SynthesisSystematic reviews2021
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine from randomized controlled trials on malarial and non-malarial conditions.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of therapeutic strategies for human brucellosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Trends and practices following the 2016 hydroxychloroquine screening guidelines.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Hydroxychloroquine overcomes cabergoline resistance in a patient with Lactotroph Pituitary neuroendocrine tumor: a case report.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Potential of nanoformulations in malaria treatment.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.