Conv. Plasma
Nigella Sativa
Nitric Oxide
Peg.. Lambda

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

Other Treatments Global Adoption
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Recent:  
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ Mortality -9% Improvement Relative Risk Peters et al. HCQ for COVID-19 LATE TREATMENT Is late treatment with HCQ beneficial for COVID-19? Retrospective 1,949 patients in Netherlands No significant difference in mortality Peters et al., Clinical Microbiology and Infection, doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.10.004 Favors HCQ Favors control
Outcomes of Persons With COVID-19 in Hospitals With and Without Standard Treatment With (Hydroxy)chloroquine
Peters et al., Clinical Microbiology and Infection, doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.10.004 (date from earlier preprint)
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 (date from earlier preprint)
Aug 2020   Source   PDF  
  All Studies   Meta
Retrospective study of HCQ use in 9 hospitals in the Netherlands, showing no significant difference in mortality with HCQ/CQ or dexamethasone. Late stage (admitted to hospital with positive test or CT scan abnormalities). 4 of 7 hospitals started treatment only after further deterioration. Short cutoff (21 days) - other studies have shown treated patient cases resolved faster and more control patients remaining in hospital at this time.
In the preprint, 58 of 341 control patients died. In the journal version, 53 of 353 control patients died.
Significant differences between hospitals - HCQ hospitals had significantly older patients with significantly more comorbidities. Non-HCQ hospitals were "tertiary academic centres" whereas HCQ hospitals were "secondary care hospitals". Residual confounding likely. This study compares overcrowded regular hospitals with undercrowded academic hospitals.
A subset of patients were excluded due to transfer to other hospitals. This introduces bias because patients in critical condition are not transferred. For examples, patients benefiting from HCQ treatment may have been transferred to the tertiary centres and excluded from analysis, increasing the percentage of critical cases in the secondary hospitals.
Among the seven (H)CQ-hospitals, the timing of start of (H)CQ treatment differed; three hospitals started at the moment of COVID-19 diagnosis, four started after diagnosis but only when patients clinically deteriorated e.g., when there was an increase in respiratory rate or increase in use of supplemental oxygen.
Most patients received CQ instead of the safer HCQ, receiving late treatment with CQ. Patients were given an initial dose of 600mg CQ then every 12 hours, for 5 days a dose of 300 mg, for a total of 3600mg CQ. This dose is likely to be toxic, see for example [].
Authors mention a subset of hospitals started treatment relatively earlier, which seems like the most important area to analyze, but no results are provided. This study is excluded in the after exclusion results of meta analysis: 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.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates
Peters et al., 15 Aug 2020, retrospective, Netherlands, peer-reviewed, 21 authors.
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Submit Updates or Corrections
This PaperHCQAll
Abstract: Clinical Microbiology and Infection 27 (2021) 264e268 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Clinical Microbiology and Infection journal homepage: Original article Outcomes of persons with coronavirus disease 2019 in hospitals with and without standard treatment with (hydroxy)chloroquine Edgar JG. Peters 1, *, Didier Collard 2, Sander Van Assen 3, Martijn Beudel 4, Marije K. Bomers 1, Jacqueline Buijs 5, Lianne R. De Haan 6, Wouter De Ruijter 7, e A. Douma 6, Paul WG. Elbers 8, Abraham Goorhuis 9, Rene Niels C. Gritters van den Oever 10, Lieve GHH. Knarren 11, Hazra S. Moeniralam 12, Remy LM. Mostard 13, Marian JR. Quanjel 14, Auke C. Reidinga 15, Roos Renckens 16, Joop PW. Van Den Bergh 11, Imro N. Vlasveld 15, 17, Jonne J. Sikkens 1, on behalf of the CovidPredict Study Group 1) Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam Infection and Immunity Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 3) Treant Zorggroep, Department of Internal Medicine/Infectious Diseases, Emmen, the Netherlands 4) Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 5) Zuyderland Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Heerlen/Sittard, the Netherlands 6) Flevoziekenhuis, Department of Internal Medicine, Almere, the Netherlands 7) Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Intensive Care Unit, Alkmaar, the Netherlands 8) Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam Medical Data Science, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam Infection and Immunity Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 9) Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 10) Treant Zorggroep, Intensive Care Unit, Emmen, the Netherlands 11) Viecuri MC Noord-Limburg, Department of Internal Medicine, Venlo, the Netherlands 12) St Antonius Ziekenhuis, Department of Internal Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands 13) Zuyderland Medical Center, Department of Pulmonology, Heerlen/Sittard, the Netherlands 14) St Antonius Ziekenhuis, Department of Pulmonology, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands 15) Martini Hospital, Intensive Care Unit, Groningen, the Netherlands 16) Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Department of Internal Medicine, Alkmaar, the Netherlands 17) Martini Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Groningen, the Netherlands 2) a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 8 July 2020 Received in revised form 1 October 2020 Accepted 3 October 2020 Available online 14 October 2020 Editor: L. Scudeller Keywords: Chloroquine Coronavirus disease 2019 Hydroxychloroquine Mortality Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 a b s t r a c t Objective: To compare survival of individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treated in hospitals that either did or did not routinely treat patients with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine. Methods: We analysed data of COVID-19 patients treated in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. Inclusion dates ranged from 27 February to 15 May 2020, when the Dutch national guidelines no longer supported the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine. Seven hospitals routinely treated patients with (hydroxy)chloroquine, two hospitals did not. Primary outcome was 21-day..
Late treatment
is less effective
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and treatments are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. FLCCC and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop