Abstract
Background Global COVID-19 deaths reached at least 400,000 fatalities. Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial drug that elicit immunomodulatory effects and had shown in vitro antiviral effects against SRAS-CoV-2. This drug divided opinion worldwide in the medical community but also in the press, the general public and in public health policies. The aim of this systematic review and this meta-analysis was to bring a new overview on this controversial drug and to assess whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 mortality risk in hospitalized patients.
Methods and Findings Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, MedRxiv and grey literature were searched until 10 June 2020. Only studies of COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (with or without azithromycin) compared with a comparative standard care group and with full-text articles in English were included. Studies reporting effect sizes as Odds Ratios, Hazard Ratio and Relative Risk for mortality risk and the number of deaths per groups were included. This meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42020190801). Independent extraction has been performed by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model.
The initial search leaded to 112 articles, from which 16 articles met our inclusion criteria. 15 studies were retained for association between hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 survival including 15,081 patients (8,072 patients in the hydroxychloroquine arm and 7,009 patients in the standard care arm with respectively, 1,578 deaths and 1,423 deaths). 6 studies were retained for hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin. Hydroxychloroquine was not significantly associated with mortality risk (pooled Relative Risk RR=0.82 (95% Confidence Interval: 0.62-1.07, I2=82, Pheterogeneity<0.01, n=15)) within hospitalized patients, nor in association with azithromycin (pooled Relative Risk RR=1.33 (95% CI: 0.92-1.92, I2=75%, Pheterogeneity<0.01, n=6)), nor in the numerous subgroup analysis by study design, median age population, published studies (vs unpublished articles), level of bias risk. However, stratified analysis by continents, we found a significant decreased risk of mortality associated with hydroxychlroquine alone but not with azithromycin among European (RR= 0.62 (95%CI: 0.41-0.93, n=7)) and Asian studies (RR=0.36 (95%CI:0.18-0.73, n=1)), with heterogeneity detected across continent (Pheterogeneity between=0.003). These finding should be interpreted with caution since several included studies had a low quality of evidence with a small sample size, a lack of adjustment on potential confounders or selection and intervention biases.
Conclusion Our meta-analysis does not support the use of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin to reduce COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized patients. It raises the question of the hydroxychloroquine use outside of clinical trial. Additional results from larger randomised controlled trials are needed
Introduction
On December 31, 2019, World Health Organization (WHO) identified in Wuhan (China) an unknown pneumonia caused by a new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. This new coronavirus rapidly spread around the world and on the 11th of March, the WHO declared it as a pandemic. By 17 June, 2020, WHO confirmed 8,006,427 cases and 436,899 deaths.
Recent publications identified the in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), an aminoquinoline like chloroquine. HCQ appeared as a potential treatment for COVID-19 patients at low costs(1). HCQ is also used as antimalarial drug, for rheumatoid arthritis and for lupus. This drug was widely advertised by international press and the United States President(2). Three in vitro studies tested HCQ on VeroE6 cells infected by SARS-CoV-2. This later suggested that HCQ decreased the viral replication with 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) values of 2.2 µM (0.7 µg/mL) and 4.4 µM (1.4 µg/mL) in Maisonnasse et al. study, at 0.72 µM in Yao et al. study and between 4.51 – 12.96 µM for 50% maximal effective concentration (EC50) in Liu et al. study (1–3). Another study reported a synergistic effect of the HCQ with azithromycin (AZ) against SARS-CoV-2(6). The mechanism would be an acidification of the endosomes pH, and this pH modification would block the virus-endosome fusion (7).
Hydroxychloroquine was also tested in a study where macaques were infected by SARS-CoV-2 and received either a high dose of hydroxychloroquine (90 mg/kg on day 1 then 45 mg/kg) either a low HCQ dose (30 mg/kg on day 1 then 15 mg/kg) (3). Hydroxychloroquine did not improve the time to viral clearance. Another study in preprint also reported that there is no evidence of efficacy for the drug hydroxychloroquine (6.5 mg/kg) against infection with SARS-CoV-2 in hamsters or macaque models(8).
By June 17, about 132 trials have been referenced to test hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 on ClinicalTrials.gov (9). Until today, most of the published studies on hydroxychloroquine with a comparative group (standard care) were observational and non-randomized with inconsistent results (10–16). This study is the first meta-analysis to pool adjusted relative risk and to include 16 studies. Previous meta-analysis on COVID-19 included a very limited number of studies and used unadjusted risk ratio (17–19). Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a systematically quantitative assessment of the association between HCQ treatment (vs standard care) and COVID-19 survival risk among human trials and observational studies.
Material and methods
Data sources, search strategy
Research question was: does hydroxychloroquine treatment (vs standard care) have an effect (positive or negative) on survival of patients with COVID-19? A search was performed via PubMed and Web of Science and Cochrane Review until 10 June 2020 with this string search: (COVID-19 OR SRAS-CoV-2) AND (MORTALITY OR DEATH) AND (HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE OR HCQ) (Supplementary text S1). Given that the number of articles about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 is rapidly growing, we also manually searched additional reference on MedRxiv preprint server and on google scholar. The language was limited to English. This meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA statements in Supplementary text S2. This study has been recorded on the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews, PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42020190801).
Criteria for study selection
Inclusion criteria were 1) reports must contain original data with available risk estimates (Hazard Ration, Odds Ratios, Relative Risk and/or with data on the number of death in HCQ and control groups 2) all publication dates will be considered 3) publications in English language 4) comparative studies with a control group without hydroxychloroquine and 5) COVID-19 confirmed cases by RT-PCR. Reviews and meta-analysis, commentaries, in vitro and in vivo studies were excluded.
Data extraction
Data extraction was performed by two investigators (Mr. T. Fiolet and Mr. Y. Mahamat-Saleh) who screened the titles and abstracts. Discrepancies were resolved by a third investigator (Dr. Anthony Guihur).
The following data were extracted from each study: study design, publication date, location, number of participants (total, in treatment and control groups, doses when available, effect size (Hazard Ratio, Odds Ratio or Relative Risk) and 95% confidence intervals for reported risk estimates. Hazard Ratio (HR) refers to the ratio of hazards in the intervention group divided by those occurring in the control group. Hazard represents the instantaneous event rate, which means the probability that an individual would experience an event (e.g. death) at a particular given point in time after the intervention, assuming that this individual has survived to that particular point of time without experiencing any event. In contrast, Relative Risk (RR) and Odds Ratio (OR) does not take account of the timing of each event. RR and OR are similar when the event (death) is rare. The most adjusted effect size reflecting the greatest control of potential confounders was extracted.
Three included studies did not report effect size for mortality risk (15,20,21). Thus we used the number of death per groups to calculate an unadjusted relative risk using metabin function in meta package in R Software (22). RR calculation is based on Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions formula (23)
For all the other studies, reported adjusted OR, RR or HR were used. The quality of each study was assessed with ROBIN-I tool following Cochrane guidelines for non-randomized studies and with Rob2 for randomized studies (24,25).
Outcome
The outcome is COVID-19 mortality.
Statistical analysis
Effect of HCQ alone and HCQ + AZ
A primary meta-analysis was performed to assess the association between hydroxychloroquine alone (vs standard care) and risk of death. In a second time, the relationship between hydroxychloroquine associated with azithromycin and mortality was assessed. HRs, ORs and RRs were treated as equivalent measures of mortality risk. Pooled RRs were determined by using a random effect model with inverse variance weighting (DerSimonian-Laird method) (26). Significance was checked by Z-test (p<0.05 was considered as significant).
Heterogeneity was assessed by the Chi-square test and I2 test. 30%<I2<60% was interpreted as moderate heterogeneity and I2>60 as high heterogeneity. Funnel plot was constructed to assess the publication bias. Begg’s and Egger’s test were conducted to assess the publication bias (7,27). RR or HR and their 95% confidence interval were used to assessed mortality risk.
Subgroup analysis
Subgroup analyses were further conducted according to the quality assessment to explore the source of heterogeneity among observational studies. We performed stratified analyses by continents, the type of article (peer-reviewed vs unpublished), the use of an adjustment on confounding factors (studies with RRunadjusted vs RRadjusted), the mean daily dose of hydroxychloroquine (continuous), the median population age across the studies (median age>63 years) and the level of bias risk identified with ROBIN-I (moderate/serious/critical) (24), the exclusion of studies with cancer and dialysis patients. Mean daily dose of hydroxychloroquine is a daily average between the loading dose and the maintenance doses. Additionally, influence analysis was conducted by omitting each study to find potential outliers (28). It is used to detect studies which influence the overall estimate of our meta-analysis the most, omitting one study at a time (leave-one-out method).
A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analysis were conducted using R version 3.6.1 with meta package and robvis package (29).
Results
Literature Search
After searching Pubmed and Web of Science, 105 results were identified. 7 articles from Medrxiv/Google Scholar were added. After screening the title and the abstract, only 9 articles about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 were included. 144 articles were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. 16 articles were included for further consideration including 14 observational studies and one non-randomized trial and one unpublished randomized controlled trial (RCT): 15 articles for HCQ (10–17,20,21,30–34) and 6 articles for HCQ+AZ (10,16,30,31,35,36). Flow chart is presented in Figure 1.
Study characteristics
This meta-analysis includes 8,072 patients in the hydroxychloroquine group and 7,009 patients in the standard care group with respectively 1,578 deaths and 1,423 deaths. Individual studies are described in Table 1. It appears that all the included studies were carried on hospitalized patients. No study meeting our inclusion criteria addressed the effect of HCQ on asymptomatic forms of COVID-19. Mean and median age of participants ranged from 53 to 72 across the studies. Studies were conducted in the USA (n=6) (13,16,20,30,31,36), in Spain (n=4) (14,15,33,35), in France (n=2) (11,21), in the UK (n=1)(37), in Italy (n=1) (32), in China (n=1) (12) and in 3 countries (USA, Canada and Spain)(10). 9 articles were published, and 4 articles were preprints. RECOVERY Trial data were reported by a press communication (34,37). Mean daily dose of hydroxychloroquine ranged from 333 mg/j to 945 mg/j.
Study quality
Risk of bias was assessed with ROBIN-I for non-randomised studies (n=14) and Rob2 was not applicable for RECOVERY RCT because data were not available (Figure S1). Details on the assessment of studies quality are provided in Fig S2. Among the non-randomized studies, the majority of these observational studies had a high or critical risk of bias (10 out of 16) (12,14,15,20,21,30,32,33,35,36). Five articles had a moderate risk of bias(10,11,13,16,31). Some studies did not report adjusted effect sizes to control confusion and selection bias (15,20,21,32,33,35). Studies quality was lowered by the lack of information about the assignment of treatment, the time between start of follow-up and start of intervention), some unbalanced co-intervention with other antiviral and antibiotic drugs.
Hydroxychloroquine and mortality
The pooled RR for COVID-19 mortality was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.62-1.07, I2=82, Pheterogeneity<0.01, n=15) (Figure 2) indicating no significant association between hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 survival or increased mortality. There was significant high heterogeneity across the included studies (I2 =83%, p<0.01). Egger’s test (p= 0.42) and Begg’s test (P=0.88) were not significant for asymmetry of the funnel plot indicating that there is not a major publication bias (Figure S3). In our separated analysis by study design, we found a positive but not significant association between hydroxychloroquine alone and mortality among interventional studies (RR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.97-1.25, I2=0%, Pheterogeneity within=0.5, n=2); however an inverse but not significant association was found among observational studies (RR: 0.78, 95%CI: 0.58-1.05, I2=82%, Pheterogeneity within <0.01), with heterogeneity observed across the study design (Pheterogeneity between = 0.03).
Subgroup analysis for hydroxychloroquine alone
Subgroup analysis among all studies (observational and interventional studies) per study design, type of article (peer-reviewed vs unpublished), risk estimated, age, the exclusion of cancer/haemodialysis patients identified a non-significant association in each subgroup (Table 2).
Test for subgroup differences (observational vs nRCT vs RCT) was not significant (P=0.09) suggesting no differences in the overall effect according to the design of the studies. The pooled RR for observational studies was 0.78 (95%CI: 0.58-1.05, I2=82%, Pheterogeneity within <0.01, n=13) and RR was 3.42 (95%CI: 0.15-77.20, n=1) for non-randomized controlled trial and 1.10 (95%CI: 0.97-1.25, n=1) for the RECOVERY randomized controlled trial (Figure 2).
After stratification by the level of bias from ROBIN-I evaluation, the association between hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 mortality remained non-significant. The broadness of 95% CI and heterogeneity increased with the risk of bias: moderate risk of bias (RR=1.02 [0.88-1.18], I2=0, Pheterogeneity within =0.9, n=5), serious risk of bias (RR=0.63, 95% CI: (0.38-1.04, I2=89%, Pheterogeneity within <0.01, n=6)) and critical risk of bias (RR=0.97, 95% CI: (0.23-4.07, I2=31%, Pheterogeneity within =0.2, n=3)) (Figure S4).
In our stratified analysis by continents (Figure S5), interestingly, we found a significant decreased risk of mortality with HCQ alone among Asian (RRAsia=0.36, 95%CI: 0.18-0.73, n=1) and European studies (RREurope=0.62 (95%CI: 0.41-0.93, I2=90%, Pheterogeneity within <0.01, n=7)) but there was no significant association among American studies, with heterogeneity detected across continent (Pheterogeneity between=0.003).
Furthermore, we found no association between HCQ alone and mortality by HCQ daily mean dose. The pooled RR was 1.09 (95%CI: 0.98-1.22, I2=0%, Pheterogeneity within=0.9, n=5), for studies with >500mg, (RR=0.97 (95%CI: 0.55-1.69, I2=84%, Pheterogeneity within<0.01, n=4) for HCQ dose<500 mg and (RR=0.58 (95%CI: 0.39-0.85, I2=80%, Pheterogeneity within<0.01, n=6) for an unspecified dose of HCQ, with heterogeneity detected across HCQ dose categories (Pheterogeneity between=0.007).
In our stratified analysis by studies which reported adjusted effect sizes (vs non-adjusted), the pooled RR for adjusted estimates was RR=0.91 (95%CI: 0.67-1.24, I2=70%, Pheterigeneity within<0.01, n=9) and for non-adjusted estimates RR=0.44 (95%CI: 0.35-0.56, I2=0%, Pheterigeneity within<0.41, n=5), suggesting differences in the overall effect according to the presence of adjustment on potential confounders.
Influence analysis showed that Yu et al, Membrillo et al, Ayerbe et al, Magagnoli et al are influent studies (Figure S7). Removing these studies make heterogeneity decrease at I2=0% but the results remained non-significant (RR=1.00 (95% CI: 0.0-1.13, I2=29%, n=11) (Table 2).
All the results remained similar after exclusion of the two interventional studies (Table S1).
Hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin and mortality
The pooled RR for COVID-19 mortality was 1.33 (95% CI: 0.91-1.921, n=6) (Figure 3) indicating no significant association between hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin and survival. There was significant high heterogeneity across the included studies (I2 =75%, p<0.01). Egger’s test (p= 0.9) and Begg’s test (p=0.6) were not significant but the asymmetry in the funnel plot indicates that there could be a publication bias. However, the number of included studies is small.
Subgroup analysis for hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin
In all the subgroup analysis (type of article, effect size, risk of bias, continent, mean daily dose, age, exclusion of cancer and haemodialysis patients, influence analysis), no significant association between hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin and mortality was found (Table 2). Nevertheless, in our stratified analysis by continents, we found no significant association with COVID-19 survival risk among American studies (RR=1.10, 95%CI: 0.91-1.32, I2=0%, Pheterogeneity within=0.48, n=3) and European studies (RR=0.24 (95%CI: 0.00-13.43, I2=80%, Pheterogeneity within <0.02, n=2)) but there was a significant increased risk of mortality in the multiple countries (RR=2.93, 95%CI: 1.79-4.79, n=1), with heterogeneity detected across continent (Pheterogeneity between=0.0009).
Discussion
This meta-analysis summarized the results of 14 observational studies, 1 non-randomised study and 1 unpublished randomised controlled trial on hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin and COVID-19 survival (Table 1). The results indicated that hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin is ineffective to reduce COVID-19 mortality risk in hospitalized patients (Figure 2 and 3). Eight observational studies reported no advantage for hydroxychloroquine (10,11,13,16,20,21,31,32). One US Veterans study identified an increased risk of death(30). Three Spanish and one Chinese studies reported a protective effect (12,14,15,33) but this benefit on survival was not replicated in two RCT, especially RECOVERY Trial which is one of the largest study. Our meta-analysis reported a high heterogeneity. The use of an adjusted effect size to control confusion bias, the daily HCQ dose, the risk of bias and the localisation of the study (by continents) may explain one part of the heterogeneity observed according to our subgroup analysis.
Subgroup analysis revealed that there was a decreased risk of death among 6 European non-randomised studies, one observation Asian study and for studies which did not specify the treatment dose. However, five (14,15,21,32,33) of these European studies have a serious or critical risk of bias (Figure S1). This significant relationship could be explained by a high risk of confusion bias since these articles did not reported adjusted effect size. These studies also have several biases, such as a selection bias Gautret et al, control and treatment groups did not come from the same hospital. In 3 Spanish studies (14,15,33), there was no information when treatment were administrated and when the follow-up began which may lead to a bias in selection. Studies with an adjusted HR in figure S5 and with a higher quality reported a non-significant higher RR than the other studies. In this meta-analysis, the majority of the included studies had a high or critical risk of bias (10 out of 16) (Figure S1 and S2). Most of them do not always report the concomitant use of antiviral or antibacterial drugs. In our subgroup analysis by study design, we found inconsistent results with a positive but not significant association between hydroxychloroquine alone and mortality among interventional studies and an inverse but not significant association among observational studies (Table 2). Heterogeneity between these subgroups was observed across the study design. However, these findings are limited by the very low number of interventional studies.
Two Chinese randomised controlled trial reported no death in both treatment and control group (38,39) and thus their results were not included in our meta-analysis. A previous review on 8 studies (11–14,20,30,39,40) on COVID-19 concluded that the level of evidence for hydroxychloroquine effect is very weak(41). A preprint meta-analysis, using routinely collected records from clinical practice in Germany, Spain, the UK, Japan, and the USA, compared the use of HCQ vs salfasalazine (42). This study observed an increased risk of 30-day cardiovascular mortality (HR=2.19 [1.22-3.94]) but there was no standard care comparative group. Some previous meta-analyses were also conducted on hydroxychloroquine and various health endpoints including mortality. However these studies did not report all the published and unpublished literature, including a very limiting number of studies: from 3 articles(17,18) to 6 articles(19). These previous meta-analyses did not perform subgroup and sensitivity analysis to test the effect of pooling RCT and observational study, neither studying the source of heterogeneity. They used unadjusted risk ratio (calculated with the number of events in each group) whereas in our meta-analysis, we used adjusted relative risk (43) and we did sensitivity analysis on the adjustment of effect size. Statistical adjustments for key prognostic variables allow to limit confusion bias, especially in observational studies which are not randomised. Our meta-analysis confirmed the partial preliminary results of these meta-analyses about the absence of effect for HCQ on survival.
Our study has several strengths. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis using adjusted relative risk and including numerous subgroup analysis (by continent, population age, effect size, risk of bias, published articles, mean daily dose of hydroxychloroquine, exclusion of cancer and haemodialysis patients) which found stable and consistent results. This study informs clinicians and patients regarding the efficiency of HCQ in treating COVID-19. We included several unpublished papers to minimize the publication bias. Our subgroup analysis by published studies (vs unpublished studies) identified that the inclusion of preprints did not change the results. Exclusion of grey literature (unpublished studies, with limited distribution) could lead to an exaggeration of the intervention effect by 15% (44). There is limited evidence to identify whether grey studies have a poorer methodological quality than published studies(45). Mortality is a reliable endpoint across studies. Limitations come from the studies which do not report adjusted effect size when mortality was not the primary endpoint. Confounding bias is high in these articles (mainly for the preprints). This meta-analysis was based on aggregated data, without access to original patient data. Most of studies are observational which do not allow to identify a causal association. This meta-analysis did not include results from the European DISCOVERY trial and the WHO SOLIDARITY trial (46). To finish, some of the included studies had very low quality of evidence (missing data, small sample size, confusion bias, bias in classification of intervention and selection bias) but the exclusion of these articles did not change the results.
Few peer-reviewed studies with a comparative group analysed some other endpoints such as virological clearance, clinical improvement and arrhythmia risks. A recent randomized controlled trial with 821 asymptomatic participants in contact with a COVID-19 confirmed case, concluded hydroxychloroquine was not efficient to prevent illness in a prophylactic way (47). However, this trial had a limitation: only 16 participants had a confirmed positive RT-PCR test. A small French non-randomised trial identified a higher proportion of negative RT-PCR tests in the HCQ group (21) but two other RCT did not find any difference between the HCQ and standard care groups for clinical improvement (38,39).
Several studies raised concerns about an increase of the QTc interval with HCQ use in an intensive care unit (48) and hospitalized patients (11,49). However, this side effect was not found in Tang et al. RCT. Several national health organisations (US FDA Food and Drug Administration(50), French Agency for the Safety of Health Products ANSM (51), European Medecine Agency EMA(52)) raised concerns about using this unapproved drug for COVID-19. ANSM et US FDA removed the authorization for its use outside of clinical trials. The Indian Council of Medical Research took an opposite position and recommend chemoprophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine for asymptomatic cases (53). In an open label, randomised controlled trial with hydroxychloroquine in patient with mild and moderate symptoms, no death were reported (38). Finally, in the comparative peer-reviewed studies, a clear conclusion on hydroxychloroquine is not possible due to the small sample size, the lack of well-performed randomised controlled trials (mainly non-randomised and retrospective studies) and inconsistent results. Many preprints without comparative group and without randomization bring confusion in this highly politicised topic. There is a gap between the speed of clinical research and the expectation of a clear solution to treat COVID-19 patients. Indeed, producing robust clinical trials is necessarily time-consuming. Results from large RCT are needed to shut down the controversy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no strong evidence supporting a benefice for hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin to improve survival of COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Conversely, there is no strong evidence supporting an increased mortality associated with HCQ or HCQ + AZ intake.
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article included in the meta-analysis
List of figures and tables
Figure 1: Flow diagram of study selection process
Figure 2: Meta-analysis showing association between hydroxychloroquine alone and COVID-19 mortality (observational vs intervention)
Figure 3: Meta-analysis showing association between hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin and COVID-19 mortality.
Table 1: Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis for COVID-19 mortality
Table 2: Subgroup analysis for the associations between HCQ alone or HCQ+AZI and mortality risk of patients with COVID-19 (observational and interventional studies)
Supplementary tables and figures
Supplementary tables and figures
S1. Full electronic search strategy
S1. Full electronic search strategy
Cochrane Library
Website: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/advanced-search Cochrane Review matching (Hydroxychloroquine or HCQ) in Title Abstract Keyword AND (mortality or death) in Title Abstract Keyword AND (COVID-19 or SRAS-CoV-2) in Title Abstract Keyword - (Word variations have been searched)
PubMed
Website: https://pmlegacy.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(hydroxychloroquine+or+HCQ)+AND+(COVID-19+OR+SARS-CoV-2+OR+coronavirus)+AND+(Mortality+OR+death) ((hydroxychloroquine or HCQ) AND (COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2 OR coronavirus) AND (Mortality OR death)
Web of Science
Website: http://apps.webofknowledge.com.proxy.insermbiblio.inist.fr/Search.do?product=UA&SID=F6KgcWI7K6kjXJwhAoH&search_mode=GeneralSearch&prID=9a27b347-ecf8-4832-9206-db1bbd2cc9a8 You searched for: TOPIC: (covid-19 OR SRAS-CoV-2) AND TOPIC: (hydroxychloroquine or HCQ) AND TOPIC: (mortality or death)
Manual additional searches
Google scholar
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=hydroxychloroquine+COVID-19&btnG=
Search: Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 mortality
Footnotes
Competing interests: All authors declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work other than that described above; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Abbreviations
- HCQ
- Hydroxychloroquine
- AZ
- Azithromycin
- RR
- Relative Risk
- HR
- Hazard Ratio
- OR
- Odds Ratio
- US FDA
- US Food and Drug Administration
- EMA
- European Medicine Agency
- CI
- Confidence Interval