Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34736537›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2021

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine from randomized controlled trials on malarial and non-malarial conditions.

Mayra Souza Botelho, Fernanda Bolfi, Renata Giacomini Occhiuto Ferreira Leite, Mauro Salles Ferreira Leite, Luisa Rocco Banzato, Luiza Teixeira Soares, Thaina Oliveira Felicio Olivatti, Amanda Sampaio Mangolim, Flávia Ramos Kazan Oliveira, Luciana Patrícia Fernandes Abbade and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Mayra Souza BotelhoDepartment of Internal Medicine, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Fernanda BolfiDepartment of Internal Medicine, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Renata Giacomini Occhiuto Ferreira LeiteDepartment of Internal Medicine, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Mauro Salles Ferreira LeiteDepartment of Internal Medicine, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Luisa Rocco BanzatoDepartment of Internal Medicine, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Luiza Teixeira SoaresDepartment of Internal Medicine, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Thaina Oliveira Felicio OlivattiDepartment of Internal Medicine, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Amanda Sampaio MangolimDepartment of Internal Medicine, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Flávia Ramos Kazan OliveiraDepartment of Internal Medicine, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Luciana Patrícia Fernandes AbbadeDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Dermatology, Imaging Diagnosis and Radiotherapy, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Joelcio Francisco AbbadeDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Ricardo Augusto Monteiro de Barros AlmeidaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Dermatology, Imaging Diagnosis and Radiotherapy, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Julia Simões Corrêa GalendiInstitute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Vania Dos Santos Nunes-NogueiraDepartment of Internal Medicine, São Paulo State University/UNESP, Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil. vania.nunes-nogueira@unesp.br.ORCID 0000-0001-9316-4167
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRUniversity of Cologne · DEUniversity of Johannesburg · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the expectations regarding the effectiveness of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) management, concerns about their adverse events have remained.

objectivesThe objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of CQ and HCQ from malarial and non-malarial randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

methodsThe primary outcomes were the frequencies of serious adverse events (SAEs), retinopathy, and cardiac complications. Search strategies were applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Trip databases. We used a random-effects model to pool results across studies and Peto's one-step odds ratio (OR) for event rates below 1%. Both-armed zero-event studies were excluded from the meta-analyses. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

resultsOne hundred and six RCTs were included. We found no significant difference between CQ/HCQ and control (placebo or non-CQ/HCQ) in the frequency of SAEs (OR: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.26, 33 trials, 15,942 participants, moderate certainty of evidence). However, there was a moderate certainty of evidence that CQ/HCQ increases the incidence of cardiac complications (RR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.10-2.38, 16 trials, 9908 participants). No clear relationship was observed between CQ/HCQ and retinopathy (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: - 0.4-6.57, 5 trials, 344 participants, very low certainty of evidence).

conclusionsCQ and HCQ probably do not increase SAEs, with low frequency of these adverse events on malarial and non-malarial conditions. However, they may increase cardiac complications especially in patients with COVID-19. No clear effect of their use on the incidence of retinopathy was observed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020177818.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentHydroxychloroquineChloroquineHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSARS-CoV-2ChloroquineHydroxychloroquineAdverse effectsChloroquineCOVID-19HydroxychloroquineSafetySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34736537
PMCPMC8567984
OpenAlexW3116060128

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.