Systematic benefit-risk assessment for the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19: Establishing a dynamic framework for rapid decision-making
Osborne, V.; Davies, M.; Dhanda, S.; Roy, D.; Lane, S.; Evans, A.; Shakir, S. A.
Show abstract
ObjectivesGiven the current pandemic, there is an urgent need to identify effective, safe treatments for COVID-19 (coronavirus disease). A systematic benefit-risk assessment was designed and conducted to strengthen the ongoing monitoring of the benefit-risk balance for chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 treatment. MethodsThe overall benefit-risk of the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 compared to standard of care, placebo or other treatments was assessed using the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar to identify literature reporting clinical outcomes in patients taking chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. A value tree was constructed and key benefits and risks were ranked by two clinicians in order of considered importance. ResultsSeveral potential key benefits and risks were identified for use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in COVID-19 treatment. Currently available results did not show an improvement in mortality risk; Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) for death between patients who received HCQ alone vs. neither hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin was 1.08 (95% CI 0.63-1.85). A further study compared the incidence of intubation or death (composite outcome) in a time to event analysis between patients who received HCQ vs. those patients who did not (adjusted Cox proportional HR 1.00 (95% CI 0.76-1.32)). Risk of cardiac arrest, abnormal electrocardiogram (ECG) and QT prolongation was greater among patients taking HCQ (with or without azithromycin) compared to standard of care in the same study. ConclusionsOverall, based on the available data there does not appear to be a favourable benefit-risk profile for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine compared to standard of care in treatment of severe COVID-19. As further data from clinical trials and real world use on these benefits and risks becomes available, this can be incorporated into the framework for an ongoing benefit-risk assessment.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Hydroxychloroquine For The Treatment Of Severe Respiratory Infection By COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial 93%
- Doxycycline for the prevention of progression of COVID-19 to severe disease requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission: a randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel group trial (DOXPREVENT.ICU) 93%
- 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) 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Decision support system to evaluate VENTilation in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (DeVENT study) – Trial Protocol 92%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 92%
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Favipiravir for treating novel coronavirus (COVID-19) patients: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials 93%
- Face-to-face interventions to encourage enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation; a scoping review protocol 92%
- Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Tool to assess risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN): elaboration and examples 91%
- Evaluation and Improvement of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) for COVID-19: a multi-hospital study 91%
- Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study of camostat mesilate (FOY-305) for the treatment of COVID-19 (CANDLE study) 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 92%
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 91%
- Quantification of the association between predisposing health conditions, demographic, and behavioural factors with hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death from COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.