open-label randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in severe COVID-19 patients, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-021-88509-9.
Kokturk et al., The predictors of COVID-19 mortality in a nationwide cohort of Turkish patients, Respiratory Medicine, doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106433.
Reis et al., Effect of Early Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Lopinavir and Ritonavir on Risk of Hospitalization Among Patients With COVID-19 The TOGETHER Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA Network Open, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.6468.
Alegiani et al., Risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality in rheumatic patients treated with hydroxychloroquine or other conventional DMARDs in Italy, Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keab348.
Alzahrani et al., Clinical characteristics and outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases, Rheumatology International , doi:10.1007/s00296-021-04857-9.
Seet et al., Positive impact of oral hydroxychloroquine and povidone-iodine throat spray for COVID-19 prophylaxis: an open-label randomized trial, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.035.
Dubee et al., Hydroxychloroquine in mild-to-moderate COVID-19: a placebo-controlled double blind trial, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.03.005.
Mokhtari et al., Clinical outcomes of patients with mild COVID-19 following treatment with hydroxychloroquine in an outpatient setting, International Immunopharmacology, doi:10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107636.
Mitjà et al., Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults with Mild Covid-19: A Randomized-Controlled Trial, Clinical Infectious Diseases, ciaa1009, doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1009.
Barry et al., Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in a MERS-CoV Referral Hospital during the Peak of the Pandemic, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.03.058.
Dev et al., Risk factors and frequency of COVID-19 among healthcare workers at a tertiary care centre in India: a case–control study, Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, doi:10.1093/trstmh/trab047.
Salvador et al., Clinical Features and Prognostic Factors of 245 Portuguese Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19, Cureus, doi:10.7759/cureus.13687.
Pham et al., Failure of chronic hydroxychloroquine in preventing severe complications of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases, Rheumatology Advances in Practice, doi:10.1093/rap/rkab014.
Bae et al., Recent Hydroxychloroquine Use Is Not Significantly Associated with Positive PCR Results for SARS-CoV-2: A Nationwide Observational Study in South Korea, Viruses 2021, doi:10.3390/v13020329.
Purwati (B) et al., A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Clinical Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of a Drug Combination of Lopinavir/Ritonavir-Azithromycin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir-Doxycycline, and Azithromycin-Hydroxychloroquine for Patients Diagnosed with Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Infections, Biochemistry Research International, doi:10.1155/2021/6685921.
Lora-Tamayo et al., Early Lopinavir/ritonavir does not reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients: results of a large multicenter study, Journal of Infection, doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2021.02.011.
Ouedraogo et al., Factors associated with the occurrence of acute respiratory distress and death in patients with COVID-19 in Burkina Faso, Revue des Maladies Respiratoires, doi:10.1016/j.rmr.2021.02.001.
Johnston et al., Hydroxychloroquine with or Without Azithromycin for Treatment of Early SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among High-Risk Outpatient Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial, eClinicalMedicine, doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100773.
Hernandez-Cardenas et al., Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe respiratory infection by COVID-19: a randomized controlled trial, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.02.01.21250371.
Bernabeu-Wittel et al., Effectiveness of a On-Site Medicalization Program for Nursing Homes with COVID-19 Outbreaks, J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., doi:10.1093/gerona/glaa192.
Desbois et al., Prevalence and clinical features of COVID-19 in a large cohort of 199 patients with sarcoidosis, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-41653/v1.
Li (B) et al., Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in comparison with chloroquine in moderate and severe patients with COVID-19, Science China Life Sciences, doi:10.1007/s11427-020-1871-4.
Ip et al., Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of outpatients with mildly symptomatic COVID-19: A multi-center observational study, BMC Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1186/s12879-021-05773-w.
Li (C) et al., Treatment of COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine: A retrospective analysis, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-119202/v1.
Güner et al., Comparing ICU Admission Rates of Mild/Moderate COVID-19 Patients Treated with Hydroxychloroquine, Favipiravir, and Hydroxychloroquine plus Favipiravir, Journal of Infection and Public Health, doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2020.12.017.
Auld et al., ICU and ventilator mortality among critically ill adults with COVID-19, Critical Care Medicine, doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004457.
Cordtz (B) et al., Incidence and severeness of COVID-19 hospitalisation in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease: a nationwide cohort study from Denmark, Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keaa897.
Su et al., Efficacy of early hydroxychloroquine treatment in preventing COVID-19 pneumonia aggravation, the experience from Shanghai, China, BioScience Trends, doi:10.5582/bst.2020.03340.
Cangiano et al., Mortality in an Italian nursing home during COVID-19 pandemic: correlation with gender, age, ADL, vitamin D supplementation, and limitations of the diagnostic tests, Aging, doi:10.18632/aging.202307.
Taccone et al., The role of organizational characteristics on the outcome of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU in Belgium, The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2020.100019.
Matangila et al., Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients hospitalized at Clinique Ngaliema, a public hospital in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo: A retrospective cohort study, PLoS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244272.
Gönenli et al., Analysis of the Prophylactic use of Hydroxychloroquine at the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Physicians, Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, doi:10.36519/idcm.2022.111.
Signes-Costa et al., Prevalence and 30-day mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and prior lung diseases, Archivos de Bronconeumología, doi:10.1016/j.arbres.2020.11.012.
Alqassieh et al., Clinical characteristics and predictors of the duration of hospital stay in COVID-19 patients in Jordan, F1000Research, doi:10.12688/f1000research.27419.1.
Orioli et al., Clinical characteristics and short-term prognosis of in-patients with diabetes and COVID-19: A retrospective study from an academic center in Belgium, Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2020.12.020.
Naseem et al., Predicting mortality in SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) positive patients in the inpatient setting using a Novel Deep Neural Network, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.12.13.20247254.
Tan et al., A retrospective comparison of drugs against COVID-19, Virus Research, doi:10.1016/j.virusres.2020.198262.
Kalligeros et al., Hydroxychloroquine use in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: An observational matched cohort study, Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance, doi:10.1016/j.jgar.2020.07.018.
López et al., Telemedicine follow-ups for COVID-19: experience in a tertiary hospital, Annals of Pediatrics, doi:10.1016/j.anpedi.2020.10.017.
Rivera-Izquierdo et al., Agentes terapéuticos utilizados en 238 pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19 y su relación con la mortalidad, Medicina Clínica, doi:10.1016/j.medcli.2020.06.025.
Jung et al., Effect of hydroxychloroquine pre-exposure on infection with SARS-CoV-2 in rheumatic disease patients: A population-based cohort study, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.12.003.
Agusti et al., Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in healthcare professionals with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: prospective, non-randomized trial, Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica, doi:10.1016/j.eimc.2020.10.023.
Barnabas et al., Hydroxychloroquine for Post-exposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Randomized Trial, Annals of Internal Medicine, doi:10.7326/M20-6519.
Ozturk et al., Mortality analysis of COVID-19 infection in chronic kidney disease, haemodialysis and renal transplant patients compared with patients without kidney disease: a nationwide analysis from Turkey, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfaa271.
Modrák et al., Detailed disease progression of 213 patients hospitalized with Covid-19 in the Czech Republic: An exploratory analysis, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.12.03.20239863.
Peng et al., Early versus late acute kidney injury among patients with COVID-19—a multicenter study from Wuhan, China, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfaa288.
Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al., COVID-19 in hospitalized patients in Spain: a cohort study in Madrid, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106249.
Capsoni et al., CPAP Treatment In COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study In The Emergency Department, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-113418/v1.
Abdulrahman et al., The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in COVID19 patients : a multicenter national retrospective cohort, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.11.25.20234914.
Lambermont et al., Predictors of Mortality and Effect of Drug Therapies in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Multicenter Cohort Study, Critical Care Explorations, doi:10.1097/CCE.0000000000000305.
van Halem et al., Risk factors for mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in Belgium: a retrospective cohort study, BMC Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1186/s12879-020-05605-3.
Revollo et al., Hydroxychloroquine pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, doi:10.1093/jac/dkaa477.
Omrani et al., Randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for virologic cure of non-severe Covid-19, eClinicalMedicine, doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100645.
Falcone et al., Role of low-molecular weight heparin in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: a prospective observational study, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa563.
Sheshah et al., Prevalence of Diabetes, Management and Outcomes among Covid-19 Adult Patients Admitted in a Specialized Tertiary Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108538.
Águila-Gordo et al., Mortality and associated prognostic factors in elderly and very elderly hospitalized patients with respiratory disease COVID-19, Revista Española de Geriatría y Gerontología, doi:10.1016/j.regg.2020.09.006.
Núñez-Gil (B) et al., Mortality risk assessment in Spain and Italy, insights of the HOPE COVID-19 registry, Internal and Emergency Medicine, doi:10.1007/s11739-020-02543-5.
Simova et al., Hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in health care workers, New Microbes and New Infections, doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100813.
Simova (B) et al., Hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in health care workers, New Microbes and New Infections, doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100813.
Mathai et al., Hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 in health-care workers: A single-center experience, Journal of Marine Medical Society, doi:10.4103/jmms.jmms_115_20.
Dhibar (B) et al., Post Exposure Prophylaxis with Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the Prevention of COVID-19, a Myth or a Reality? The PEP-CQ Study, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106224.
Behera et al., Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247163.
Trullàs et al., High in-hospital mortality due to COVID-19 in a community hospital in Spain: a prospective observational study, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-39421/v1.
Szente Fonseca et al., Risk of Hospitalization for Covid-19 Outpatients Treated with Various Drug Regimens in Brazil: Comparative Analysis, Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, doi:10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101906.
Frontera et al., Treatment with Zinc is Associated with Reduced In-Hospital Mortality Among COVID-19 Patients: A Multi-Center Cohort Study, Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-94509/v1.
Faíco-Filho et al., No benefit of hydroxychloroquine on SARS-CoV-2 viral load reduction in non-critical hospitalized patients with COVID-19, Braz J Microbiol, doi:10.1007/s42770-020-00395-x.
Arleo et al., Clinical Course and Outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Rheumatic Disease Patients on Immunosuppression: A case Cohort Study at a Single Center with a Significantly Diverse Population, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.26.20219154.
Synolaki et al., The Activin/Follistatin-axis is severely deregulated in COVID-19 and independently associated with in-hospital mortality, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.09.05.20184655.
Goenka et al., Seroprevalence of COVID-19 Amongst Health Care Workers in a Tertiary Care Hospital of a Metropolitan City from India, SSRN, doi:10.2139/ssrn.3689618.
Lano et al., Risk factors for severity of COVID-19 in chronic dialysis patients from a multicentre French cohort, Clinical Kidney Journal, 13:5, October 2020, 878–888, doi:10.1093/ckj/sfaa199.
Komissarov et al., Hydroxychloroquine has no effect on SARS-CoV-2 load in nasopharynx of patients with mild form of COVID-19, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.06.30.20143289.
Lyngbakken et al., A pragmatic randomized controlled trial reports lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine on coronavirus disease 2019 viral kinetics, Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19056-6.
Ñamendys-Silva et al., Outcomes of patients with COVID-19 in the Intensive Care Unit in Mexico: A multicenter observational study, Heart & Lung, doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2020.10.013.
Zhang (B) et al., What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes, JAMA, 80:19, 1690, doi:10.1001/jama.280.19.1690.
Altman (B) et al., How to obtain the confidence interval from a P value, BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.d2090.
Sweeting et al., What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data, Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.1761.
Abayomi et al., A multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of chloroquine phosphate, hydroxychloroquine sulphate and lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19 in Lagos State: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial, Trials, doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05675-x.
Ashraf et al., COVID-19 in Iran, a comprehensive investigation from exposure to treatment outcomes, medRxiv doi:10.1101/2020.04.20.20072421, www.researchgate.net/publication/341197843_COVID-19_in_Iran_a_comprehensive_investigation_from_exposure_to_treatment_outcomes.
Aston et al., Hydroxychloroquine vs. Azithromycin for Outpatients in Utah With COVID-19 (HyAzOUT), NCT04334382, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04334382.
Azhar et al., Effectiveness of early pharmaceutical interventions in symptomatic COVID-19 patients: A randomized clinical trial, Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, doi:10.12669/pjms.40.5.8757.
Butler et al., PRINCIPLE: A clinical trial evaluating treatments for suspected and confirmed COVID-19 for recovery at home, PRINCIPLE, www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN86534580.
Derwand (B) et al., COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A Retrospective Case Series Study, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106214.
Esper et al., Empirical treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for suspected cases of COVID-19 followed-up by telemedicine, Prevent Senior Institute, São Paulo, Brazil, pgibertie.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.15-journal-manuscript-final.pdf.
Genton et al., #StayHome: Early Hydroxychloroquine to Reduce Secondary Hospitalisation and Household Transmission in COVID-19 (#StayHome), NCT04385264, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04385264.
Guisado-Vasco et al., Clinical characteristics and outcomes among hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 admitted to a tertiary medical center and receiving antiviral, antimalarials, glucocorticoids, or immunomodulation with tocilizumab or cyclosporine: A retrospective observational study (COQUIMA cohort), eClinicalMedicine, doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100591.
Guérin et al., Azithromycin and Hydroxychloroquine Accelerate Recovery of Outpatients with Mild/Moderate COVID-19, Asian Journal of Medicine and Health, doi:10.9734/ajmah/2020/v18i730224.
Gül et al., Clinical Trial For Early SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Treatment, NCT04981379, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04981379.
Heras et al., COVID-19 mortality risk factors in older people in a long-term care center, European Geriatric Medicine, doi:10.1007/s41999-020-00432-w.
Huang (C) et al., Preliminary evidence from a multicenter prospective observational study of the safety and efficacy of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19, National Science Review, doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaa113.
Kara et al., Efficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine and Favipiravir in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate COVID-19, NCT04411433, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04411433.
Kim (B) et al., Comparison of Lopinavir/Ritonavir or Hydroxychloroquine in Patients With Mild Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), NCT04307693, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04438837.
Kirenga et al., Characteristics and outcomes of admitted patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Uganda, BMJ Open Respiratory Research, doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000646.
Ly et al., Pattern of SARS-CoV-2 infection among dependant elderly residents living in retirement homes in Marseille, France, March-June 2020, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106219.
Okasha et al., Hydroxychloroquine and Nitazoxanide Combination Therapy for COVID-19, NCT04361318, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04361318.
Pineda et al., Prevention and Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin of Acute Respiratory Syndrome Induced by COVID-19 (AMBUCOV), NCT04954040, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04954040.
Rathod (B) et al., Risk Factors associated with COVID-19 Patients in India: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study, The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, doi:10.5005/japi-11001-0263.
Sarwar et al., PRophylaxis of Exposed COVID-19 Individuals With Mild Symptoms Using choloroquinE Compounds (PRECISE), NCT04351191, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04351191.
Smith (B) et al., Evaluating the Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin to Prevent Hospitalization or Death in Persons With COVID-19, NCT04358068, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04358068.
Sow et al., Phytomedicines Versus Hydroxychloroquine as an Add on Therapy to Azythromycin in Asymptomatic Covid-19 Patients (PHYTCOVID-19), NCT04501965, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04501965.
Sulaiman et al., The Effect of Early Hydroxychloroquine-based Therapy in COVID-19 Patients in Ambulatory Care Settings: A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.09.09.20184143.
Yu et al., Beneficial effects exerted by hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients via protecting multiple organs, Science China Life Sciences, 2020 Aug 3, doi:10.1007/s11427-020-1782-1.
Alberici et al., A report from the Brescia Renal COVID Task Force on the clinical characteristics and short-term outcome of hemodialysis patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, Kidney Int., 98:1, 20-26, July 1, 2020, doi:10.1016/j.kint.2020.04.030.
Almazrou et al., Comparing the impact of Hydroxychloroquine based regimens and standard treatment on COVID-19 patient outcomes: A retrospective cohort study, Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2020.09.019.
An et al., Treatment Response to Hydroxychloroquine and Antibiotics for mild to moderate COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study from South Korea, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.07.04.20146548.
Arshad et al., Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.099.
Ashinyo et al., Clinical characteristics, treatment regimen and duration of hospitalization among COVID-19 patients in Ghana: a retrospective cohort study, Pan African Medical Journal, 37:1, doi:10.11604/pamj.supp.2020.37.1.25718.
Ayerbe et al., The association of treatment with hydroxychloroquine and hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients, Internal and Emergency Medicine, doi:10.1007/s11739-020-02505-x.
Bassets-Bosch et al., Negativización de PCR a SARS-CoV-2 en muestra respiratoria en pacientes con necesidad de asistencia recurrente, Anales de Pediatría, doi:10.1016/j.anpedi.2021.01.006.
Bernaola et al., Observational Study of the Efficiency of Treatments in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 in Madrid, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.07.17.20155960.
Bousquet et al., ADL-dependency, D-Dimers, LDH and absence of anticoagulation are independently associated with one-month mortality in older inpatients with Covid-19, Aging, 12:12, 11306-11313, doi:10.18632/aging.103583.
Catteau et al., Low-dose Hydroxychloroquine Therapy and Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Nationwide Observational Study of 8075 Participants, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106144.
Cavalcanti et al., Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19, NEJM, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2019014.
Chen et al., A Multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hydroxychloroquine and a retrospective study in adult patients with mild to moderate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), PLoS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242763.
Chen (B) et al., A Multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hydroxychloroquine and a retrospective study in adult patients with mild to moderate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), PLoS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242763.
Chen (C) et al., Efficacy and safety of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in moderate type of COVID-19: a prospective open-label randomized controlled study, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.06.19.20136093.
Chen (D) et al., Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758.
Chen (E) et al., A pilot study of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of patients with common coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), J. Zhejiang University (Med Sci), doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2020.03.03.
D'Arminio Monforte et al., Effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 disease: A done and dusted situation?, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.07.056.
Davido et al., Impact of medical care including anti-infective agents use on the prognosis of COVID-19 hospitalized patients over time, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 2020, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106129.
Değirmenci et al., Is vitamin D level important in pregnant women with COVID-19?, Journal of Controversies in Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, doi:10.51271/JCOGP-0035.
Di Castelnuovo (B) et al., Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is associated with reduced mortality: Findings from the observational multicentre Italian CORIST study, European Journal of Internal Medicine, doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2020.08.019.
Dubernet et al., A comprehensive strategy for the early treatment of COVID-19 with azithromycin/hydroxychloroquine and/or corticosteroids: results of a retrospective observational study in the French overseas department of Reunion Island, Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance, doi:10.1016/j.jgar.2020.08.001.
El-Sherbiny et al., Development and Validation of "Ready-to-Use" Inhalable Forms of Hydroxychloroquine for Treatment of COVID-19, NCT04477083, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04477083.
Farooq et al., Effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19 Patients (Covid), NCT04328272, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04328272.
Fontana et al., SARS-CoV-2 infection in dialysis patients in northern Italy: a single-centre experience, Clinical Kidney Journal, 13:3, 334–339, doi:10.1093/ckj/sfaa084.
Gerlovin et al., Pharmacoepidemiology, Machine Learning and COVID-19: An intent-to-treat analysis of hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, and COVID-19 outcomes amongst hospitalized US Veterans, American Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/aje/kwab183.
Gonzalez et al., The Prognostic Value of Eosinophil Recovery in COVID-19: A Multicentre, Retrospective Cohort Study on Patients Hospitalised in Spanish Hospitals, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.08.18.20172874.
Guglielmetti (B) et al., Treatment for COVID-19—a cohort study from Northern Italy, Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-021-00243-4.
Guisado-Vasco (B) et al., Clinical characteristics and outcomes among hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 admitted to a tertiary medical center and receiving antiviral, antimalarials, glucocorticoids, or immunomodulation with tocilizumab or cyclosporine: A retrospective observational study (COQUIMA cohort), eClinicalMedicine, doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100591.
Hawari et al., The Potential Use of Nebulized Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of COVID-19, NCT05113810, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05113810.
Heberto et al., Implications of myocardial injury in Mexican hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), IJC Heart & Vasculature, doi:10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100638.
Hofmann-Winkler et al., Camostat Mesylate May Reduce Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Sepsis: A First Observation, Critical Care Explorations, doi:10.1097/CCE.0000000000000284.
Hong (B) et al., Use of combined treatment of 3rd-generation cephalosporin, azithromycin and antiviral agents on moderate SARs-CoV-2 patients in South Korea: A retrospective cohort study, PLOS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267645.
Huang (D) et al., Preliminary evidence from a multicenter prospective observational study of the safety and efficacy of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19, National Science Review, doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaa113.
Ip (B) et al., Hydroxychloroquine and Tocilizumab Therapy in COVID-19 Patients - An Observational Study, PLoS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237693.
Kim (C) et al., Treatment Response to Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, and Antibiotics for Moderate COVID 19: A First Report on the Pharmacological Outcomes from South Korea, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.05.13.20094193.
Lagier (B) et al., Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis, Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, doi:10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101791.
Lammers et al., Early hydroxychloroquine but not chloroquine use reduces ICU admission in COVID-19 patients, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1460.
Lauriola et al., Effect of combination therapy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on mortality in COVID-19 patients, Clinical and Translational Science, doi:10.1111/cts.12860.
Levi et al., Open Label Study to Compare Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Hydroxychloroquine Combined With Azithromycin Compared to Hydroxychloroquine Combined With Camostat Mesylate and to "no Treatment" in SARS CoV 2 Virus (COSTA), NCT04355052, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04355052.
Magagnoli et al., Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19, Med (2020), doi:10.1016/j.medj.2020.06.001.
Mahévas et al., Clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19 pneumonia who require oxygen: observational comparative study using routine care data, BMJ 2020, doi:10.1136/bmj.m1844.
Mallat et al., Hydroxychloroquine is associated with slower viral clearance in clinical COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate disease: A retrospective study, Medicine (Baltimore), doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000023720.
Mehrizi et al., Drug prescription patterns and their association with mortality and hospitalization duration in COVID-19 patients: insights from big data, Frontiers in Public Health, doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1280434.
Membrillo de Novales et al., Early Hydroxychloroquine Is Associated with an Increase of Survival in COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Study, Preprints, doi:10.20944/preprints202005.0057.v1.
Mežnar et al., Use of Bromhexine and Hydroxychloroquine for Treatment of COVID-19 Pneumonia, NCT04355026, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04355026.
Mikami et al., Risk Factors for Mortality in Patients with COVID-19 in New York City, J. Gen. Intern. Med., doi:10.1007/s11606-020-05983-z.
Mordmüller et al., Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 (COV-HCQ), NCT04342221, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04342221.
Nachega et al., Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 in Africa: Early Insights from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.20-1240.
Paccoud et al., Compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine in clinical practice for patients with mild to severe Covid-19 in a French university hospital, Clinical Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa791.
Panda et al., Antiviral Combination Clinically Better Than Standard Therapy in Severe but Not in Non-Severe COVID-19, Clinical Pharmacology: Advances and Applications, doi:10.2147/CPAA.S325083.
Pinato et al., Clinical portrait of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in European cancer patients, Cancer Discovery, doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0773.
Rivera et al., Utilization of COVID-19 Treatments and Clinical Outcomes among Patients with Cancer: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Cohort Study, Cancer Discovery, doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0941.
Rosenberg et al., Association of Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Azithromycin With In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 in New York State, JAMA, May 11, 2020, doi:10.1001/jama.2020.8630.
Serrano et al., COVID-19 and lung cancer: What do we know?, Ann. Oncol., 2020, Sep, 31, S1026, doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.1830.
Shabrawishi et al., Negative nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR conversion in response to different therapeutic interventions, medRxix, doi:10.1101/2020.05.08.20095679.
Sánchez-Álvarez et al., Status of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients on renal replacement therapy. Report of the COVID-19 Registry of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), Nefrología, doi:10.1016/j.nefroe.2020.04.002.
Tang et al., Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial, BMJ 2020, 369, doi:10.1136/bmj.m1849.
WellStar, Hydroxychloroquine Use in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: Impact on Progression to Severe or Critical Disease, NCT04429867, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04429867.
Yu (B) et al., Beneficial effects exerted by hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients via protecting multiple organs, Science China Life Sciences, 2020 Aug 3, doi:10.1007/s11427-020-1782-1.
Yu (C) et al., Low Dose of Hydroxychloroquine Reduces Fatality of Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19, Science China Life Sciences, 2020 May 15, 1-7, doi:10.1007/s11427-020-1732-2.
Zhong Nanshan (钟南山), Efficacy and safety of chloroquine for treatment of COVID-19. An open-label, multi-center, non-randomized trial, twitter.com/JamesTodaroMD/status/1243260720944480265.
Abella et al., Efficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine vs Placebo for Pre-exposure SARS-CoV-2 Prophylaxis Among Health Care Workers, JAMA Internal Medicine, doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.6319.
Ajili et al., A Study of Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc in the Prevention of COVID-19 Infection in Military Healthcare Workers (COVID-Milit), NCT04377646, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04377646.
Bhattacharya et al., Pre exposure Hydroxychloroquine use is associated with reduced COVID19 risk in healthcare workers, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.06.09.20116806.
Burney et al., Hydroxychloroquine Chemoprophylaxis for COVID-19 Infection in High-risk Healthcare Workers, NCT04370015, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04370015.
Chatterjee et al., Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: A case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19, Indian Journal of Medical Research, doi:10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_2234_20.
Chauffe et al., Hydroxychloroquine as Prophylaxis for COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers (HCQPreP), NCT04363450, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04363450.
Connor et al., HEalth Care Worker pROphylaxis Against COVID-19: The HERO Trial (HERO), NCT04352946, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04352946.
Ferreira (B) et al., Chronic treatment with hydroxychloroquine and SARS-CoV-2 infection, Journal of Medical Virology, doi:10.1002/jmv.26286.
Ferri et al., COVID-19 and rheumatic autoimmune systemic diseases: report of a large Italian patients series, Clinical Rheumatology, doi:10.1007/s10067-020-05334-7.
Gagneux-Brunon et al., Acceptability of a COVID-19 pre-exposure prophylaxis trial with hydroxychloroquine in French healthcare workers during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, Trials, doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05329-y.
Gentry et al., Long-term hydroxychloroquine use in patients with rheumatic conditions and development of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a retrospective cohort study, Lancet Rheumatology, doi:10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30305-2.
Granados-Montiel et al., New prophylaxis regimen for SARS-CoV-2 infection in health professionals with low doses of hydroxychloroquine and bromhexine: a randomised, double-blind placebo clinical trial (ELEVATE Trial), BMJ Open, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045190.
James et al., PROLIFIC ChemoprophylaxisTrial (COVID-19), NCT04352933, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04352933.
Khurana et al., Prevalence and clinical correlates of COVID-19 outbreak among healthcare workers in a tertiary level hospital, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.07.21.20159301.
Moraes et al., Comparative Study of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin in COVID-19 Prophylaxis, NCT04384458, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04384458.
Morales-Asencio et al., Prevention of COVID19 Infection in Nursing Homes by Chemoprophylaxis With Hydroxychloroquine, NCT04400019, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04400019.
Nanni et al., PROTECT Trial: A cluster-randomized study with hydroxychloroquine versus observational support for prevention or early-phase treatment of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial, Trials, doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04527-4.
Niriella et al., Hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 among naval personnel in Sri Lanka: study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial, Trials, doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04659-7.
Pellegrini et al., Effectiveness of Prophylactic Hydroxychloroquine on incidence of COVID-19 infection in Front-line Health and Allied Health Care Workers: The COVID-SHIELD Trial, COVID-SHIELD, ACTRN12620000501943, www.anzctr.org.au/TrialSearch.aspx#&&conditionCode=&dateOfRegistrationFrom=&interventionDescription=&interventionCodeOperator=OR&primarySponsorType=&gender=&distance=&postcode=&pageSize=20&ageGroup=&recruitmentCountryOperator=OR&recruitmentRegion=ðicsReview=&countryOfRecruitment=Australia%7cNew+Zealand®istry=&searchTxt=ACTRN12620000501943.
Rajasingham et al., Hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a randomized trial, Clinical Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1571.
Scirocco et al., COVID-19 prognosis in systemic lupus erythematosus compared with rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis: results from the CONTROL-19 Study by the Italian Society for Rheumatology, Lupus Science & Medicine, doi:10.1136/lupus-2023-000945.
Treluyer et al., Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 in Hospital Workers s Exposed to the Virus (PREP-COVID), PREP-COVID, NCT04344379, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04344379.
Zhong et al., COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease in Hubei province, China: a multicentre retrospective observational study, Lancent Rheumatology, doi:10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30227-7.
Abu-Helalah et al., Chemoprevention Clinical Trial of COVID-19: Hydroxychloroquine Post Exposure Prophylaxis (APCC-19), NCT04597775, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04597775.
Al Ansari et al., Post Exposure Prophylaxis in Healthcare Workers Exposed to COVID-19 Patients (HCQ-COVID19), NCT04437693, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04437693.
Borrie et al., COVID-19 PEP- High-risk Individuals in Long-term and Specialized Care - Canada, NCT04397328, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04397328.
Boulware (B) et al., A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19, NEJM, June 3 2020, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2016638.
Ghanem-Zoubi et al., Hydroxychloroquine Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Among Health-Care Workers, NCT04438837, clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04438837.
González et al., Hydroxychloroquine efficacy and safety in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease severity during pregnancy (COVID-Preg): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised placebo controlled trial, Trials, doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04557-y.
Mitjà (B) et al., A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Prevention of Covid-19 Transmission and Disease, NEJM, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2021801.
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments.
c19early involves the extraction of 100,000+ datapoints from
thousands of papers. Community updates
help ensure high accuracy.
Treatments and other interventions are complementary.
All practical, effective, and safe
means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis.
No treatment 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.