Clinical Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine in Patients with COVID-19: An Umbrella Review

Q4 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
K. Shahsavarinia, M. Ghojazadeh, S. Sanaie, L. Vahedi, Mahta Ahmadpour, A. Mahmoodpoor, H. Soleimanpour
{"title":"Clinical Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine in Patients with COVID-19: An Umbrella Review","authors":"K. Shahsavarinia, M. Ghojazadeh, S. Sanaie, L. Vahedi, Mahta Ahmadpour, A. Mahmoodpoor, H. Soleimanpour","doi":"10.34172/ps.2021.66","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Many of the known coronaviruses cause a wide range of respiratory infections in humans, and the novel coronavirus is no exception to this rule. Although no drug has yet been discovered to prevent or treat this disease, chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been widely used in studies showing different results. Methods The present study is an umbrella study. The search was conducted for the articles published from January 2020 to November 2020 using the keywords (\"COVID-19\" OR \"SARS-CoV-2\" AND \"Hydroxychloroquine\" OR \"Chloroquine\" AND \"Systematic Review\" OR \"Metanalysis\"). This study was limited to human samples and systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis. The quality of the articles was also evaluated independently by two researchers. Results To evaluate the clinical efficacy of HCQ and CQ, a total of 176 papers and 643569 cases ranging from patients with mild pneumonia to intubated critically ill patients were evaluated. Finally, 8 studies were included. Conclusion There are conflicting results regarding HCQ or CQ efficacy and safety in the systematic reviews. More evidence is needed to confirm whether these drugs are useful in COVID-19 infection, and their usage as the standard care cannot be recommended based on the majority of the studies included in this umbrella review.","PeriodicalId":31004,"journal":{"name":"Infarma Pharmaceutical Sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infarma Pharmaceutical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ps.2021.66","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background Many of the known coronaviruses cause a wide range of respiratory infections in humans, and the novel coronavirus is no exception to this rule. Although no drug has yet been discovered to prevent or treat this disease, chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been widely used in studies showing different results. Methods The present study is an umbrella study. The search was conducted for the articles published from January 2020 to November 2020 using the keywords ("COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2" AND "Hydroxychloroquine" OR "Chloroquine" AND "Systematic Review" OR "Metanalysis"). This study was limited to human samples and systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis. The quality of the articles was also evaluated independently by two researchers. Results To evaluate the clinical efficacy of HCQ and CQ, a total of 176 papers and 643569 cases ranging from patients with mild pneumonia to intubated critically ill patients were evaluated. Finally, 8 studies were included. Conclusion There are conflicting results regarding HCQ or CQ efficacy and safety in the systematic reviews. More evidence is needed to confirm whether these drugs are useful in COVID-19 infection, and their usage as the standard care cannot be recommended based on the majority of the studies included in this umbrella review.
羟氯喹或氯喹治疗COVID-19患者的临床疗效综述
许多已知的冠状病毒在人类中引起广泛的呼吸道感染,新型冠状病毒也不例外。虽然尚未发现预防或治疗这种疾病的药物,但氯喹(CQ)和羟氯喹(HCQ)已在研究中广泛使用,显示出不同的结果。方法本研究为总括性研究。使用关键词(“COVID-19”或“SARS-CoV-2”和“羟氯喹”或“氯喹”和“系统评价”或“元分析”)对2020年1月至2020年11月发表的文章进行检索。这项研究仅限于人类样本和系统评价,有或没有荟萃分析。文章的质量也由两位研究者独立评估。结果为评价HCQ和CQ的临床疗效,共对176篇论文和643569例患者进行了评价,包括轻度肺炎患者和插管危重患者。最终纳入8项研究。结论在系统评价中,对HCQ或CQ的疗效和安全性的评价结果存在矛盾。需要更多的证据来证实这些药物是否对COVID-19感染有用,并且根据本综述中包含的大多数研究,不能推荐将其作为标准治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信