...
首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease >Efficacy and safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
【24h】

Efficacy and safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

机译:氯喹和羟氯喹治疗Covid-19患者的疗效和安全性 - 一种系统评价和荟萃分析随机对照试验

获取原文
           

摘要

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality worldwide and an effective treatment is needed. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have shown in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 which causes the disease, but the evidence from in vivo studies so far has been inconclusive. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19. Data Sources: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) for all articles published between 01 January 2020 to 15 September 2020 on CQ/HCQ and COVID-19 using a predefined search protocol; without any language restrictions. A search of grey literature repositories (New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature and Open Grey), and pre-publication server deposits (medRxIV and bioRxIV) was also performed. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) which compared CQ/HCQ to standard supportive therapy in treating COVID-19 were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted from original publications by four independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s assessment tool. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effect models. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): The primary prespecified efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any adverse effect attributed to use of CQ/HCQ. Results: Eight RCTs were included and pooled in the mortality meta-analysis (6,592 unique participants; mean age = 59.4 years; 42% women). CQ/HCQ did not show any mortality benefit when compared to standard supportive therapy (Pooled Relative Risk [RR] 1.07; 95% CI = 0.97-1.18; I 2 statistic = 0.00%). Sensitivity and sub-group analyses showed similar findings. Any adverse event was significantly higher in patients randomized to CQ/HCQ (RR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.53-4.12; n = 1,818 patients), but the risk of developing severe adverse event was not statistically significant (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.53-1.86; n = 6,456 patients). Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence from currently published RCTs do not demonstrate any added benefit for the use of CQ or HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.
机译:Coronavirus疾病19(Covid-19)大流行引起了全世界的显着发病率和死亡率,需要有效的治疗方法。氯喹(CQ)和羟基氯喹(HCQ)已经显示出对SARS-COV-2的体外抗病毒活性,这导致疾病,但到目前为止,体内研究的证据已经不确定。目的:评价CQ和HCQ治疗Covid-19的疗效和安全性。数据来源:我们系统地搜索了PubMed,Embase,Medline,Cochrane Central,Cinahl,Scopus,Joanna Briggs Institute数据库,Clinicaltrials.gov和Chinical试验登记处(Chictr)于2020年1月1日至9月15日发表的所有文章CQ / HCQ和Covid-19使用预定义的搜索协议;没有任何语言限制。还进行了搜索灰色文学存储库(纽约医学院灰色文献和开放灰色),也进行了出版物前服务器存款(MEDRXIV和BIORXIV)。研究选择:随机临床试验(RCT),将CQ / HCQ与治疗Covid-19的标准支持疗法进行比较。数据提取和合成:四个独立审核人员从原始出版物中提取数据。使用Cochrane协作的评估工具评估偏见的风险。使用随机效应模型进行元分析。结果是根据PRISMA指南报告的。主要结果和措施:初级预先预定的疗效结果是全部导致死亡率。主要安全结果是归因于使用CQ / HCQ的任何不利影响。结果:包括八个RCT并汇集死亡率荟萃分析(6,592名独特的参与者;平均年龄= 59.4岁; 42%的妇女)。与标准支持治疗相比(汇集相对风险[RR] 1.07; 95%CI = 0.97-1.18; I 2统计= 0.00%时,CQ / HCQ没有显示任何死亡效益。敏感性和子组分析显示出类似的结果。随机的患者随机化患者患者(RR = 2.51; 95%CI = 1.53-4.12; n = 1,818名患者)显着提高,但发育严重不良事件的风险在统计学上没有统计学意义(RR = 0.99,95 %CI = 0.53-1.86; n = 6,456名患者)。结论和相关性:来自目前已公布的RCT的证据不会证明在Covid-19患者的治疗中使用CQ或HCQ的任何额外福利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号