IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0273526.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Leon Di Stefano
  • Elizabeth L Ogburn
  • Malathi Ram
  • Daniel O Scharfstein
  • Tianjing Li
  • Preeti Khanal
  • Sheriza N Baksh
  • Nichol McBee
  • Joshua Gruber
  • Marianne R Gildea
  • Megan R Clark
  • Neil A Goldenberg
  • Yussef Bennani
  • Samuel M Brown
  • Whitney R Buckel
  • Meredith E Clement
  • Mark J Mulligan
  • Jane A O’Halloran
  • Adriana M Rauseo
  • Wesley H Self
  • Matthew W Semler
  • Todd Seto
  • Jason E Stout
  • Robert J Ulrich
  • Jennifer Victory
  • Barbara E Bierer
  • Daniel F Hanley
  • Daniel Freilich
  • on behalf of the Pandemic Response COVID-19 Research Collaboration Platform for HCQ/CQ Pooled Analyses

Abstract

Background: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. Methods: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. Results: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76–1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). Conclusions: The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Leon Di Stefano & Elizabeth L Ogburn & Malathi Ram & Daniel O Scharfstein & Tianjing Li & Preeti Khanal & Sheriza N Baksh & Nichol McBee & Joshua Gruber & Marianne R Gildea & Megan R Clark & Neil A Go, 2022. "Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-27, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0273526
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273526
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273526&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0273526?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:plo:pone00:0241947 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jayne F Tierney & David J Fisher & Sarah Burdett & Lesley A Stewart & Mahesh K B Parmar, 2020. "Comparison of aggregate and individual participant data approaches to meta-analysis of randomised trials: An observational study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Sophie Juul & Emil Eik Nielsen & Joshua Feinberg & Faiza Siddiqui & Caroline Kamp Jørgensen & Emily Barot & Niklas Nielsen & Peter Bentzer & Areti Angeliki Veroniki & Lehana Thabane & Fanlong Bu & Sar, 2020. "Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-25, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fahad M. Al Amer & Christopher G. Thompson & Lifeng Lin, 2021. "Bayesian Methods for Meta-Analyses of Binary Outcomes: Implementations, Examples, and Impact of Priors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Takuya Ishihara & Toru Kitagawa, 2021. "Evidence Aggregation for Treatment Choice," Papers 2108.06473, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0273526. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.