Repurposed drug studies on the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis

The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis and clinical assessment: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that affected tens of millions of people, upended the lives of countless individuals around the globe. The chloroquine (CQ) and its analogue hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were the most frequently cited as potential treatments and preventatives against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The primary aim of this investigation was to scrutinize the effectiveness and safety of HCQ for COVID-19 prevention and to present powerful evidence and reference for clinical practice.

Methods

PubMed, Ovid and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were systematically searched from inception to January 31, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) trials that included participants who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at the time of registration were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The intervention group took HCQ or CQ orally. The control group was not blinded by quinine or placebo. Pooled relative risk (RR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection, mortality, hospitalization, adverse events, and compliance were calculated. The software tools utilized for statistical analyses were Stata 14 and Review Manager 5.3.

Results

A total of 9 studies including 7,825 participants were enrolled. Bias of individual studies were assessed as low risk. The pooled RR for SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.83] (z=-4.01, P<0.0001; I2=11%). The pooled RR for hospitalization was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.35-1.50) (z=0.87, P=0.39; I2=0.0%). The pooled RR for mortality and adverse events were 3.26 (95% CI: 0.13-79.74) (z=0.72, P=0.47; I2=0.0%) and 1.90 (95% CI: 1.20-3.02) (z=2.73, P=0.0063; I2=94%).

Conclusions

Results of this meta-analysis indicated significant impact of HCQ on SARS-CoV-2 infection with higher risk of adverse events. These findings must be considered with caution, and further research is necessary to delineate the specific circumstances where HCQ may be effective for COVID-19 prevention.

The valley of death: why Australia failed to develop clinically effective drugs in COVID-19

There is a paucity of public discussion of costs spent on drug trials during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and their value, and of large public outlay on research funding for vaccine and drug development that did not deliver medicines nor vaccines for Australians. This oversight left us at the behest of global supply chains, politics and commercial cost-plus pricing for vaccines. It is possible that these outcomes were the result of some major cognitive biases and the failure of a clinical pharmacologist's voice in the leadership teams. Biases included unawareness of the complexities of taking interesting chemicals in vitro to development into therapeutic use that can be tolerated, show efficacy and have appropriate disposition in humans; lack of a systems approach to therapeutic development; and an understanding of the relevance and translatability of pharmacology, physiology and clinical drug development. We believe that reflecting on and addressing these biases will help Australia reposition itself better with a therapeutics and clinical trial strategy for future pandemics, built into the strategy of a Centre for Disease Control.