Abstract
Objectives To investigate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and dexamethasone on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) mortality using patient data outside of randomized trials.
Design Phenotypes derived from electronic health records were analyzed using the stability-controlled quasi-experiment (SCQE) to provide a range of possible causal effects of hydroxy-chloroquine and dexamethasone on COVID-19 mortality.
Setting and participants Data from 2,007 COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized at a large university hospital system over the course of 200 days and not enrolled in randomized trials were analyzed using SCQE. For hyrdoxychloroquine, we examine a high-use cohort (n=766, days 1 to 43) and a later, low-use cohort (n=548, days 44 to 82). For dexamethasone, we examine a low-use cohort (n=614, days 44 to 101) and high-use cohort (n=622, days 102 to 200).
Outcome measure 14-day mortality, with a secondary outcome of 28-day mortality.
Results Hydroxycholoroquine could only have been significantly (p<0.05) beneficial if baseline mortality was at least 6.4 percentage points (55%) lower among patients in the later (low-use) than the earlier (high-use) cohort. Hydroxychloroquine instead proves significantly harmful if baseline mortality rose from one cohort to the next by just 0.3 percentage points. Dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality risk if baseline mortality in the later (high-use) cohort (days 102-200) was higher than, the same as, or up to 1.5 percentage points lower than that in the earlier (low-use) cohort (days 44-101). It could only prove significantly harmful if mortality improved from one cohort to the next by 6.8 percentage points due to other causes—an assumption implying an unlikely 84% reduction in mortality due to other causes, leaving an in-hospital mortality rate of just 1.3%.
Conclusions The assumptions required for a beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine on 14 day mortality are difficult to sustain, while the assumptions required for hydroxychloroquine to be harmful are difficult to reject with confidence. Dexamethasone, by contrast, was beneficial under a wide range of plausible assumptions, and was only harmful if a nearly impossible assumption is met. More broadly, the SCQE reveals what inferences can be credibly supported by evidence from non-randomized uses of experimental therapies, making it a useful tool when randomized trials have not yet produced clear evidence or to provide corroborative evidence from different populations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
CH thanks the California Center for Population Research at UCLA (CCPR) for support. CCPR receives population research infrastructure funding (P2C-HD041022) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). KE was partially supported by National Institute on Aging (NIA) grant R01AG054366-05. KE and BM were partially supported by NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR002535. OAA was partially supported by NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) UCLA CTSI grant number UL1TR001881 and the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine (DGSOM) Broad Stem Cell Research Center (BSCRC) COVID-19 Research Award OCRC #20-44.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
UCLA IRB approval #20-000981.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
KE and BM are co-senior authors.
UCLA IRB approval #20-000981. CH thanks the California Center for Population Research at UCLA (CCPR) for support. CCPR receives population research infrastructure funding (P2C-HD041022) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). KE was partially supported by National Institute on Aging (NIA) grant R01AG054366-05. KE and BM were partially supported by NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR002535. OAA was partially supported by NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) UCLA CTSI grant number UL1TR001881 and the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine (DGSOM) – Broad Stem Cell Research Center (BSCRC) COVID-19 Research Award OCRC #20-44. Contents are the authors’ sole responsibility and do not represent official views of NIH or any other agency.
1 Borrowing from the potential outcomes framework [3, 4], we can conceptualize a patient’s outcome both had they taken the treatment (their treatment outcome) and had they not (their non-treatment outcome), regardless of their actual treatment status. An “average non-treatment outcome” for a cohort, then, is the average outcome we would observe had no patients received treatment.
2 This does change the interpretation of effect in terms of the population of patients to whom it applies; see [2].
3 Analyses using only aggregate data of this kind can be conducted using web-based software available at https://amiwulf.shinyapps.io/SCQE_demo/.
Data Availability
De-indentified data sufficient to replicate all analyses here will be made available at the time of publication.
