Deaths induced by compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine during the first COVID-19 wave: the devil is in the details.
Beaudart, C.; Douxfils, J.; Musuamba, F.; Dogne, J.-M.
Show abstract
Several trials of different designs were conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the prevention and/or the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Recently, it has been reported that HCQ might have been associated with an excess of 16,990 deaths during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 6 countries. Such attributable risk analysis is associated with many limitations. These previous findings did not adequately address dose-subgroup and sensitivity analyses which precludes any overall firm conclusions on in-hospital mortality attributable to HCQ. We performed a meta-analysis and proposed a stratification by doses of HCQ. By pooling studies employing HCQ doses < or = 2400mg/5 days (i.e., k=12, n patients treated with HCQ=947, n controls=745), an OR of 0.94 (95%CI 0.56; 1.59) was found, indicating no increase in the mortality rate anymore. Importantly, there was no significant reduction in mortality rate with HCQ at < or = 2400mg/5 days neither. The same observation held true when pooling studies employing HCQ doses < or = 4800mg/5 days (i.e., k=25, n patients treated with HCQ=1672, n controls=1479) with an OR of 0.97 (95% CI 0.73; 1.29). Only high dose regimens of HCQ are associated with a significant increase in mortality. Applying an excess of mortality in the population treated with doses where no increase of mortality is found creates a misleading overestimation of deaths associated with the use of HCQ in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. On the other hand, even at low doses HCQ regimen, no reduction in mortality with HCQ was observed suggesting that, when it comes to mortality as the outcome, HCQ did not show a benefit in hospitalized patients suffering from COVID-19. This mainly justifies the past and still up-to-date recommendations and guidelines to not use HCQ in this indication.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Tolerability and Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Inhaled Dry Powder Hydroxychloroquine in Healthy Volunteers 95%
- Hydroxychloroquine For The Treatment Of Severe Respiratory Infection By COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial 94%
- 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) 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study of camostat mesilate (FOY-305) for the treatment of COVID-19 (CANDLE study) 94%
- Postmarketing commitments for novel drugs and biologics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: a cross-sectional analysis 91%
- Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessment of Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Safety Profiles: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 94%
- Echinacea purpurea for the Long-term Prevention of Viral Respiratory Tract Infections during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized, Open, Controlled, Exploratory Clinical Study 93%
- Atovaquone for Treatment of COVID-19: A Prospective Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial 92%
"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.