Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Authors: Joseph Magagnoli, M.S. et al.

Link to paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1.full.pdf

Journal/ Pre-Print: medRxiv

Tags: Clinical, Statistics, Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, Retrospective cohort analysis

Research Highlights 

1. Retrospectively analyse the effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) +/- azithromycin (AZT)

2. Adjust the analysis with the information of comorbidities, medications, clinical and laboratory abnormalities

Summary 

The research retrospectively analysed the data from hospitalised COVID-19 patients, categorising them into three groups: HCQ alone, with (AZT) and no exposure to HCQ . Using death and the need for mechanical ventilation as two major outcomes, it implies that HC does not show strong effect to mitigate COVID-19 related symptoms.

Impact for SARS-CoV2/COVID19 research efforts

While not conclusive, it summarises the efficacy of HC in COVID-19 treatment and suggest it to be less promising than previously assumed.

Study Type

Retrospective Clinical Cohort study 

Strengths and limitations of the paper

Novelty: Taking consideration of the effect of azithromycin.

Standing in the field:

It is still controversial whether HCQ is effective in the treatment of COVID-19. Though Chen et al. showed the shortening of TTCR by HCQ, a solid conclusion is still elusive and requires a strict, randomised clinical study in larger scale.

Appropriate statistics:

Low sample number; cases not randomised

Viral model used: N/A

Translatability: It may suggest less usefulness of HCQ in treatment of COVID-19

Main limitations: > Defects in subject selection and analysis: gender bias, no classification of severity of the subjects.

> Not strict clinical trial study but retrospective analysis; less indication for the drug application for the disease. > Poorly defined cohorts: some patients were treated with HCQ prior to ventilation and some post, despite ventilation being one of the primary outcomes measured

> Lack of control: patients that were treated with HCQ were more likely to already have suffer from more severe disease before treatment; in the ‘no treatment’ cohort approximately one third of patients were also treated with AZT, therefore making comparison between cohorts difficult.