TY - JOUR
T1 - Safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as prophylactic against COVID-19 in healthcare workers
T2 - a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
AU - Hong, Hwanhee
AU - Friedland, Anne
AU - Hu, Mengyi
AU - Anstrom, Kevin J.
AU - Halabi, Susan
AU - McKinnon, John E.
AU - Amaravadi, Ravi
AU - Rojas-Serrano, Jorge
AU - Abella, Benjamin S.
AU - Portillo-Vázquez, Angélica Margarita
AU - Woods, Christopher W.
AU - Hernandez, Adrian F.
AU - Boulware, David R.
AU - Naggie, Susanna
AU - Rajasingham, Radha
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2023/6/16
Y1 - 2023/6/16
N2 - Objective We studied the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs), using a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify randomised trials studying HCQ. Study selection Ten RCTs were identified (n=5079 participants). Data extraction and synthesis The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used in this systematic review and meta-analysis between HCQ and placebo using a Bayesian random-effects model. A pre-hoc statistical analysis plan was written. Main outcomes The primary efficacy outcome was PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and the primary safety outcome was incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome included clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results Compared with placebo, HCWs randomised to HCQ had no significant difference in PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.92, 95% credible interval (CI): 0.58, 1.37) or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.10), but significant difference in adverse events (OR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.73). Conclusions and relevance Our meta-analysis of 10 RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of HCQ as pre-exposure prophylaxis in HCWs found that compared with placebo, HCQ does not significantly reduce the risk of confirmed or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, while HCQ significantly increases adverse events. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021285093.
AB - Objective We studied the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs), using a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify randomised trials studying HCQ. Study selection Ten RCTs were identified (n=5079 participants). Data extraction and synthesis The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used in this systematic review and meta-analysis between HCQ and placebo using a Bayesian random-effects model. A pre-hoc statistical analysis plan was written. Main outcomes The primary efficacy outcome was PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and the primary safety outcome was incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome included clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results Compared with placebo, HCWs randomised to HCQ had no significant difference in PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.92, 95% credible interval (CI): 0.58, 1.37) or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.10), but significant difference in adverse events (OR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.73). Conclusions and relevance Our meta-analysis of 10 RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of HCQ as pre-exposure prophylaxis in HCWs found that compared with placebo, HCQ does not significantly reduce the risk of confirmed or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, while HCQ significantly increases adverse events. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021285093.
KW - COVID-19
KW - epidemiology
KW - statistics & research methods
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85163269287&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85163269287&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065305
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065305
M3 - Article
C2 - 37328184
AN - SCOPUS:85163269287
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 13
JO - BMJ open
JF - BMJ open
IS - 6
M1 - e065305
ER -