Abstract
Background There is disagreement about whether hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is effective as prophylaxis for COVID-19. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials that study the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19.
Methods and Findings A search of PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov found three completed randomized trials: one pre-exposure prophylaxis trial and two post-exposure prophylaxis trials. We obtained or calculated the risk ratio of COVID-19 diagnosis for assignment to HCQ versus no HCQ (either placebo or usual care) for each trial, and then pooled the risk ratio estimates. The risk ratio estimated for each of the individual trials were 0.74 (95% CI 0.50-1.10), 0.83 (95% CI: 0.58-1.18), and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.35-1.37). The pooled risk ratio estimate was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.61-0.99). All three trials found a similar rate of adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups.
Discussion The available evidence indicates that HCQ reduces the risk of COVID-19 by about 20%. Yet the findings from the randomized trials were widely interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness of HCQ, simply because they were not “statistically significant” when taking them individually. Completion of the ongoing prophylaxis trials is needed to generate more precise estimates of the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19.
Background
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is not an effective treatment for established COVID-19 (1-4). However, there is disagreement about whether HCQ is effective as prophylaxis for COVID-19. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials that study the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19 either before known exposure to an infected individual (pre-exposure prophylaxis) or after known exposure to an infected individual (postexposure prophylaxis).
Methods and Findings
A search of PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov found 9 ongoing randomized trials (5-13) and three that have been completed: one pre-exposure prophylaxis trial (14) and two post-exposure prophylaxis trials (15, 16). We obtained or calculated the risk ratio of COVID-19 diagnosis for assignment to HCQ versus no HCQ (either placebo or usual care) for each of the completed trials. When the trial included both PCR-positive and PCR-negative individuals at baseline, we restricted our attention to the PCR-negative individuals. We then pooled the risk ratio estimates using both fixed effect and random effects meta-analytic approaches.
The Figure shows the risk ratio estimates from each of the three trials trial and the pooled estimates.
The first trial was a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of pre-exposure prophylaxis (available as a preprint) that included healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to patients with COVID-19. There were 58 cases (11 confirmed by PCR) among 989 (5.9%) participants assigned to HCQ (two 400 mg doses on day 1, followed by 400 mg either once or twice weekly for 12 weeks) and 39 cases (6 confirmed by PCR) among 494 (7.9%) participants assigned to placebo. The risk difference can be calculated as -2.0% (95% CI -4.8 to 0.8) and the risk ratio can be calculated as 0.74 (95% CI 0.50-1.10).
The second trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of post-exposure prophylaxis (15) included asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. The risk of COVID-19 diagnosis (largely based on compatible symptoms) was 11.8% in 414 contacts assigned to HCQ (800 mg. on day 1, 600 mg. daily for four days), and 14.3% in 407 contacts assigned to placebo. The risk difference was -2.4% (95% CI: -7.0 to 2.2) and the risk ratio can be calculated as 0.83 (95% CI: 0.58-1.18).
The third trial was an open-label, cluster-randomized trial of post-exposure prophylaxis (16) (available as a preprint) that included asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. The COVID-19 risk was 3.0% in 958 contacts assigned to HCQ (800 mg. on day 1, 400 mg. daily for six days), and 4.3% in 1042 contacts assigned to usual care. The risk ratio (adjusted for age, gender, region and time of exposure) was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.35-1.37); the corresponding risk difference cannot be directly calculated from the data provided.
The pooled risk ratio estimated from the three trials was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.61-0.99). All three trials found a similar rate of adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups.
Discussion
When considered together, the available randomized trials of HCQ for the prevention of COVID-10 indicate that HCQ reduces the risk of COVID-19 by about 20%. The actual effect of HCQ may be underestimated because none of these trials adjusted for losses to follow-up or other deviations from protocol. Also, effectiveness maybe underestimated in the post-exposure prophylaxis trials because the time from exposure to initiation of prophylaxis was relatively long: in one trial, about a third of participants were enrolled 4 days after exposure (none was enrolled later); in the other, participants were enrolled up to 7 days after exposure. For comparison, post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV is recommended in the first 6-72h after the exposure (17).
Pending final publication, these trials suggests a 20% reduction of COVID-19 risk attributed to HCQ, with no increased risk of serious side effects. Yet the findings from the trials were widely (and incorrectly) interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness of HCQ, simply because they were not “statistically significant” when taking them individually. Completion of the ongoing prophylaxis trials is needed to generate more precise estimates of the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19.
Data Availability
Data used in the analysis are publicly available