-
Journal of the American Academy of... Jun 2022Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune, nonscarring hair loss disorder with slightly greater prevalence in children than adults. Various treatment modalities exist;... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune, nonscarring hair loss disorder with slightly greater prevalence in children than adults. Various treatment modalities exist; however, their evidence in pediatric AA patients is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the evidence of current treatment modalities for pediatric AA.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review on the PubMed database in October 2019 for all published articles involving patients <18 years old. Articles discussing AA treatment in pediatric patients were included, as were articles discussing both pediatric and adult patients, if data on individual pediatric patients were available.
RESULTS
Inclusion criteria were met by 122 total reports discussing 1032 patients. Reports consisted of 2 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective comparative cohorts, 83 case series, 2 case-control studies, and 31 case reports. Included articles assessed the use of aloe, apremilast, anthralin, anti-interferon gamma antibodies, botulinum toxin, corticosteroids, contact immunotherapies, cryotherapy, hydroxychloroquine, hypnotherapy, imiquimod, Janus kinase inhibitors, laser and light therapy, methotrexate, minoxidil, phototherapy, psychotherapy, prostaglandin analogs, sulfasalazine, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical nitrogen mustard, and ustekinumab.
LIMITATIONS
English-only articles with full texts were used. Manuscripts with adult and pediatric data were only incorporated if individual-level data for pediatric patients were provided. No meta-analysis was performed.
CONCLUSION
Topical corticosteroids are the preferred first-line treatment for pediatric AA, as they hold the highest level of evidence, followed by contact immunotherapy. More clinical trials and comparative studies are needed to further guide management of pediatric AA and to promote the potential use of pre-existing, low-cost, and novel therapies, including Janus kinase inhibitors.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; Autoimmune Diseases; Child; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 33940103
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.04.077 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Mar 2017Develop recommendations for women's health issues and family planning in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and/or antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).
EULAR recommendations for women's health and the management of family planning, assisted reproduction, pregnancy and menopause in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and/or antiphospholipid syndrome.
OBJECTIVES
Develop recommendations for women's health issues and family planning in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and/or antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).
METHODS
Systematic review of evidence followed by modified Delphi method to compile questions, elicit expert opinions and reach consensus.
RESULTS
Family planning should be discussed as early as possible after diagnosis. Most women can have successful pregnancies and measures can be taken to reduce the risks of adverse maternal or fetal outcomes. Risk stratification includes disease activity, autoantibody profile, previous vascular and pregnancy morbidity, hypertension and the use of drugs (emphasis on benefits from hydroxychloroquine and antiplatelets/anticoagulants). Hormonal contraception and menopause replacement therapy can be used in patients with stable/inactive disease and low risk of thrombosis. Fertility preservation with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues should be considered prior to the use of alkylating agents. Assisted reproduction techniques can be safely used in patients with stable/inactive disease; patients with positive antiphospholipid antibodies/APS should receive anticoagulation and/or low-dose aspirin. Assessment of disease activity, renal function and serological markers is important for diagnosing disease flares and monitoring for obstetrical adverse outcomes. Fetal monitoring includes Doppler ultrasonography and fetal biometry, particularly in the third trimester, to screen for placental insufficiency and small for gestational age fetuses. Screening for gynaecological malignancies is similar to the general population, with increased vigilance for cervical premalignant lesions if exposed to immunosuppressive drugs. Human papillomavirus immunisation can be used in women with stable/inactive disease.
CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations for women's health issues in SLE and/or APS were developed using an evidence-based approach followed by expert consensus.
Topics: Antiphospholipid Syndrome; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Delphi Technique; Early Detection of Cancer; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Family Planning Services; Female; Fertility Preservation; Fetal Monitoring; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Menopause; Preconception Care; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 27457513
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209770 -
RMD Open 2019To evaluate current evidence on the efficacy and safety of topical and systemic medications in patients with primary Sjögren syndrome (SjS) to inform European League... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate current evidence on the efficacy and safety of topical and systemic medications in patients with primary Sjögren syndrome (SjS) to inform European League Against Rheumatism treatment recommendations.
METHODS
The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for case-control/prospective cohort studies, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews.
RESULTS
Current evidence in primary SjS patients fulfilling the 2002 criteria is based on the data from 9 RCTs, 18 prospective cohort studies and 5 case-control studies. Two Cochrane systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have reported that topical treatments for dry mouth and dry eye are safe and effective. Ocular cyclosporine A was safe and effective in two RCTs including 1039 patients with dry eye syndrome. Two Cochrane SLRs on serum tear drops and plugs showed inconsistency in possible benefits, both for symptoms and objective measures. Five RCTs reported significant improvements in oral dryness and salivary flow rates for pilocarpine and cevimeline. An RCT showed no significant placebo-differences for hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/day for the primary outcome (visual analogue scale (VAS) composite of dryness, fatigue and pain). We identified seven RCTs carried out in primary SjS patients. RCTs using infliximab, anakinra and baminercept found no placebo-differences for the primary outcomes. The two largest RCTs randomised 255 patients to receive rituximab or placebo and reported no significant results in the primary outcome (VAS composite), while prospective studies suggested efficacy in systemic disease.
CONCLUSION
The current evidence supporting the use of the main topical therapeutic options of primary SjS is solid, while limited data from RCTs are available to guide systemic therapies.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Combined Modality Therapy; Disease Management; Humans; Sjogren's Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31749986
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001064 -
International Ophthalmology Feb 2022To provide an overview of the ocular features of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and of the ophthalmic adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that may be associated with the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To provide an overview of the ocular features of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and of the ophthalmic adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that may be associated with the administration of antirheumatic drugs.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. In addition, a cohort of 489 RA patients who attended the Authors' departments were examined.
RESULTS
Keratoconjunctivitis sicca, episcleritis, scleritis, peripheral ulcerative keratitis (PUK), and anterior uveitis were diagnosed in 29%, 6%, 5%, 2%, and 10%, respectively, of the mentioned cohort. Ocular ADRs to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are rarely reported and include subconjunctival hemorrhages and hemorrhagic retinopathy. In patients taking indomethacin, whorl-like corneal deposits and pigmentary retinopathy have been observed. Glucocorticoids are frequently responsible for posterior subcapsular cataracts and open-angle glaucoma. Methotrexate, the prototype of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), has been associated with the onset of ischemic optic neuropathy, retinal cotton-wool spots, and orbital non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Mild cystoid macular edema and punctate keratitis in patients treated with leflunomide have been occasionally reported. The most frequently occurring ADR of hydroxychloroquine is vortex keratopathy, which may progress to "bull's eye" maculopathy. Patients taking tofacitinib, a synthetic DMARD, more frequently suffer herpes zoster virus (HZV) reactivation, including ophthalmic HZ. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have been associated with the paradoxical onset or recurrence of uveitis or sarcoidosis, as well as optic neuritis, demyelinating optic neuropathy, chiasmopathy, and oculomotor palsy. Recurrent episodes of PUK, multiple cotton-wool spots, and retinal hemorrhages have occasionally been reported in patients given tocilizumab, that may also be associated with HZV reactivation, possibly involving the eye. Finally, rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has rarely been associated with necrotizing scleritis, macular edema, and visual impairment.
CONCLUSION
The level of evidence for most of the drug reactions described herein is restricted to the "likely" or "possible" rather than to the "certain" category. However, the lack of biomarkers indicative of the potential risk of ocular ADRs hinders their prevention and emphasizes the need for an accurate risk vs. benefit assessment of these therapies for each patient.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Glaucoma, Open-Angle; Humans; Iatrogenic Disease; Rituximab
PubMed: 34802085
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-021-02058-8 -
Clinical Rheumatology Sep 2023Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality... (Review)
Review
Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations, highlighting areas of consistency, and inconsistency. Electronic searches of five databases and four online guideline repositories were performed. RA management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English and published between January 2015 and February 2022; focused on adults ≥ 18 years of age; met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RA CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. Of 27 CPGs identified, 13 CPGs met eligibility criteria and were included. Non-pharmacological care should include patient education, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, exercise, orthoses, and a multi-disciplinary approach to care. Pharmacological care should include conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), with methotrexate as the first-line choice. If monotherapy conventional synthetic DMARDs fail to achieve a treatment target, this should be followed by combination therapy conventional synthetic DMARDs (leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), biologic DMARDS and targeted synthetic DMARDS. Management should also include monitoring, pre-treatment investigations and vaccinations, and screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis. Surgical care should be recommended if non-surgical care fails. This synthesis offers clear guidance of evidence-based RA care to healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Hydroxychloroquine; Methotrexate; Sulfasalazine; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 37291382
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-023-06654-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is common. Many...
BACKGROUND
Lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is common. Many interventions are used to treat SLE with varying efficacy, risks, and benefits.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to June 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Wiley Interscience Online Library, and Biblioteca Virtual em Saude (Virtual Health Library). We updated our search in September 2020, but these results have not yet been fully incorporated.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE compared with placebo, another intervention, no treatment, or different doses of the same intervention. We did not evaluate trials of cutaneous lupus in people without a diagnosis of SLE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were complete and partial clinical response. Secondary outcomes included reduction (or change) in number of clinical flares; and severe and minor adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-one RCTs, involving 11,232 participants, reported 43 different interventions. Trials predominantly included women from outpatient clinics; the mean age range of participants was 20 to 40 years. Twenty-five studies reported baseline severity, and 22 studies included participants with moderate to severe cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE); duration of CLE was not well reported. Studies were conducted mainly in multi-centre settings. Most often treatment duration was 12 months. Risk of bias was highest for the domain of reporting bias, followed by performance/detection bias. We identified too few studies for meta-analysis for most comparisons. We limited this abstract to main comparisons (all administered orally) and outcomes. We did not identify clinical trials of other commonly used treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, that reported complete or partial clinical response or numbers of clinical flares. Complete clinical response Studies comparing oral hydroxychloroquine against placebo did not report complete clinical response. Chloroquine may increase complete clinical response at 12 months' follow-up compared with placebo (absence of skin lesions) (risk ratio (RR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 2.61; 1 study, 24 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little to no difference between methotrexate and chloroquine in complete clinical response (skin rash resolution) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50; 1 study, 25 participants; low-quality evidence). Methotrexate may be superior to placebo with regard to complete clinical response (absence of malar/discoid rash) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.63 to 7.84; 1 study, 41 participants; low-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be little to no difference between azathioprine and ciclosporin in complete clinical response (malar rash resolution) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52; 1 study, 89 participants; low-quality evidence). Partial clinical response Partial clinical response was reported for only one key comparison: hydroxychloroquine may increase partial clinical response at 12 months compared to placebo, but the 95% CI indicates that hydroxychloroquine may make no difference or may decrease response (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 120.16; 20 pregnant participants, 1 trial; low-quality evidence). Clinical flares Clinical flares were reported for only two key comparisons: hydroxychloroquine is probably superior to placebo at 6 months' follow-up for reducing clinical flares (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.89; 1 study, 47 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be no difference between methotrexate and placebo, but the 95% CI indicates there may be more or fewer flares with methotrexate (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.83; 1 study, 86 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events Data for adverse events were limited and were inconsistently reported, but hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and methotrexate have well-documented adverse effects including gastrointestinal symptoms, liver problems, and retinopathy for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and teratogenicity during pregnancy for methotrexate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence supports the commonly-used treatment hydroxychloroquine, and there is also evidence supporting chloroquine and methotrexate for treating cutaneous disease in SLE. Evidence is limited due to the small number of studies reporting key outcomes. Evidence for most key outcomes was low or moderate quality, meaning findings should be interpreted with caution. Head-to-head intervention trials designed to detect differences in efficacy between treatments for specific CLE subtypes are needed. Thirteen further trials are awaiting classification and have not yet been incorporated in this review; they may alter the review conclusions.
Topics: Age of Onset; Azathioprine; Bias; Biological Factors; Chloroquine; Cosmetic Techniques; Cyclosporine; Dermatologic Agents; Exanthema; Female; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Immunosuppressive Agents; Lupus Erythematosus, Cutaneous; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Male; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Methotrexate; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Diseases; Symptom Flare Up
PubMed: 33687069
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007478.pub2 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2020To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN
Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.
METHODS
After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.
RESULTS
463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.
READERS' NOTE
This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.; China; Coronavirus Infections; Databases, Factual; Drug Combinations; Evidence-Based Medicine; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Lopinavir; Network Meta-Analysis; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; Standard of Care; Treatment Outcome; United States; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32732190
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2980 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2020To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Efficacy of pharmacological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
A systematic literature research (SLR) to investigate the efficacy of any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD, biological (b) and biosimilar DMARD, targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD) or glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in patients with RA was done by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2016 and 8 March 2019.
RESULTS
234 abstracts were selected for detailed assessment, with 136 finally included. They comprised the efficacy of bDMARDs versus placebo or other bDMARDs, efficacy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) across different patient populations and head-to-head of different bDMARDs versus JAKi or other bDMARDs. Switching of bDMARDs to other bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, strategic trials and tapering studies of bDMARDs, csDMARDs and JAKi were assessed. The drugs evaluated included abatacept, adalimumab, ABT-122, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, SBI-087, CNTO6785, decernotinib, etanercept, filgotinib, golimumab, GCs, GS-9876, guselkumab, hydroxychloroquine, infliximab, leflunomide, mavrilimumab, methotrexate, olokizumab, otilimab, peficitinib, rituximab, sarilumab, salazopyrine, secukinumab, sirukumab, tacrolimus, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, tregalizumab, upadacitinib, ustekinumab and vobarilizumab. The efficacy of many bDMARDs and tsDMARDs was shown. Switching to another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi bDMARDs after TNFi treatment failure is efficacious. Tapering of DMARDs is possible in patients achieving long-standing stringent clinical remission; in patients with residual disease activity (including patients in LDA) the risk of flares is increased during the tapering. Biosimilars are non-inferior to their reference products.
CONCLUSION
This SLR informed the task force regarding the evidence base of various therapeutic regimen for the development of the update of EULAR's RA management recommendation.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Drug Substitution; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Synthetic Drugs; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 32033937
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216656 -
International Archives of... Jan 2022Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are antimalarial drugs widely used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. With the global pandemic caused by the new coronavirus,... (Review)
Review
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are antimalarial drugs widely used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. With the global pandemic caused by the new coronavirus, there was an increase in the prescription of these drugs, which led to a major concern regarding their ototoxic effects. The objective of the present study was to assess existing scientific evidence about the toxic effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on the peripheral and/or central auditory system. A systematic literature review was performed by searching the PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, and SciELO electronic databases, in a search of articles that fullfiled the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The review was conducted in three phases and, in all of them, analyses were performed by two independent researchers. Disagreements were discussed with a third researcher until a consensus was reached. A total of 437 articles were found and 8 were included in this review. Seven of the included studies reported hearing loss in their samples and presented a diagnostic hypothesis of ototoxicity induced by chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. The most common type of hearing loss was sensorineural, with varying laterality and degrees of severity. The most frequently used audiological test was pure tone audiometry, and only two studies assessed brainstem evoked responses. The scientific evidence compiled in this research showed that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have an ototoxic effect in the peripheral auditory system. These drugs can cause cochlear damage, including changes in the stria vascularis and lesions in sensory hair cells.
PubMed: 35096175
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740986 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Nov 2020There is no effective therapy for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been used for its treatment but their safety and efficacy remain uncertain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is no effective therapy for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been used for its treatment but their safety and efficacy remain uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review to synthesize the available data on the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19.
METHODS
Two reviewers searched for published and pre-published relevant articles between December 2019 and 8 June 2020. The data from the selected studies were abstracted and analyzed for efficacy and safety outcomes. Critical appraisal of the evidence was done by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The quality of evidence was graded as per the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We reviewed 12 observational and 3 randomized trials which included 10,659 patients of whom 5713 received CQ/HCQ and 4966 received only standard of care. The efficacy of CQ/HCQ for COVID-19 was inconsistent across the studies. Meta-analysis of included studies revealed no significant reduction in mortality with HCQ use [RR 0.98 95% CI 0.66-1.46], time to fever resolution (mean difference - 0.54 days (- 1.19-011)) or clinical deterioration/development of ARDS with HCQ [RR 0.90 95% CI 0.47-1.71]. There was a higher risk of ECG abnormalities/arrhythmia with HCQ/CQ [RR 1.46 95% CI 1.04 to 2.06]. The quality of evidence was graded as very low for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSION
The available evidence suggests that CQ or HCQ does not improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19. Well-designed randomized trials are required for assessing the efficacy and safety of HCQ and CQ for COVID-19.
Topics: Bias; Chloroquine; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Research Design; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32885373
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06146-w