RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Abd-Elsalam S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7543820 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study.
Abd-Elsalam Sherief S Esmail Eslam Saber ES Khalaf Mai M Abdo Ehab Fawzy EF Medhat Mohammed A MA Abd El Ghafar Mohamed Samir MS Ahmed Ossama Ashraf OA Soliman Shaimaa S Serangawy Ghada N GN Alboraie Mohamed M
The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene 20201001 4
RETRACTED ARTICLE: The COVID-19 pandemic is showing an exponential growth, mandating an urgent need to develop an effective treatment. Indeed, to date, a well-established therapy is still lacking. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) added to standard care in patients with COVID-19. This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial conducted at three major university hospitals in Egypt. One hundred ninety-four patients with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 we ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:RETRACTED ARTICLE: To date, no antiviral therapy has shown proven clinical effectiveness in treating patients with COVID-19. We assessed the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized Egyptian patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive either remdesivir (200 mg on the first day followed by 100 mg daily for the next 9 days intravenously infused over 30-60 minutes) in addition to standard care or standard care alone. The primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay and mortality rate. The need for mechanical ventilation was assessed as a secondary outcome. Two hundred patients (100 in each group) completed the study and were included in the final analysis. The remdesivir group showed a significantly lower median duration of hospital stay (10 days) than the control group (16 days; P < 0.001). Eleven of the patients in the remdesivir group needed mechanical ventilation compared with eight patients in the control group (P = 0.469). The mortality rate was comparable between the two groups (P = 0.602). Mortality was significantly associated with older age, elevated C-reactive protein levels, elevated D-dimer, and the need for mechanical ventilation (P = 0.039, 0.003, 0.001, and < 0.001 respectively). Remdesivir had a positive influence on length of hospital stay, but it had no mortality benefit in Egyptian patients with COVID-19. Its use, in addition to standard care including dexamethasone, should be considered, particularly in low- and middle-income countries when other effective options are scarce.
| S-EPMC8922517 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective therapies to combat coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but the clinical benefit of HCQ in treating COVID-19 is unclear. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of HCQ for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, double-blind randomized clinical trial of HCQ among patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to HCQ or placebo for 5 days and followed for 30 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a severe disease progression composite end point (death, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and/or vasopressor use) at day 14.ResultsA total of 128 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics were similar between the HCQ (n = 67) and placebo (n = 61) arms. At day 14, 11 (16.4%) subjects assigned to HCQ and 6 (9.8%) subjects assigned to placebo met the severe disease progression end point, but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .350). There were no significant differences in COVID-19 clinical scores, number of oxygen-free days, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, or adverse events between HCQ and placebo. HCQ was associated with a slight increase in mean corrected QT interval, an increased D-dimer, and a trend toward an increased length of stay.ConclusionsIn hospitalized patients with COVID-19, our data suggest that HCQ does not prevent severe outcomes or improve clinical scores. However, our conclusions are limited by a relatively small sample size, and larger randomized controlled trials or pooled analyses are needed.
| S-EPMC7543602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) represents a major public health problem and it is key to find a treatment that reduces mortality. Our objective was to estimate whether treatment with 400 mg/day of Hydroxychloroquine for 10 days reduces in-hospital mortality in subjects with severe respiratory disease due to COVID-19 compared with placebo.Material and methodsA double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe disease by COVID-19 through an intention-to-treat analysis. Eligible for the study were adults aged more than 18 years with COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR and lung injury requiring hospitalization with or without mechanical ventilation. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: days of mechanical ventilation, days of hospitalization and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events.ResultsA total of 214 patients with COVID-19 were recruited, randomized and analyzed. They were hypoxemic with a mean SpO2 of 65% ± 20, tachycardic (pulse rate 108±17 min-1) and tachypneic (32 ±10 min-1); 162 were under mechanical ventilation at randomization. Thirty-day mortality was similar in both groups (38% in Hydroxychloroquine vs. 41% in placebo, hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI] 0.51-1.53). In the surviving participants, no significant difference was found in secondary outcomes.ConclusionNo beneficial effect or significant harm could be demonstrated in our randomized controlled trial including 214 patients, using relatively low doses of Hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8478184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesIn this study, we will investigate the effect of hydroxychloroquine on the prevention of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in cancer patients being treated.Trial designThis is a two-arm, parallel-group, triple-blind, phase 2-3 randomized controlled trial.ParticipantsAll patients over the age of 15 years from 5 types of cancer will be included in the study. Patients with acute lymphoid and myeloid leukemias in the first line treated with curative intent, patients with high-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with leukemia regimens, and patients with non-metastatic breast and colon cancer in the first line of treatment will enter the study.Intervention and comparatorPatients are randomly assigned to two groups: one being given hydroxychloroquine and the other is given placebo. During 2 months of treatment, the two groups will be treated with hydroxychloroquine every other day with a single 200-mg tablet (Amin® Pharmaceutical Company, Isfahan, Iran) or placebo (identical in terms of shape, color, and smell). Patients will be monitored for COVID-19 symptoms during follow-up period. If any COVID-19-related signs or symptoms occur, they will be examined, thoroughly, investigated with a high resolution computerize tomography (CT) scan of the lungs and nasopharyngeal swab assessed by RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 virus. This study will be performed in five centers affiliated to Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.Main outcomesThe primary end point of this study is to investigate the incidence of COVID-19 in patients being treated for their cancer and receiving prophylactic Hydroxychloroquine.RandomizationRandomization will be performed using random permuted blocks. By using online website ( www.randomization.com ), the randomization sequence will be produced by quadruple blocks. The allocation ratio in intervention and control groups is 1:1.Blinding (masking)Participants and caregivers do not know whether the patient is in the intervention or the control group. Those assessing the outcomes and data analyzer are also blinded to group assignment.Sample sizeThe calculated total sample size is 60 patients, with 30 patients in each group.
| S-EPMC8131879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19. We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19. The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group. Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded. The main outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo ventricular arrhythmias (non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation). 96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223-1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368-1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218-1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273-1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935-2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106-5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760-4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344-4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation. We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19. William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
| S-EPMC7255293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19. We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19. The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group. Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded. The main outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo ventricular arrhythmias (non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation). 96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223-1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368-1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218-1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273-1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935-2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106-5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760-4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344-4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation. We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19. William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
| S-EPMC7255293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19. We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19. The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group. Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded. The main outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo ventricular arrhythmias (non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation). 96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223-1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368-1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218-1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273-1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935-2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106-5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760-4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344-4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation. We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19. William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
| S-EPMC7255293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIdentification of therapies to prevent severe COVID-19 remains a priority. We sought to determine whether hydroxychloroquine treatment for outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection could prevent hospitalization, mechanical ventilation or death.MethodsThis randomized controlled trial was conducted in Alberta during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic without direct contact with participants. Community-dwelling individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] viral ribonucleic acid test) within the previous 4 days, and symptom onset within the previous 12 days, were randomly assigned to oral hydroxychloroquine or matching placebo for 5 days. Enrolment began Apr. 15, 2020. The primary outcome was the composite of hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included symptom duration and disposition at 30 days. Safety outcomes, such as serious adverse events and mortality, were also ascertained. Outcomes were determined by telephone follow-up and administrative data.ResultsAmong 4919 individuals with a positive RT-PCR test, 148 (10.2% of a planned 1446 patients) were randomly assigned, 111 to hydroxychloroquine and 37 to placebo. Of the 148 participants, 24 (16.2%) did not start the study drug. Four participants in the hydroxychloroquine group met the primary outcome (4 hospitalizations, 0 mechanical ventilation, 4 survived to 30 days) and none in the placebo group. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce symptom duration (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.21). Recruitment was paused on May 22, 2020, when a since-retracted publication raised concerns about the safety of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Although we had not identified concerns in a safety review, enrolment was slower than expected among those eligible for the study, and cases within the community were decreasing. Recruitment goals were deemed to be unattainable and the trial was not resumed, resulting in a study underpowered to assess the effect of treatment with hydroxychloroquine and safety.InterpretationThere was no evidence that hydroxychloroquine reduced symptom duration or prevented severe outcomes among outpatients with proven COVID-19, but the early termination of our study meant that it was underpowered.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04329611.
| S-EPMC8248582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Blocking the action of the pro-inflammatory cytokine interleukin-1 (IL-1) reduces beta-cell secretory dysfunction and apoptosis in vitro, diabetes incidence in animal models of Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D), and glycaemia via improved beta-cell function in patients with T2D. We hypothesised that canakinumab, a monoclonal antibody to IL-1B, improves beta-cell function in patients with new-onset T1D. Methods: In an individually randomised, two-group parallel trial involving 12 sites in US, 69 patients aged 6-45 with T1D, < 12 weeks of symptoms, and assigned by centralised computer-generated blocked randomisation with locked computer-file concealment to treatment with 2 mg/kg (maximum 300 mg) canakinumab (n=45) or placebo (n=22) monthly for 12 months as add-on to conventional therapy. Participants and care-givers, but not data monitoring unit, were masked to group assignment. The primary end-point was change in the two-hour area-under-the-curve C-peptide response to MMT 12 months.
2015-10-01 | GSE68049 | GEO
Project description:Oral isotretinoin is the most effective choice in the treatment of severe acne. Application of isotretionin to acne has been expanded to treat those patients with less severe but scarring acne who are responding unsatisfactorily to conventional therapies. However, its use is associated with many side effects, some of which can result in very disastrous consequences. Data related with intermittent isotretinoin therapy is still limited. Our aim was to asses the efficacy and tolerability of two different intermittent isotretinoin courses and compare them with conventional isotretinoin treatment. In this multicenter and controlled study, 66 patients with moderate to severe cases were randomized to receive either isotretionin for the first 10 days of each month for 6 months (group 1), or each day in the first month, afterwards the first 10 days of each month for 5 months (group 2) or daily for 6 months (group 3). The drug dosage was 0.5 mg/kg/day in all groups. Patients were followed-up for 12 months. Efficacy values were evaluable for 22 patients in group 1, 19 patients in group 2, and 19 patients in group 3. Acne scores in each group were significantly lower at the end of treatment and follow-up periods (P < 0.001). When patients were evaluated separately as moderate (n = 31) and severe (n = 29), no statistically significant differences were obtained among the treatment protocols in patients with moderate acne. However, there was a significant difference between groups 1 and 3 to the response of the treatments in severe acne patients at the end of follow-up period (P = 0.013). The frequency and severity of isotretionin-related side effects were found to be lower in groups 1 and 2 compared with group 3. Intermittent isotretinoin may represent an effective alternative treatment, especially in moderate acne with a low incidence and severity of side effects. The intermittent isotretinoin can be recommended in those patients not tolerating the classical dosage.
| S-EPMC2094720 | biostudies-other