Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatme | Figure 1

%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-14%27%20transform=%27translate(13.000000,%20103.176124)%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-Copy-5%27%20transform=%27translate(0.000000,%20182.676124)%27%3e%3crect%20id=%27Rectangle-8%27%20fill=%27%23E2E0DE%27%20x=%270%27%20y=%270%27%20width=%2736%27%20height=%2736%27%20rx=%2718%27%3e%3c/rect%3e%3cpath%20d=%27M28,27.6503435%20C28,22.127496%2023.5228474,17.6503435%2018,17.6503435%20C12.4771525,17.6503435%208,22.127496%208,27.6503435%20M18,16.3472505%20C20.8165136,16.3472505%2023.099749,14.0640151%2023.099749,11.2475015%20C23.099749,8.43098783%2020.8165136,6.1477524%2018,6.1477524%20C15.1834863,6.1477524%2012.9002509,8.43098783%2012.9002509,11.2475015%20C12.9002509,14.0640151%2015.1834863,16.3472505%2018,16.3472505%20Z%27%20id=%27Combined-Shape%27%20fill=%27%23FFFFFF%27%20fill-rule=%27nonzero%27%3e%3c/path%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)

Deleted account

Some actions are only available when you log in.

Report case

Report this to our moderators

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID‐19

You can view up to 4 cases without signing up Sign up for unlimited access

Is chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine useful in treating people with COVID‐19, or in preventing infection in people who have been exposed to the virus?

What is the aim of this review?

COVID‐19 is an infectious respiratory disease caused by a coronavirus called SARS‐CoV‐2. If the infection becomes severe, people may need intensive care and support in hospital, including mechanical ventilation.

Drugs used for other diseases were tried out in COVID‐19, and this included chloroquine, used for malaria; and hydroxychloroquine used for rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus. We sought evidence of the effects of these drugs in treating people ill with the disease; in preventing the disease in people at risk of getting the disease, such as health workers; and people exposed to the virus developing the disease.

Key messages

Hydroxychloroquine does not reduce deaths from COVID‐19, and probably does not reduce the number of people needing mechanical ventilation.

Hydroxychloroquine caused more unwanted effects than a placebo treatment, though it did not appear to increase the number of serious unwanted effects.

We do not think new studies of hydroxychloroquine should be started for treatment of COVID‐19.

What was studied in the review?

We searched for studies that looked at giving chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to people with COVID‐19; people at risk of being exposed to the virus; and people who have been exposed to the virus.

We found 14 relevant studies: 12 studies of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine used to treat COVID‐19 in 8569 adults; two studies of hydroxychloroquine to stop COVID‐19 in 3346 adults who had been exposed to the virus but had no symptoms of infection. We did not find any completed studies of these medicines to stop COVID‐19 in people who were at risk of exposure to the virus; studies are still under way.

The studies took place in China, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Taiwan, North America, and Europe; one study was worldwide. Some studies were partly funded by pharmaceutical companies that manufacture hydroxychloroquine.

What are the main results of our review?

Treating COVID‐19

Compared with usual care or placebo, hydroxychloroquine:

· clearly did not affect how many people died (of any cause; 9 studies in 8208 people);

· probably did not affect how many people needed mechanical ventilation (3 studies; 4521 people);

· may not affect how many people still tested positive for the virus after 14 days (3 studies; 213 people).

We are uncertain whether hydroxychloroquine affected the number of people whose symptoms improved after 28 days.

Compared with other antiviral treatment (lopinavir plus ritonavir), chloroquine made little or no difference to the time taken for symptoms to improve (1 study; 22 people).

Compared with usual care in one study in 444 people, hydroxychloroquine given with azithromycin (an antibiotic) made no difference to:

· how many people died;

· how many needed mechanical ventilation; or

· time spent in hospital.

Compared with febuxostat (a medicine to treat gout), hydroxychloroquine made no difference to how many people were admitted to hospital or to changes seen on scans of people's lungs; no deaths were reported (1 study; 60 people).

Preventing COVID‐19 in people exposed to it

We are uncertain whether hydroxychloroquine affected how many people developed COVID‐19, or how many people were admitted to hospital with COVID‐19, compared with those receiving a placebo treatment (1 study; 821 people).

Compared with usual care, hydroxychloroquine made no difference to the risk of developing COVID‐19, or antibodies to the virus, in people exposed to it (1 study; 2525 people).

Unwanted effects

When used for treating COVID‐19, compared with usual care or placebo, hydroxychloroquine:

· probably increases the risk of mild unwanted effects (6 studies; 1394 people);

· may not increase the risk of serious harmful effects (6 studies; 1004 people).

When given along with azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of any unwanted effects, but made no difference to the risk of serious unwanted effects (1 study; 444 people).

Compared with lopinavir plus ritonavir, chloroquine made little or no difference to the risk of unwanted effects (1 study; 22 people).

When used for preventing COVID‐19, hydroxychloroquine probably causes more unwanted effects than placebo, but may not increase the risk of serious, harmful unwanted effects (1 study; 700 people).

How confident are we in our results?

We are confident about our results for how many people died and moderately confident about how many needed mechanical ventilation. We are moderately confident about the unwanted effects of hydroxychloroquine treatment, but less confident about our results for serious unwanted effects; these results might change with further evidence.

How up‐to‐date is this review?

We included evidence published up to 15 September 2020.

Read the full Cochrane Review here

Comment

Sign up to add a comment

More about this case

ResolvedVerified literature

Why you should join Figure 1

Sign up to explore now

Similar cases

\ \ Key messages\ We found moderate‐ to high‐certainty evidence from 6 studies to conclude that systemic Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are an effective treatment for COVID‐19 in hospitalised people, because they resulted in fewer deaths and a lower rate of clinical deterioration. Evaluation of systemic JAK inhibitors is ongoing in 13 studies whilst the results of 9 further studies are awaiting publication.\ We wanted to know whether systemic JAK inhibitors, in addition to usual care, are effective for people with COVID‐19 when compared to usual care with or without a placebo, and whether they cause unwanted effects. We were particularly interested in:\ • number of deaths from any cause up to 60 days after treatment, or longer if reported;\ • whether people got better or worse after treatment, based on their need for breathing support;\ • unwanted effects of the treatment and infections acquired in hospital.\ We searched for studies that reported on people with COVID‐19 who received systemic JAK inhibitors together with usual care, or usual care alone (plus/minus placebo).\ We found 6 suitable studies involving 11,145 people with COVID‐19. All studies compared systemic JAK inhibitors (baricitinib in 4 studies, tofacitinib in 1 study and ruxolitinib in 1 study) to usual care (in addition to placebo), and were performed in hospitalised people. We found no studies performed in outpatients. Most participants needed oxygen supplementation through low‐flow devices (7220 participants), few (463 participants) were mechanically ventilated at the study entry. We also identified 13 ongoing studies and 9 studies that are completed/terminated but not yet published.\ Main results\ Systemic JAK inhibitors plus usual care compared to usual care alone probably lead to fewer deaths from all causes at up to day 28 and lead to fewer deaths from all causes up to day 60 in the studies. It was not possible to identify subgroups of participants (according to severity of illness) who might benefit most. Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status. Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of unwanted effects, and probably decrease slightly the occurrence of serious unwanted effects. Systemic JAK inhibitors may result in little or no difference in the rate of infections acquired in hospital.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/3d2cd6b5-1172-44e9-ac7c-4ff5514fb3af)

\ \ Key messages\ • Overall, we did not find sufficient evidence to show that medicines that block interleukin‐1 are effective treatments for people with COVID‐19, or whether they cause unwanted effects.\ • We found 16 studies with unpublished results. We will update this review when new data are available.\ • In future, we need high‐quality studies to evaluate medicines that block interleukin‐1 to treat COVID‐19.\ We wanted to know if IL‐1 blockers are effective treatments for people with COVID‐19, compared with standard care alone or with placebo.\ We searched for studies that assessed the effects of IL‐1 blockers to treat people with COVID‐19 compared with standard care alone or with placebo.\ We found six studies with 2132 people. Four studies assessed anakinra (1633 people) and two assessed canakinumab (499 people). People were aged between 58 - 68 years old on average, and the majority were men. All the people were in hospital, mainly with moderate to critical COVID‐19. The studies varied in size, from 45 to 2253 people. At the start of the studies, 67% to 100% of people were receiving oxygen, and 0% to 33% were on a ventilator.\ Compared to usual care and placebo:\ • Anakinra probably results in little or no improvement in COVID‐19 symptoms at 28 days after treatment (three studies, 837 people) but we do not know if it makes a difference at 60 days (one study, 115 people).\ • We do not know if anakinra makes a difference to the number of deaths at 28 days after treatment (two studies, 722 people) or at 60 days (four studies, 1633 people).\ • Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in any unwanted effects at 28 days after treatment, but we are not sure about its effect on serious unwanted effects (two studies, 722 people).\ Compared to usual care and placebo:\ • Canakinumab probably results in little or no improvement in COVID‐19 symptoms (defined as improvement on a clinical scale or discharge from hospital) at 28 days after treatment (two studies, 499 people).\ • We do not know if canakinumab makes a difference to the number of deaths at 28 days after treatment (two studies, 499 people) or at 60 days (one study, 45 people).\ • Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in any unwanted effects (one study, 454 people), but we are not sure about its effect on serious unwanted effects (two studies, 499 people) at 28 days.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/6f766bf4-7195-4899-82ce-0ed7ace9a9d0)

\ \ Is plasma from the blood of people who have recovered from COVID‐19 an effective treatment for other people with COVID‐19?\ Key messages\ • We are very confident that plasma from the blood of people who have recovered from COVID‐19 (convalescent plasma) has no benefits for the treatment of people with moderate to severe COVID‐19.\ • Convalescent plasma may have little to no benefit for treating people with mild COVID‐19.\ • We found 49 ongoing studies and 33 finished studies with unpublished results. We will update our review with evidence from these studies as soon as possible. New evidence may answer our remaining questions, especially for people with mild COVID‐19 or who have no symptoms.\ What did we find?\ We found 33 studies with 24,861 participants that investigated convalescent plasma. Among these, 29 studies included people with moderate to severe COVID‐19 and four studies included people with mild COVID‐19. Studies mainly took place in hospitals, in countries all over the world. The following findings apply to convalescent plasma compared with placebo (the same treatment but with no active ingredients) or standard care.\ People with moderate to severe COVID‐19\ • Convalescent plasma makes no difference to deaths from any cause at up to 28 days after treatment, about 225 in 1000 people died, compared to 220 in 1000 people who had been given convalescent plasma (21 studies, 19,021 people).\ • Convalescent plasma makes little to no difference to needing invasive mechanical ventilation or dying. About 287 in 1000 people needed invasive mechanical ventilation support or died, compared to 296 in 1000 people given convalescent plasma (6 studies, 14,477 people). It makes no difference toparticipants being discharged from hospital. About 665 in 1000 people were discharged from hospital, compared to 665 in 1000 people given convalescent plasma (6 studies, 12,721 people).\ • Convalescent plasma probably makes no difference to serious unwanted effects, about 118 in 1000 people may be at risk to have serious unwanted effects compared to 133 in 1000 people given convalescent plasma (6 studies, 4901 people).\ • Convalescent plasma may result in no difference in quality of life (1 study, 483 people).\ People with mild COVID‐19\ • Convalescent plasma may result in no difference in people with mild COVID‐19.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/9f7c583d-c8c9-4ff3-b0d5-c44121b06bc3)

\ \ Are concentrated antibodies from people who have recovered from COVID‐19 or animals an effective treatment for people with COVID‐19?\ Key messages\ • We do not know whether hyperimmune immunoglobulin (a preparation made with antibodies from people who have recovered from COVID‐19) reduces deaths or serious unwanted effects in people with moderate to severe COVID‐19. But a similar preparation made by injecting animals with certain antibodies may reduce deaths, and serious unwanted effects and may stop people’s condition getting worse.\ • We found no studies that investigated people with COVID‐19 but without symptoms or people with mild COVID‐19, so we do not know how effective human or animal hyperimmune immunoglobulin is for them.\ • We found 10 ongoing studies. We will update this review when their results become available.\ hat did we find?\ We found five studies with 957 people. Studies took place in Pakistan, India, France, and Argentina, and one study was conducted in multiple countries, including Denmark, Greece, Japan, Nigeria, Spain, the UK and the USA. The studies took place before or during the emergence of several new COVID‐19 variants and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. All the participants in four studies were unvaccinated. In one study, 12 from 579 participants were vaccinated.\ What are the limitations of the evidence?\ We are uncertain whether hyperimmune immunoglobulin is an effective treatment for people hospitalised with COVID‐19, and whether it affects the number of unwanted or serious unwanted effects because the studies were small and did not all provide evidence on all our points of interest. The studies were conducted predominantly in people from wealthy countries, before the widespread rollout of COVID‐19 vaccines and the emergence of the omicron variant, so the results may not apply to people with omicron variant infection, or people who were vaccinated before falling ill.\ There was no evidence for people without symptoms or with mild COVID‐19.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/cacfe51c-ee39-4034-ad3c-9cbbd193e7e8)

Trending now

\ \ A 52-year-old man presented with a 20-minute history of chest pain radiating to the left shoulder and neck, associated with dyspnea and diaphoresis.\ He had a history of hypertension, long-term smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle.\ On physical examination, bibasilar crackles were noted on lung auscultation. An electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed in the primary care setting, and the patient was promptly referred to the emergency department.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/ae0fe999-6875-4474-94f0-ad823dbb9b3a)

\ \ A 28-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of intense pruritus over the lower back. She reported no recent travel or exposure to new environments. She cares for a small kennel with approximately eight dogs rescued from the streets.\ Physical examination revealed multiple small vesicles, some clustered and others scattered, predominantly involving the lumbar region and the left gluteal area.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/c271070f-2bc7-4052-9895-635277e1a7d5)

\ \ A 4-month-old male infant presented with skin lesions localized to the chin for the past 3 days. Physical examination revealed multiple small pustules with surrounding inflammatory signs on the chin, along with a few scattered papules on the chest.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/48f41642-b9db-4089-b120-a94ee52328de)

\ \ patient in late teens presenting after a collapse, no chest pain, no previous cardiac history, no history of sudden death in family, are there any features in this ekg that would warrant further work-up or is this just a pediatric ekg?](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2af390e1-ace8-40ed-ba1c-98fb2d72f4c5)