Cardiac Toxicity of Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis

Effects of hydroxychloroquine on atrial electrophysiology in in silico wild-type and PITX2+/- atrial cardiomyocytes

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is commonly used in the treatment of autoimmune diseases and increases the risk of QT interval prolongation. However, it is unclear how HCQ affects atrial electrophysiology and the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

We quantitatively examined the potential atrial arrhythmogenic effects of HCQ on AF using a computational model of human atrial cardiomyocytes. We measured atrial electrophysiological markers after systematically varying HCQ concentrations.

RESULTS

The HCQ concentrations were positively correlated with the action potential duration (APD), resting membrane potential, refractory period, APD alternans threshold, and calcium transient alternans threshold (p < 0.05). By contrast, HCQ concentrations were inversely correlated with the maximum upstroke velocity and calcium transient amplitude (p < 0.05). When the therapeutic concentration (Cmax) of HCQ was applied, HCQ increased APD90 by 1.4% in normal sinus rhythm, 1.8% in wild-type AF, and 2.6% in paired-like homeodomain transcription factor 2 (PITX2)+/- AF, but did not affect the alternans thresholds. The overall in silico results suggest no significant atrial arrhythmogenic effects of HCQ at Cmax, instead implying a potential antiarrhythmic role of low-dose HCQ in AF. However, at an HCQ concentration of fourfold Cmax, a rapid pacing rate of 4 Hz induced prominent APD alternans, particularly in the PITX2+/- AF model.

CONCLUSION

Our in silico analysis suggests a potential antiarrhythmic role of low-dose HCQ in AF. Concomitant PITX2 mutations and high-dose HCQ treatments may increase the risk of AF, and this potential genotype/dose-dependent arrhythmogenic effect of HCQ should be investigated further.

Post-Covid condition and clinic characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a 2-year follow-up to Brazilian cases

Until January 2023, Brazil recorded 37 million COVID-19 cases despite the decrease in mortality due to mass vaccination efforts against COVID-19. The infection continues to challenge researchers and health professionals with the persistent symptoms and onset manifestations after the acute phase of the disease, namely Post-Covid Condition (PCC). Being one of the countries with the highest infection rate, Brazil must prepare for a growing number of patients with chronic health consequences of COVID-19. Longitudinal studies that follow patients over extended periods are crucial in understanding the long-term impacts of COVID-19, including potential health consequences and the effects on quality of life. We describe the clinical profile of a cohort of COVID-19 patients infected during the first year of the pandemic in Brazil and a follow-up after two years to investigate the health impacts of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil featured extensive drug misuse, notably the ineffective COVID kit comprised of ivermectin, antimalarials and azithromycin, and elevated in-hospital mortality. In the second phase of the study, Post-Covid Condition was reported by symptomatic COVID-19 subjects across different severity levels two years after infection. Long haulers are more likely to be women, previously hospitalized, and reported a range of symptoms from muscle pain to cognitive deficit. Our longitudinal study is essential to inform public health authorities to develop strategies and policies to control the spread of the virus and mitigate its impacts on society.

Assessment of the proarrhythmic effects of repurposed antimalarials for COVID-19 treatment using a comprehensive in vitro proarrhythmia assay (CiPA)

Due to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, drug repurposing and Emergency Use Authorization have been proposed to treat the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the pandemic. While the efficiency of the drugs has been discussed, it was identified that certain compounds, such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, cause QT interval prolongation and potential cardiotoxic effects. Drug-induced cardiotoxicity and QT prolongation may lead to life-threatening arrhythmias such as torsades de pointes (TdP), a potentially fatal arrhythmic symptom. Here, we evaluated the risk of repurposed pyronaridine or artesunate-mediated cardiac arrhythmias alone and in combination for COVID-19 treatment through in vitro and in silico investigations using the Comprehensive in vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) initiative. The potential effects of each drug or in combinations on cardiac action potential (AP) and ion channels were explored using human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) and Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells transiently expressing cardiac ion channels (Nav1.5, Cav1.2, and hERG). We also performed in silico computer simulation using the optimized O'Hara-Rudy human ventricular myocyte model (ORd model) to classify TdP risk. Artesunate and dihydroartemisinin (DHA), the active metabolite of artesunate, are classified as a low risk of inducing TdP based on the torsade metric score (TMS). Moreover, artesunate does not significantly affect the cardiac APs of hiPSC-CMs even at concentrations up to 100 times the maximum serum concentration (Cmax). DHA modestly prolonged at APD90 (10.16%) at 100 times the Cmax. When considering Cmax, pyronaridine, and the combination of both drugs (pyronaridine and artesunate) are classified as having an intermediate risk of inducing TdP. However, when considering the unbound concentration (the free fraction not bound to carrier proteins or other tissues inducing pharmacological activity), both drugs are classified as having a low risk of inducing TdP. In summary, pyronaridine, artesunate, and a combination of both drugs have been confirmed to pose a low proarrhythmogenic risk at therapeutic and supratherapeutic (up to 4 times) free Cmax. Additionally, the CiPA initiative may be suitable for regulatory use and provide novel insights for evaluating drug-induced cardiotoxicity.

Safety and tolerance of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection in systemic lupus erythematosus: results from the COVAD study

OBJECTIVE

To determine COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse events (AEs) in the seven-day post-vaccination period in patients with SLE vs autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs), and healthy controls (HC).

METHODS

Data were captured through the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) questionnaire (March-December 2021). Multivariable regression models accounted for age, gender, ethnicity, vaccine type and background treatment.

RESULTS

Among 9462 complete respondents, 583 (6.2%) were SLE patients (mean age: 40.1 years; 94.5% females; 40.5% Asian; 42.9% Pfizer-recipients). Minor AEs were reported by 83.0% of SLE patients, major by 2.6%, hospitalization by 0.2%. AE and hospitalization frequencies were similar between patients with active and inactive SLE. Rashes were more frequent in SLE patients vs HC (OR; 95% CI: 1.2; 1.0, 1.5), chills less frequent in SLE vs AIRDs (0.6; 0.4, 0.8) and nrAIDs (0.5; 0.3, 0.8), and fatigue less frequent in SLE vs nrAIDs (0.6; 0.4, 0.9). Pfizer-recipients reported higher overall AE (2.2; 1.1, 4.2) and injection site pain (2.9; 1.6, 5.0) frequencies than recipients of other vaccines, Oxford/AstraZeneca-recipients more body ache, fever, chills (OR: 2.5, 3.0), Moderna-recipients more body ache, fever, chills, rashes (OR: 2.6, 4.3). Hospitalization frequencies were similar across vaccine types. AE frequencies were similar across treatment groups, although chills were less frequent in antimalarial users vs non-users (0.5; 0.3, 0.9).

CONCLUSION

While COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs were reported by four-fifths of SLE patients, those were mostly minor and comparable to AEs reported by healthy individuals, providing reassurance regarding COVID-19 vaccination safety in SLE.

The potential role of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in acute coronary syndrome and type 2 myocardial infarction (T2MI): Intertwining spread

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is a novel pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). It has been shown that SARS‐CoV‐2 infection‐induced inflammatory and oxidative stress and associated endothelial dysfunction may lead to the development of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Therefore, this review aimed to ascertain the link between severe SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and ACS. ACS is a spectrum of acute myocardial ischemia due to a sudden decrease in coronary blood flow, ranging from unstable angina to myocardial infarction (MI). Primary or type 1 MI (T1MI) is mainly caused by coronary plaque rupture and/or erosion with subsequent occlusive thrombosis. Secondary or type 2 MI (T2MI) is due to cardiac and systemic disorders without acute coronary atherothrombotic disruption. Acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection is linked with the development of nonobstructive coronary disorders such as coronary vasospasm, dilated cardiomyopathy, myocardial fibrosis, and myocarditis. Furthermore, SARS‐CoV‐2 infection is associated with systemic inflammation that might affect coronary atherosclerotic plaque stability through augmentation of cardiac preload and afterload. Nevertheless, major coronary vessels with atherosclerotic plaques develop minor inflammation during COVID‐19 since coronary arteries are not initially and primarily targeted by SARS‐CoV‐2 due to low expression of angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 in coronary vessels. In conclusion, SARS‐CoV‐2 infection through hypercytokinemia, direct cardiomyocyte injury, and dysregulation of the renin‐angiotensin system may aggravate underlying ACS or cause new‐onset T2MI. As well, arrhythmias induced by anti‐COVID‐19 medications could worsen underlying ACS.

Progression of ECG in hydroxychloroquine overdose

Hydroxychloroquine overdose is associated with myocardial toxicity and conduction disorders. We report a case of hydroxychloroquine overdose that demonstrated a rapid progressive intraventricular conduction delay and QT prolongation resulting in significant bradycardia and shock despite aggressive treatment. We describe the rare capture of abrupt abnormalities of this overdose in sequential electrocardiograms in the immediate hours post-ingestion.

Hypertension related toxicity of chloroquine explains its failure against COVID-19: Based on rat model

Chloroquine was once thought to be a promising treatment for COVID-19 but it quickly failed due to its inefficiency and association with increased mortality. Further, comorbidities such as hypertension may have contributed this failure. The safety and toxicity of chloroquine at doses required for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection in hypertensive patients remain unknown. Herein, to investigate these effects, we performed a safety evaluation of chloroquine at the approved dose (63 mg/kg) and at a high dose (126 mg/kg) in hypertensive rats. We found that chloroquine increased the mortality of hypertensive rats to 18.2% and 100%, respectively, after 7 days. During the chloroquine exposure period, the bodyweight, feed, and water consumption of hypertensive rats were decreased significantly. In addition, we show that chloroquine induces prolongation of QTc interval, elevation of LDH and CK, and histopathological damage of the myocardium in hypertensive rats. Ocular toxicity was observed in hypertensive rats in the form of hemorrhage in the eyes and retinal damage. Furthermore, we also observed intestinal toxicity in hypertensive rats, which presented as thinning intestinal walls with hemorrhagic contents, and histopathological changes of the jejunum. Hepatotoxicity was also evidenced by elevated ALT, and vacuolization of hepatocytes was also observed. Nephrotoxicity was observed only in high dose chloroquine-treated hypertensive rats, presenting as alterations of urinalysis and renal function. Immune alterations were also found in high-dose chloroquine-treated hypertensive rats with elevation of serum IL-10, IL-1β and GRO, and moderate damage to the spleen. In summary, this study partially explains the reason for the failure of chloroquine as a COVID-19 therapy, and underlines the importance of safety evaluation and medical supervision of chloroquine to avoid patient harm, especially to those with hypertension.

Risk Factors for QT Prolongation in Patients with Chronic Hydroxychloroquine Use

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine is used as an antimalarial and immunomodulator, however it can induce QT prolongation that could potentially lead to fatal arrhythmia. We investigated changes in QT interval in long-term hydroxychloroquine users, and identified possible risk factors associated with significant QTc prolongation.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 3603 patients who received long-term hydroxychloroquine treatment from 2009 to 2019, of whom 167 had electrocardiography (ECG) results before and during hydroxychloroquine therapy. Baseline characteristics, laboratory data, comorbidities, concurrent medications, and related clinical outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Overall, 225 patients (6.2%) died within the study period, with 50 patients (1.4%) continuously receiving hydroxychloroquine treatment until death. Three patients had fatal ventricular arrhythmia. No significant change in corrected QT interval (QTc) was noted before and during hydroxychloroquine treatment (451.1 ± 39.9 ms vs. 456.0 ± 37.3 ms, P = 0.140) in the ECG cohort. Multivariable logistic regression showed that diabetes mellitus [odds ratio (OR): 9.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.02-45.22; P = 0.005] and use of additional QT-prolonging drugs (OR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.40-5.94; P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for significant QTc prolongation. Multiple linear regression, with the number of QT-prolonging drugs and comorbidities including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation as explanatory variables, predicted QTc response (adjusted R² = 0.385) in the long-term hydroxychloroquine users.

CONCLUSIONS

In the long-term users of hydroxychloroquine, those with diabetes mellitus and concurrent use of additional QT-prolonging drugs were at a higher risk of significant QTc prolongation. Baseline QTc interval, concurrent medications, and comorbidities predicted QTc response.

Coronavirus disease 2019 and the cardiologist

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There continues to be extensive clinical and epidemiological data to suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is associated with numerous different types of cardiac involvement.

RECENT FINDINGS

Myocardial injury has been reported in over 25% of patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 infection and is not only associated with a worse prognosis but with higher mortality, approaching 40%. Currently proposed mechanisms of myocardial injury include direct viral infection, cytokine storm, endothelial inflammation, demand ischemia, interferon-mediated response and stress cardiomyopathy. COVID-19 infection is associated with new-onset arrhythmias and heart failure regardless of history of previous cardiovascular disease. Echocardiographic findings can be useful to predict mortality in COVID-19 patients and cardiac MRI is an effective tool to both assess COVID-19 induced myocarditis and to follow-up on cardiac complications of COVID-19 long-term. Although there is an association between COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis, pericarditis or arrhythmias, the risk appears lower when compared to risk attributable to the natural infection.

SUMMARY

Patients with cardiovascular disease are not only more likely to suffer from severe COVID-19 infection but are at increased risk for further complications and higher mortality. Further data compilation on current and emerging treatments of COVID-19 will have additional impact on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection.

QTc Prolongation with the Use of Hydroxychloroquine and Concomitant Arrhythmogenic Medications: A Retrospective Study Using Electronic Health Records Data

Introduction

Hydroxychloroquine can induce QT/QTc interval prolongation for some patients; however, little is known about its interactions with other QT-prolonging drugs.

Objective

The purpose of this retrospective electronic health records study was to evaluate changes in the QTc interval in patients taking hydroxychloroquine with or without concomitant QT-prolonging medications.

Methods

De-identified health records were obtained from the Cerner Health Facts^® database. Variables of interest included demographics, diagnoses, clinical procedures, laboratory tests, and medications. Patients were categorized into six cohorts based on exposure to hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine alone, or the combination of any those drugs with any concomitant drug known to prolong the QT interval. Tisdale QTc risk score was calculated for each patient cohort. Two-sample paired t-tests were used to test differences between the mean before and after QTc measurements within each group and ANOVA was used to test for significant differences across the cohort means.

Results

A statistically significant increase in QTc interval from the last measurement prior to concomitant exposure of 18.0 ms (95% CI 3.5–32.5; p < 0.05) was found in the hydroxychloroquine monotherapy cohort. QTc changes varied considerably across cohorts, with standard deviations ranging from 40.9 (hydroxychloroquine monotherapy) to 57.8 (hydroxychloroquine + sulfasalazine). There was no difference in QTc measurements among cohorts. The hydroxychloroquine + QTc-prolonging agent cohort had the highest average Tisdale Risk Score compared with those without concomitant exposure (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Our analysis of retrospective electronic health records found hydroxychloroquine to be associated with a moderate increase in the QTc interval compared with sulfasalazine or methotrexate. However, the QTc was not significantly increased with concomitant exposure to other drugs known to increase QTc interval.

Efficacy of COVID-19 treatments among geriatric patients: a systematic review

Introduction:

A majority of the fatalities due to COVID-19 have been observed in those over the age of 60. There is no approved and universally accepted treatment for geriatric patients. The aim of this review is to assess the current literature on efficacy of COVID-19 treatments in geriatric populations.

Methods:

A systematic review search was conducted in PubMed, MedRxiv, and JAMA databases with the keywords COVID-19, geriatric, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, budesonide, remdesivir, favipiravir, ritonavir, molnupiravir, tocilizumab, bamlanivimab, baricitinib, sotrovimab, fluvoxamine, convalescent plasma, prone position, or anticoagulation. Articles published from January 2019 to January 2022 with a population greater than or equal to 60 years of age were included. Interventions examined included hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, favipiravir, dexamethasone, budesonide, tocilizumab, bamlanivimab, baricitinib, sotrovimab, convalescent plasma, prone position, and anticoagulation therapy. Outcome measures included viral load, viral markers, ventilator-free days, or clinical improvement.

Results:

The search revealed 302 articles, 52 met inclusion criteria. Hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, and remdesivir revealed greater side effects or inefficiency in geriatric patients with COVID-19. Favipiravir, bamlanivimab, baricitinib, and supportive therapy showed a decrease in viral load and improvement of clinical symptoms. There is conflicting evidence with tocilizumab, convalescent plasma, and anticoagulant therapy in reducing mortality, ventilator-free days, and clinical improvements. In addition, there was limited evidence and lack of data due to ongoing trials for treatments with sotrovimab and budesonide.

Conclusion:

No agent is known to be effective for preventing COVID-19 after exposure to the virus. Further research is needed to ensure safety and efficacy of each of the reviewed interventions for older adults.

Safety of Short-Term Treatments with Oral Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in Patients with and without COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have recently become the focus of global attention as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current systematic review aims to assess their safety in short treatments (≤14 days), whether used alone or in combination with other drugs. Following the PRISMA and SWiM recommendations, a search was conducted using four health databases for all relevant English-, Chinese-, and Spanish-language studies from inception through 30 July 2021. Patients treated for any condition and with any comparator were included. The outcomes of interest were early drug adverse effects and their frequency. A total of 254 articles met the inclusion criteria, including case and case-control reports as well as cross-sectional, cohort, and randomised studies. The results were summarised either qualitatively in table or narrative form or, when possible (99 studies), quantitatively in terms of adverse event frequencies. Quality evaluation was conducted using the CARE, STROBE, and JADAD tools. This systematic review showed that safety depended on drug indication. In COVID-19 patients, cardiac adverse effects, such as corrected QT interval prolongation, were relatively frequent (0–27.3% and up to 33% if combined with azithromycin), though the risk of torsade de pointes was low. Compared to non-COVID-19 patients, COVID-19 patients experienced a higher frequency of cardiac adverse effects regardless of the regimen used. Dermatological adverse effects affected 0–10% of patients with autoimmune diseases and COVID-19. A broad spectrum of neuropsychiatric adverse effects affected patients treated with CQ for malaria with variable frequencies and some cases were reported in COVID-19 patients. Gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred regardless of drug indication affecting 0–50% of patients. In conclusion, CQ and HCQ are two safe drugs widely used in the treatment of malaria and autoimmune diseases. However, recent findings on their cardiac and neuropsychiatric adverse effects should be considered if these drugs were to be proposed as antivirals again.

Prevalence, pattern and predictors of self-medication for COVID-19 among residents in Umuahia, Abia State, Southeast Nigeria: policy and public health implications

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has led to restrictions on movements and lockdown measures, which have resulted to higher utilization of over-the-counter drugs compared to prescription-only drugs. This study determined the prevalence, pattern and predictors of self-medication for COVID-19 prevention and treatment.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted between October and November 2021 among the residents of Umuahia, Abia State. The respondents were selected using a snowball sampling technique, and a self-administered semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect data on the variables via Google forms. Descriptive, bivariate and multivariate analyses were done using IBM SPSS version 26. The level of significance was set at 5%.

RESULTS

A total of 469 respondents participated in the survey. The overall prevalence of self-medication for COVID-19 prevention and treatment was 30.3% (95%CI: 26.7-34.1). The most commonly used medication was herbal products (43.7%). This was mainly self-prepared (41.5%). The major source of information for self-medication was from family members (39.4%). The majority of the respondents reported fear of isolation (76.3%), followed by fear of stigmatization (75.7%) as the triggers of self-medication. Older age (aOR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.11-3.13), lower educational status [No formal education (aOR = 3.78, 95% CI: 1.28-11.19)], [Primary education (aOR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.17-3.097)] and perception to cost (aOR = 2.29; 95CI: I.24-4.24) were the predictors of self-medication.

CONCLUSION

Every one in three residents of Umuahia, Abia State, practiced self-medication for COVID-19 prevention and treatment. Some economic and socio-demographic factors were significantly associated with self-medication. We recommend intensifying public awareness campaigns on the risk of self-medication.

Prevalence of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome symptoms at different follow-up periods: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Post-acute coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome is now recognized as a complex systemic disease that is associated with substantial morbidity.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the prevalence of persistent symptoms and signs at least 12 weeks after acute COVID-19 at different follow-up periods.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted up to October 2021 in Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and PubMed.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Articles in English that reported the prevalence of persistent symptoms among individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and included at least 50 patients with a follow-up of at least 12 weeks after acute illness.

METHODS

Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to produce a pooled prevalence for each symptom at four different follow-up time intervals. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic and was explored via meta-regression, considering several a priori study-level variables. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for prevalence studies and comparative studies, respectively.

RESULTS

After screening 3209 studies, a total of 63 studies were eligible, with a total COVID-19 population of 257 348. The most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and difficulty concentrating (32%, 25%, 24%, and 22%, respectively, at 3- to <6-month follow-up); effort intolerance, fatigue, sleep disorder, and dyspnea (45%, 36%, 29%, and 25%, respectively, at 6- to <9-month follow-up); fatigue (37%) and dyspnea (21%) at 9 to <12 months; and fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and myalgia (41%, 31%, 30%, and 22%, respectively, at >12-month follow-up). There was substantial between-study heterogeneity for all reported symptom prevalences. Meta-regressions identified statistically significant effect modifiers: world region, male sex, diabetes mellitus, disease severity, and overall study quality score. Five of six studies including a comparator group consisting of COVID-19-negative cases observed significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and several long-term symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found that a large proportion of patients experience post-acute COVID-19 syndrome 3 to 12 months after recovery from the acute phase of COVID-19. However, available studies of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome are highly heterogeneous. Future studies need to have appropriate comparator groups, standardized symptom definitions and measurements, and longer follow-up.

Can anti-parasitic drugs help control COVID-19?

Novel COVID-19 is a public health emergency that poses a serious threat to people worldwide. Given the virus spreading so quickly, novel antiviral medications are desperately needed. Repurposing existing drugs is the first strategy. Anti-parasitic drugs were among the first to be considered as a potential treatment option for this disease. Even though many papers have discussed the efficacy of various anti-parasitic drugs in treating COVID-19 separately, so far, no single study comprehensively discussed these drugs. This study reviews some anti-parasitic recommended drugs to treat COVID-19, in terms of function and in vitro as well as clinical results. Finally, we briefly review the advanced techniques, such as artificial intelligence, that have been used to find effective drugs for the treatment of COVID-19.

NF-κB Signaling and Inflammation-Drug Repurposing to Treat Inflammatory Disorders?

Simple Summary

Since its first description 35 years ago, the transcription factor NF-κB (nuclear factor κ-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells) has been shown to be a key mediator of immune cell responses to inflammatory mediators, oxidative stress and genotoxic injury. Dysregulated NF-κB signalling drives inflammation in inflammatory disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease. Thus, re-establishing the appropriate regulation of NF-κB activity seems like a promising approach to treat inflammatory diseases. Current anti-inflammatory drugs have many, often serious, side effects. Thus, there is an unmet clinical need for safe and effective anti-inflammatory medicines that both decrease inflammatory mediator production and enhance endogenous anti-inflammatory and prorepair pathways. So far, traditional de novo drug discovery has fallen short of satisfying this need. Drug repurposing is a cost- and time-effective alternative to de novo drug development for the identification of novel applications and has already resulted in the identification of effective anti-inflammatories in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper we critically review NF-κB as a potential target for the development of anti-inflammatory drugs with an emphasis on drug repurposing as a strategy to identify new approaches to treat inflammatory diseases.

Abstract

NF-κB is a central mediator of inflammation, response to DNA damage and oxidative stress. As a result of its central role in so many important cellular processes, NF-κB dysregulation has been implicated in the pathology of important human diseases. NF-κB activation causes inappropriate inflammatory responses in diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and multiple sclerosis (MS). Thus, modulation of NF-κB signaling is being widely investigated as an approach to treat chronic inflammatory diseases, autoimmunity and cancer. The emergence of COVID-19 in late 2019, the subsequent pandemic and the huge clinical burden of patients with life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia led to a massive scramble to repurpose existing medicines to treat lung inflammation in a wide range of healthcare systems. These efforts continue and have proven to be controversial. Drug repurposing strategies are a promising alternative to de novo drug development, as they minimize drug development timelines and reduce the risk of failure due to unexpected side effects. Different experimental approaches have been applied to identify existing medicines which inhibit NF-κB that could be repurposed as anti-inflammatory drugs.

The Prevalence and Associated Death of Ventricular Arrhythmia and Sudden Cardiac Death in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Arrhythmia is a very common complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the prevalence of ventricular arrhythmia and associated outcomes are not well-explored. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence and associated death of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and MdeRxiv were searched. Studies that could calculate the prevalence of ventricular arrhythmia/SCD during hospital admission or associated death in patients with COVID-19 were included. The study was registered with the PROSPERO (CRD42021271328).

Results

A total of 21 studies with 13,790 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of ventricular arrhythmia was 5% (95% CI: 4–6%), with a relatively high-SCD prevalence (1.8% in hospitalized COVID-19 and 10% in deceased cases of COVID-19). Subgroup analysis showed that ventricular arrhythmia was more common in patients with elevated cardiac troponin T [ES (effect size): 10%, 95% CI: −0.2 to 22%] and in European (ES: 20%, 95% CI: 11–29%) populations. Besides, ventricular arrhythmia was independently associated with an increased risk of death in patients with COVID-19 [odds ratio (OR) = 2.83; 95% CI: 1.78–4.51].

Conclusion

Ventricular arrhythmia and SCD resulted as a common occurrence with a high prevalence in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital. Furthermore, ventricular arrhythmia significantly contributed to an increased risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Clinicians might be vigilant of ventricular arrhythmias for patients with COVID-19, especially for severe cases.

Systematic Review Registration

www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd, identifier: CRD42021271328.

Antimalarials exert a cardioprotective effect in lupus patients: Insights from the Spanish Society of Rheumatology Lupus Register (RELESSER) analysis of factors associated with heart failure

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Factors associated with chronic heart failure (CHF) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have received little attention. Recent data on the use of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection have cast doubt on its cardiac safety. The factors associated with CHF, including therapy with antimalarials, were analyzed in a large multicenter SLE cohort.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study including all patients with SLE (ACR-1997 criteria) included in the Spanish Society of Rheumatology Lupus Register (RELESSER), based on historically gathered data. Patients with CHF prior to diagnosis of SLE were excluded. A multivariable analysis exploring factors associated with CHF was conducted.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 117 patients with SLE (ACR-97 criteria) and CHF and 3,506 SLE controls. Ninety percent were women. Patients with CHF were older and presented greater SLE severity, organ damage, and mortality than those without CHF. The multivariable model revealed the factors associated with CHF to be ischemic heart disease (7.96 [4.01-15.48], p < 0.0001), cardiac arrhythmia (7.38 [4.00-13.42], p < 0.0001), pulmonary hypertension (3.71 [1.84-7.25], p < 0.0002), valvulopathy (6.33 [3.41-11.62], p < 0.0001), non-cardiovascular damage (1.29 [1.16-1.44], p < 0.000) and calcium/vitamin D treatment (5.29 [2.07-16.86], p = 0.0015). Female sex (0.46 [0.25-0.88], p = 0.0147) and antimalarials (0.28 [0.17-0.45], p < 0.000) proved to be protective factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with SLE and CHF experience more severe SLE. Treatment with antimalarials appears to confer a cardioprotective effect.

American College of Rheumatology White Paper on Antimalarial Cardiac Toxicity

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are well-established medications used in treating systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as skin conditions such as cutaneous lupus erythematosus. In rare cases, arrhythmias and conduction system abnormalities, as well as cardiomyopathy, have been reported in association with HCQ/CQ use. Recently, however, the corrected QT interval (QTc)-prolonging potential of these medications, and risk of torsade de pointes (TdP) in particular, have been highlighted in the setting of their experimental use for COVID-19 infection. This report was undertaken to summarize the current understanding of HCQ/CQ cardiac toxicity, describe QTc prolongation and TdP risks, and discuss areas of priority for future research. A working group of experts across rheumatology, cardiology, and dermatology performed a nonsystematic literature review and offered a consensus-based expert opinion. Current data clearly indicate that HCQ and CQ are invaluable medications in the management of rheumatic and dermatologic diseases, but they are associated with QTc prolongation by directly affecting cardiac repolarization. Prescribing clinicians should be cognizant of this small effect, especially in patients taking additional medications that prolong the QTc interval. Long-term use of HCQ/CQ may lead to a cardiomyopathy associated with arrhythmias and heart failure. Risk and benefit assessment should be considered prior to initiation of any medication, and both initial and ongoing risk-benefit assessments are important with regard to prescription of HCQ/CQ. While cardiac toxicity related to HCQ/CQ treatment of rheumatic diseases is rarely reported, it can be fatal. Awareness of the potential adverse cardiac effects of HCQ and CQ can increase the safe use of these medications. There is a clear need for additional research to allow better understanding of the cardiovascular risk and safety profile of these therapies used in the management of rheumatic and cutaneous diseases.

Assessment of proarrhythmogenic risk for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine using the CiPA concept

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been proposed recently as therapy for SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, but during 3 months of extensive use concerns were raised related to their clinical effectiveness and arrhythmogenic risk. Therefore, we estimated for these compounds several proarrhythmogenic risk predictors according to the Comprehensive in vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) paradigm. Experiments were performed with either CytoPatch™2 automated or manual patch-clamp setups on HEK293T cells stably or transiently transfected with hERG1, hNav1.5, hKir2.1, hKv7.1+hMinK, and on Pluricyte® cardiomyocytes (Ncardia), using physiological solutions. Dose-response plots of hERG1 inhibition fitted with Hill functions yielded IC50 values in the low micromolar range for both compounds. We found hyperpolarizing shifts of tens of mV, larger for chloroquine, in the voltage-dependent activation but not inactivation, as well as a voltage-dependent block of hERG current, larger at positive potentials. We also found inhibitory effects on peak and late I_Na and on I_K1, with IC50 of tens of μM and larger for chloroquine. The two compounds, tested on Pluricyte® cardiomyocytes using the β-escin-perforated method, inhibited I_Kr, I_CaL, I_{Na peak}, but had no effect on I_f. In current-clamp they caused action potential prolongation. Our data and those from literature for I_to were used to compute proarrhythmogenic risk predictors B_net (Mistry HB, 2018) and Q_net (Dutta S et al., 2017), with hERG1 blocking/unblocking rates estimated from time constants of fractional block. Although the two antimalarials are successfully used in autoimmune diseases, and chloroquine may be effective in atrial fibrillation, assays place these drugs in the intermediate proarrhythmogenic risk group.

QT interval and repolarization dispersion changes during the administration of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine with/without azithromycin in early COVID 19 pandemic: A prospective observational study from two academic hospitals in Indonesia

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (HCQ/CQ) treatment for COVID-19 was associated with QT interval prolongation and arrhythmia risks. This study aimed to investigate QTc interval and ventricular repolarization dispersion changes, as markers of arrhythmia risks, after HCQ/CQ administration with/without azithromycin (AZT) during COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was performed in two academic hospitals in Indonesia. Adult patients who received HCQ/CQ alone and HCQ/CQ + AZT concomitant treatments for COVID-19 infection were enrolled. Baseline and post HCQ/CQ treatment electrocardiograms were obtained. Baseline and post HCQ/CQ treatment QT interval by Bazett (B-QTc) and Fridericia (F-QTc) formulas and ventricular repolarization dispersion indices by Tpeak-Tend (Tp-e) interval and Tpeak-Tend/QT (Tp-e/QT) ratio were calculated and analyzed.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 55 (HCQ/CQ alone) and 77 subjects (HCQ/CQ + AZT concomitant). F-QTc interval significantly lengthened in subjects with HCQ/CQ + AZT (mean difference 11.89 ms [P = .028]). The incidences of severe B-QTc and F-QTc lengthening were 13.1% and 12.3%, B-QTc and F-QTc prolongation were 25.4% and 12.3%, and severe B-QTc and F-QTc prolongation were 6.2% and 3.2%. Tp-e interval lengthened significantly from baseline to posttreatment in HCQ/CQ alone and HCQ/CQ + AZT (mean difference 10.83 ms [P = .006] and 18.73 ms [P < .001], respectively). Tp-e/QT ratio increased significantly from baseline to posttreatment in HCQ/CQ + AZT concomitant (mean difference 0.035 [P < .001]). No fatal arrhytmia occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

During COVID-19 pandemic, HCQ/CQ + AZT concomitant treatment caused significant F-QTc lengthening, significantly increased Tp-e interval and increased Tp-e/QT ratio. HCQ/CQ alone only caused significant increase of Tp-e interval. Incidences of severe QTc lengthening and prolongation were low in both HCQ/CQ alone and HCQ/CQ + AZT concomitant.

Risk versus Benefit of Using Hydroxychloroquine to Treat Patients with COVID-19

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), also known by its trade name Plaquenil®, has been used for over 50 years as a treatment for malaria, systemic lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. As the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in the United States and globally in early 2020, HCQ began to garner attention as a potential treatment and as prophylaxis against COVID-19. Preliminary data indicated that HCQ as well as chloroquine (CQ) possessed in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Early clinical data from China and France reported that HCQ and CQ were associated with viral load reduction and clinical improvement in patients with COVID-19 compared to control groups; however, an overwhelming number of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews have since concluded that HCQ used alone, or in combination with azithromycin (AZ), provides no mortality or time-to-recovery benefit in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, these same trials reported adverse events including cardiac, neuropsychiatric, hematologic, and hepatobiliary manifestations in patients with COVID-19 whom had been treated with HCQ. This review article summarizes the available data pertaining to the adverse events associated with HCQ use, alone or in combination with azithromycin, in patients with COVID-19 in order to fully assess the risk versus benefit of treating COVID-19 patients with these agents. The results of this review lead us to conclude that the risks of adverse events associated with HCQ use (with or without AZ) outweigh the potential clinical benefits and thus recommend against its use in the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

Scientific evidence in the COVID-19 treatment: A comprehensive review

In December 2019, cases of unknown origin pneumonia appeared in Wuhan, China; the causal agent of this pneumonia was a new virus of the coronaviridae family called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). According to the clinical severity, symptoms and response to the different treatments, the evolution of the disease is divided in three phases. We analysed the most used treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 and the phase in which they are supposed to be effective. In the viral phase, remdesivir has demonstrated reduction in recovery time but no mortality reduction. Other drugs proposed for viral phase such as convalescent plasma and lopinavir/ritonavir did not demonstrate to be effective. In the inflammatory phase, corticosteroids demonstrated reduction of 28-d mortality in patients who needed oxygen, establishing that a corticosteroid regimen should be part of the standard treatment of critically ill patients. There are other immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory treatments such as anakinra, sarilumab, tocilizumab, colchicine or baricitinib that are being studied. Other treatments that were proposed at the beginning, like hydroxichloroquine or azithromycin, demonstrated no efficacy and increased mortality when combined.

COVID-19 and Heart Failure: From Epidemiology During the Pandemic to Myocardial Injury, Myocarditis, and Heart Failure Sequelae

A close and intriguing relationship has been suggested between heart failure (HF) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). First, COVID-19 pandemic represented a global public health emergency in the last year and had a catastrophic impact on health systems worldwide. Several studies showed a reduction in HF hospitalizations, ranging from 30 to 66% in different countries and leading to a subsequent increase in HF mortality. Second, pre-existing HF is a risk factor for a more severe clinical course of COVID-19 and an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality. Third, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 may develop both an acute decompensation of chronic HF and de-novo HF as a consequence of myocardial injury and cardiovascular (CV) complications. Myocardial injury occurred in at least 10% of unselected COVID-19 cases and up to 41% in critically ill patients or in those with concomitant CV comorbidities. Few cases of COVID-19-related acute myocarditis, presenting with severe reduction in the left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and peculiar histopathological findings, were described. However, recent data suggested that COVID-19 may be associated with both systolic and diastolic LV dysfunction, with LV diastolic impairment, pulmonary hypertension, and right ventricular dysfunction representing the most frequent findings in echocardiographic studies. An overview of available data and the potential mechanisms behind myocardial injury, possibly leading to HF, will be presented in this review. Beyond the acute phase, HF as a possible long-term consequence of cardiac involvement in COVID-19 patients has been supposed and need to be investigated yet.

Effect of hydroxychloroquine on the cardiac ventricular repolarization: A randomized clinical trial

Aims

Hydroxychloroquine has been suggested as possible treatment for severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus‐2. Studies reported an increased risk of QTcF‐prolongation after treatment with hydroxychloroquine. The aim of this study was to analyse the concentration‐dependent effects of hydroxychloroquine on the ventricular repolarization, including QTcF‐duration and T‐wave morphology.

Methods

Twenty young (≤30 y) and 20 elderly (65–75 y) healthy male subjects were included. Subjects were randomized to receive either a total dose of 2400 mg hydroxychloroquine over 5 days, or placebo (ratio 1:1). Follow‐up duration was 28 days. Electrocardiograms (ECGs) were recorded as triplicate at baseline and 4 postdose single recordings, followed by hydroxychloroquine concentration measurements. ECG intervals (RR, QRS, PR, QTcF, J‐Tpc, Tp‐Te) and T‐wave morphology, measured with the morphology combination score, were analysed with a prespecified linear mixed effects concentration–effect model.

Results

There were no significant associations between hydroxychloroquine concentrations and ECG characteristics, including RR‐, QRS‐ and QTcF‐interval (P = .09, .34, .25). Mean ΔΔQTcF‐interval prolongation did not exceed 5 ms and the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval did not exceed 10 ms at the highest measured concentrations (200 ng/mL). There were no associations between hydroxychloroquine concentration and the T‐wave morphology (P = .34 for morphology combination score). There was no significant effect of age group on ECG characteristics.

Conclusion

In this study, hydroxychloroquine did not affect ventricular repolarization, including the QTcF‐interval and T‐wave morphology, at plasma concentrations up to 200 ng/mL. Based on this analysis, hydroxychloroquine does not appear to increase the risk of QTcF‐induced arrhythmias.

Autophagy Inhibitors Do Not Restore Peroxisomal Functions in Cells With the Most Common Peroxisome Biogenesis Defect

Peroxisome biogenesis disorders within the Zellweger spectrum (PBD-ZSDs) are most frequently associated with the c.2528G>A (p.G843D) mutation in the PEX1 gene (PEX1-G843D), which results in impaired import of peroxisomal matrix proteins and, consequently, defective peroxisomal functions. A recent study suggested that treatment with autophagy inhibitors, in particular hydroxychloroquine, would be a potential therapeutic option for PBD-ZSD patients carrying the PEX1-G843D mutation. Here, we studied whether autophagy inhibition by chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine and 3-methyladenine indeed can improve peroxisomal functions in four different cell types with the PEX1-G843D mutation, including primary patient cells. Furthermore, we studied whether autophagy inhibition may be the mechanism underlying the previously reported improvement of peroxisomal functions by L-arginine in PEX1-G843D cells. In contrast to L-arginine, we observed no improvement but a worsening of peroxisomal metabolic functions and peroxisomal matrix protein import by the autophagy inhibitors, while genetic knock-down of ATG5 and NBR1 in primary patient cells resulted in only a minimal improvement. Our results do not support the use of autophagy inhibitors as potential treatment for PBD-ZSD patients, whereas L-arginine remains a therapeutically promising compound.

The role of antirheumatics in patients with COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in more than 2 million deaths globally. Two interconnected stages of disease are generally recognised; an initial viral stage and a subsequent immune response phase with the clinical characteristics of hyperinflammation associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Therefore, many immune modulators and immunosuppressive drugs, which are widely used in rheumatological practice, have been proposed as treatments for patients with moderate or severe COVID-19. In this Review, we provide an overview of what is currently known about the efficacy and safety of antirheumatic therapies for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Dexamethasone has been shown to reduce COVID-19 related mortality, interleukin-6 inhibitors to reduce risk of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support, and baricitinib to reduce time to recovery in hospitalised patients requiring oxygen support. Further studies are needed to identify whether there is any role for glucocorticoids in patients with less severe COVID-19. Although evidence on the use of other antirheumatic drugs has suggested some benefits, results from adequately powered clinical trials are urgently needed. The heterogeneity in dosing and the absence of uniform inclusion criteria and defined stage of disease studied in many clinical trials have affected the conclusions and comparability of trial results. However, after the success of dexamethasone in proving the anti-inflammatory hypothesis, the next 12 months will undoubtedly bring further clarity about the clinical utility and optimal dose and timing of other anti-rheumatic drugs in the management of COVID-19.

Efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Clinical studies of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 disease reported conflicting results. We sought to systematically evaluate the effect of CQ and HCQ with or without azithromycin on outcomes of COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases, preprints and grey literature up to 17 July 2020. We pooled only adjusted-effect estimates of mortality using a random-effect model. We summarized the effect of CQ or HCQ on viral clearance, ICU admission/mechanical ventilation and hospitalization.

RESULTS

Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 14 cohort studies were included (20 979 patients). Thirteen studies (1 RCT and 12 cohort studies) with 15 938 hospitalized patients examined the effect of HCQ on short-term mortality. The pooled adjusted OR was 1.05 (95% CI 0.96-1.15, I2 = 0%). Six cohort studies examined the effect of the HCQ+azithromycin combination with a pooled adjusted OR of 1.32 (95% CI 1.00-1.75, I2 = 68.1%). Two cohort studies and four RCTs found no effect of HCQ on viral clearance. One small RCT demonstrated improved viral clearance with CQ and HCQ. Three cohort studies found that HCQ had no significant effect on mechanical ventilation/ICU admission. Two RCTs found no effect for HCQ on hospitalization risk in outpatients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence suggests that HCQ, with or without azithromycin, lacks efficacy in reducing short-term mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or risk of hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19.

It is time to drop hydroxychloroquine from our COVID-19 armamentarium

Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were among the first drugs repurposed for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A few in vitro studies confirmed that both drugs exhibited dose dependent anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities. These observations and the encouraging results from early poorly conducted observational studies created a major hype about the therapeutic potential of these drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 disease. This was further catalyzed by media and political influences leading to a widespread use of these agents. Subsequent randomized trials revealed lack of efficacy of these agents in improving the outcomes of COVID-19 or in preventing infection in post-exposure prophylaxis studies. Nevertheless, many ongoing trials continue to actively recruit tens of thousands of patients to receive HCQ worldwide. In this perspective, we address the possible mechanisms behind the lack of efficacy and the increased risk of cardiac toxicity of HCQ in COVID-19 disease. For the lack of efficacy, we discuss the fundamental differences of treatment initiation between in vitro and in vivo studies, the pitfalls of the pharmacological calculations of effective blood drug concentrations and related dosing regimens, and the possible negative effect of HCQ on the antiviral type-I interferon response. Although it has been repeatedly claimed that HCQ has a longstanding safety track record for many decades in use, we present counterarguments for this contention due to disease-drug and drug-drug interactions. We discuss the molecular mechanisms and the cumulative epidemiological evidence of HCQ cardiac toxicity.

Frequency of Long QT in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Treated with Hydroxychloroquine: A Meta-analysis

Introduction Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been proposed as a SARS-CoV-2 treatment but the frequency of long QT (LQT) during use is unknown.

Objective To conduct a meta-analysis of the frequency of LQT in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with HCQ.

Data Sources PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and preprint servers (medRxiv, Research Square) were searched for studies published between December 2019 and June 30, 2020.

Methods Effect statistics were pooled using random effects. The quality of observational studies and randomized controlled trials was appraised with STROBE and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tools, respectively.

Outcomes Critical LQT was defined as: (1) maximum QT corrected (QTc)≥500 ms (if QRS<120 ms) or QTc≥550 ms (if QRS≥120 ms), and (2) QTc increase ≥60 ms.

Results In the 28 studies included (n=9124), the frequency of LQT during HCQ treatment was 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7-10.2). In 20 studies (n=7825), patients were also taking other QT-prolonging drugs. The frequency of LQT in the other 8 studies (n=1299) was 1.7% (95% CI: 0.3-3.9). Twenty studies (n=6869) reported HCQ discontinuation due to LQT, with a frequency of 3.7% (95% CI: 1.5-6.6). The frequency of ventricular arrhythmias during HCQ treatment was 1.68% (127/7539) and that of arrhythmogenic death was 0.69% (39/5648). Torsades de Pointes occurred in 0.06% (3/5066). Patients aged >60 years were at highest risk of HCQ-associated LQT (P<0.001).

Conclusions HCQ-associated cardiotoxicity in SARS-CoV-2 patients is uncommon but requires ECG monitoring, particularly in those aged >60 years and/or taking other QT-prolonging drugs.