Artemisinin-naphthoquine plus lower-dose primaquine to treat and prevent recurrence of Plasmodium vivax malaria: an open-label randomized and non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Plasmodium vivax malaria, with the widest geographic distribution, can cause severe disease and death. Primaquine is the main licensed antimalarial drug that can kill hypnozoites. The dose-dependent acute haemolysis in individuals with glucose-6-phospate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is the main safety concern when using primaquine. The recommended treatment regimen for P. vivax malaria is chloroquine plus primaquine for 14 days (CQPQ14) in Myanmar. The study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy, safety and adherence for the regimen of artemisinin-naphthoquine plus primaquine for 3 days (ANPQ3) in patients with P. vivax infections compared to those with CQPQ14.

METHODS

The patients in the ANPQ3 group were given fixed-dose artemisinin-naphthoquine (a total 24.5 mg/kg bodyweight) plus a lower total primaquine dose (0.9 mg/kg bodyweight) for 3 days. The patients in the CQPQ14 group were given a total chloroquine dose of 30 mg/kg body weight for 3 days plus a total primaquine dose of 4.2 mg/kg bodyweight for 14 days. All patients were followed up for 365 days.

RESULTS

A total of 288 patients completed follow-up, 172 in the ANPQ3 group and 116 in the CQPQ14 group. The first recurrence patients were detected by day 58 in both groups. By day 182, 16 recurrences had been recorded: 12 (7.0%) patients in the ANPQ3 group and 4 (3.4%) in the CQPQ14 group. The difference in recurrence-free patients was 3.5 (-8.6 to 1.5) percentage points between ANPQ3 and CQPQ14 group (P = 0.2946). By day 365, the percentage of recurrence-free patients was not significant between the two groups (P = 0.2257). Mean fever and parasite clearance time of ANPQ3 group were shorter than those in CQPQ14 group (P ≤ 0.001). No severe adverse effect was observed in ANPQ3 group, but five (3.9%) patients had acute haemolysis in CQPQ14 group (P = 0.013). Medication percentage of ANPQ3 group was significantly higher than that of CQPQ14 group (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both ANPQ3 and CQPQ14 promised clinical cure efficacy, and the radical cure efficacy was similar between the ANPQ3 and CQPQ14 group. ANPQ3 clears fever and parasites faster than CQPQ14. ANPQ3 is safer and shows better patient adherence to the regimen for treatment of P. vivax malaria along the China-Myanmar border.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-INR-17012523. Registered 31 August 2017, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=21352.

Adverse drug reactions to chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin in COVID-19 in-patients: data from intensive pharmacovigilance in Morocco, 2020

In Morocco, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin have been used off-label for COVID-19 treatment. This study aimed to describe the distribution, nature and seriousness of the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with the two drug combinations in COVID-19 in-patients. We conducted a prospective observational study based on intensive pharmacovigilance in national COVID-19 patients' management facilities from April 1 to June 12, 2020. Hospitalized patients treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin and who experienced ADRs during their hospital stay were included in the study. The causality and seriousness of the ADRs were assessed using the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre method and the agreed criteria in the ICH guideline (E2A) respectively. A total of 237 (51.7%) and 221 (48.3%) COVID-19 in-patients treated respectively with chloroquine + azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin experienced 946 ADRs. Serious ADRs occurred in 54 patients (11.8%). Gastrointestinal system was most affected both in patients taking chloroquine + azithromycin (49.8%) or hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (54.2%), followed by nervous system and psychiatric. Eye disorders were more frequent in patients receiving chloroquine + azithromycin (10.3%) than those receiving hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (1.2%). Cardiac ADRs accounted for 6.4% and 5.1% respectively. Chloroquine + azithromycin caused more ADRs by patients than hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (2.6 versus 1.5 ADRs/patient). Causality assessment was possible for 75.7% of the ADRs. Diabetes was identified as a risk factor for serious ADRs (ORa 3.56; IC: 95% 1.5-8.6). The off-label use of the two drug combinations in COVID-19 in-patients according to the national therapeutic protocol seems to be safe and tolerable. ADRs were mainly expected. However, precaution should be taken in using the drugs in diabetic patients to prevent the risk of serious ADRs.

Preliminary Study on Open Labelled Randomized Controlled Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Phosphate for the Treatment of Persons Infected with 2019 Coronavirus Disease in Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a causative agent of COVID-19 is a leading cause of ill-health and deaths worldwide. Currently, COVID-19 has no known widely approved therapeutics. Thus, the need for effective treatment.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the safety and efficacy of two (2) therapeutic agents; chloroquine phosphate (CQ), 2- hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and a control (standard supportive therapy) among hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

METHODS

The clinical trial was done in accordance to the World Health Organization master protocol for investigational therapeutics for COVID-19. Atotal of 40 participants with laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 were enrolled. Blood samples and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs were obtained on days 1,3,15 and 29 for safety and efficacy assessments.

RESULTS

The baseline demographics showed that the median ages in years (range) were 45 (31-57) in CQ, 45 (36.5-60.5) in HCQ, 43 (39.5-67.0) and 44.5 (25.3-51.3) in the control (P<0.042).At randomization, seven (7) participants were asymptomatic, thirty-three (33) had mild symptoms, eight (8) had moderate symptoms while three (3) had severe symptoms. The average day of conversion to negative COVID-19 was 15.5 days for CQ, 16 days for HCQ and 18 days for the control(P=0.036).

CONCLUSION

The safety assessment revealed no adverse effect of the drugs in COVID-19 patients after treatment. These findings proved that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are effective for the treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults. It also confirmed that they are safe.

Pharmacogenomics of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine: current evidence and future implications

As substrates of CYP2C8, CYP3A4/5 and CYP2D6, chloroquine's (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine's (HCQ) efficacy and safety may be affected by variants in the genes encoding these enzymes. This paper aims to assimilate the current evidence on the pharmacogenomics of CQ/HCQ and to identify risk phenotypes affecting the safety or efficacy of these drugs. It has been found that some CYP3A5, CYP2D6 and CYP2C8 genetic variants may affect the safety or effectiveness of CQ/HCQ. The phenotypes predictively representing ultra-rapid and poor metabolizers have been considered high-risk phenotypes. After considering these high-risk phenotypes in different ethnic groups, it is predicted that a considerable proportion of patients taking CQ/HCQ may be at risk of either therapeutic failure or severe toxicities.

Real-Life Data on Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine with or Without Azithromycin in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Analysis in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Despite no evidence showing benefits of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine with or without azithromycin for COVID-19 treatment, these medications have been largely prescribed in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES

To assess outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, electrocardiographic abnormalities, hospital length-of-stay, admission to the intensive care unit, and need for dialysis and mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, and to compare outcomes between those patients and their matched controls.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter cohort study that included consecutive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients from 37 Brazilian hospitals from March to September 2020. Propensity score was used to select matching controls by age, sex, cardiovascular comorbidities, and in-hospital use of corticosteroid. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

From 7,850 COVID-19 patients, 673 (8.6%) received hydroxychloroquine and 67 (0.9%) chloroquine. The median age in the study group was 60 years (46 - 71) and 59.1% were women. During hospitalization, 3.2% of patients presented side effects and 2.2% required therapy discontinuation. Electrocardiographic abnormalities were more prevalent in the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine group (13.2% vs. 8.2%, p=0.01), and the long corrected QT interval was the main difference (3.6% vs. 0.4%, p<0.001). The median hospital length of stay was longer in the HCQ/CQ + AZT group than in controls (9.0 [5.0, 18.0] vs. 8.0 [4.0, 14.0] days). There was no statistical differences between groups in intensive care unit admission (35.1% vs. 32.0%; p=0.282), invasive mechanical ventilation support (27.0% vs. 22.3%; p=0.074) or mortality (18.9% vs. 18.0%; p=0.682).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine had a longer hospital length of stay, when compared to matched controls. Intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, dialysis and in-hospital mortality were similar.

Quantitative Fundus Autofluorescence in Systemic Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine Therapy: One Year Follow-Up

Purpose

Systemic chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ) can cause severe ocular side effects including bull's eye maculopathy (BEM). Recently, we reported higher quantitative autofluorescence (QAF) levels in patients with CQ/HCQ intake. Here, QAF in patients taking CQ/HCQ in a 1-year follow-up is reported.

Methods

Fifty-eight patients currently or previously treated with CQ/HCQ (cumulative doses 94-2435 g) and 32 age- and sex-matched healthy subjects underwent multimodal retinal imaging (infrared, red free, fundus autofluorescence [FAF], QAF [488 nm], and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). For analysis, custom written FIJI plugins were used for image processing, multimodal image stacks assembling, and QAF calculation.

Results

Thirty patients (28 without BEM and 2 with BEM, age range = 25-69 years) were followed up (370 ± 63 days). QAF values in patients taking CQ/HCQ showed a significant increase between baseline and follow-up examination: 282.0 ± 67.9 to 297.7 ± 70.0 (QAF a.u.), P = 0.002. An increase up to 10% was observed in the superior macular hemisphere. Eight individuals (including 1 patient with BEM) had a pronounced QAF increase of up to 25%. Compared to healthy controls, QAF levels in patients taking CQ/HCQ were significantly increased (P = 0.04).

Conclusions

Our study confirms our previous finding of increased QAF in patients taking CQ/HCQ with a further significant QAF increase from baseline to follow-up. Whether pronounced QAF increase might predispose for rapid progression toward structural changes and BEM development is currently investigated in ongoing studies.

Translational Relevance

In addition to standard screening tools during systemic CQ/HCQ treatment, QAF imaging might be useful in CQ/HCQ monitoring and could serve as a screening tool in the future.

Hydroxychloroquine for Non-Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews, the results of COPE, the largest randomized trial conducted to date, became available.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to placebo or standard of care.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov complemented by manual search. Pairwise meta-analyses, risk of bias, and evidence certainty assessments were conducted, including optimal information size analysis (OIS). A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted in the meta-analysis. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs with 3,219 participants were included. COVID-19 hospitalization and any adverse events rates were not significantly different between hydroxychloroquine (5.6% and 35.1%) and control (7.4% and 20.4%) (risk ratio, RR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.57-1.04, I2: 0%; RR 1.78, 95%-CI 0.90; 3.52, I2: 93%, respectively). The OIS (7,880) was not reached for COVID-19 hospitalization, independently of the simulation for anticipated event rate and RR reduction estimate.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of very low certainty showed lack of benefit with hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. Despite being the systematic review with the largest number of participants included, the OIS, considering pre-vaccination response to infection, has not yet been reached.

Systematic Review of Psychiatric Adverse Effects Induced by Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine: Case Reports and Population Studies

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review on the psychiatric adverse effects of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ); to summarize what is known about psychiatric adverse effects of these drugs; to compare clinical trials, populational studies, and case report studies; and to increase awareness of the potential psychiatric adverse effects of these drugs.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed to identify manuscripts published between December 1962 and June 2022. Search terms included CQ, HCQ, psychiatry, psychosis, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, delirium, and psychotic disorders.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies included reports of adverse effects after CQ or HCQ ingestion.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The current literature presents evidence for a risk of short-term psychiatric adverse effects induced by either CQ or HCQ. However, the populational-level studies presented some limitations regarding the voluntary response in survey data, self-report adverse effects, and placebo group reporting similar symptoms to the case group. Thus, populational-level studies addressing the discussed limitations and the nature and extent of possible psychiatric adverse effects are needed.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Most of the patients who developed such adverse effects did not report a family history of psychiatric disease. The frequency of psychiatric adverse effects depends on the patient's biological sex, age, and body mass index, but not on the drug dosage.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on clinical trials and case reports, the current literature presents evidence for a risk of short-term psychiatric adverse effects induced by either drug.

The investigation of the complex population-drug-drug interaction between ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and chloroquine or ivermectin using physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling

OBJECTIVES

Therapy failure caused by complex population-drug-drug (PDDI) interactions including CYP3A4 can be predicted using mechanistic physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling. A synergy between ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPVr), ivermectin, and chloroquine was suggested to improve COVID-19 treatment. This work aimed to study the PDDI of the two CYP3A4 substrates (ivermectin and chloroquine) with LPVr in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 adults, geriatrics, and pregnancy populations.

METHODS

The PDDI of LPVr with ivermectin or chloroquine was investigated. Pearson's correlations between plasma, saliva, and lung interstitial fluid (ISF) levels were evaluated. Target site (lung epithelial lining fluid [ELF]) levels of ivermectin and chloroquine were estimated.

RESULTS

Upon LPVr coadministration, while the chloroquine plasma levels were reduced by 30, 40, and 20%, the ivermectin plasma levels were increased by a minimum of 425, 234, and 453% in adults, geriatrics, and pregnancy populations, respectively. The established correlation equations can be useful in therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and dosing regimen optimization.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither chloroquine nor ivermectin reached therapeutic ELF levels in the presence of LPVr despite reaching toxic ivermectin plasma levels. PBPK modeling, guided with TDM in saliva, can be advantageous to evaluate the probability of reaching therapeutic ELF levels in the presence of PDDI, especially in home-treated patients.

How toxic is an old friend? A review of the safety of hydroxychloroquine in clinical practice

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and its close relative chloroquine (CQ) were initially used as antimalarial agents but are now widely prescribed in rheumatology, dermatology and immunology for the management of autoimmune diseases. HCQ is considered to have a better long-term safety profile than CQ and is therefore more commonly used. HCQ has a key role in the treatment of connective tissue diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), where it provides beneficial immunomodulation without clinically significant immunosuppression. HCQ can also assist in managing inflammatory arthritis, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Debate around toxicity of HCQ in COVID-19 has challenged those who regularly prescribe HCQ to discuss its potential toxicities. Accordingly, we have reviewed the adverse effect profile of HCQ to provide guidance about this therapeutic agent in clinical practice.

Berbamine Reduces Chloroquine-Induced Itch in Mice through Inhibition of MrgprX1

Chloroquine (CQ) is an antimalaria drug that has been widely used for decades. However, CQ-induced pruritus remains one of the major obstacles in CQ treatment for uncomplicated malaria. Recent studies have revealed that MrgprX1 plays an essential role in CQ-induced itch. To date, a few MrgprX1 antagonists have been discovered, but they are clinically unavailable or lack selectivity. Here, a cell-based high-throughput screening was performed to identify novel antagonists of MrgprX1, and the screening of 2543 compounds revealed two novel MrgprX1 inhibitors, berbamine and closantel. Notably, berbamine potently inhibited CQ-mediated MrgprX1 activation (IC₅₀ = 1.6 μM) but did not alter the activity of other pruritogenic GPCRs. In addition, berbamine suppressed the CQ-mediated phosphorylation of ERK1/2. Interestingly, CQ-induced pruritus was significantly reduced by berbamine in a dose-dependent manner, but berbamine had no effect on histamine-induced, protease-activated receptors 2-activating peptide-induced, and deoxycholic acid-induced itch in mice. These results suggest that berbamine is a novel, potent, and selective antagonist of MrgprX1 and may be a potential drug candidate for the development of therapeutic agents to treat CQ-induced pruritus.

Historical 8-Aminoquinoline Combinations: Not All Antimalarial Drugs Work Well Together

Since their first use in the 1920s, 8-aminoquinolines have been known to have important toxicities such as methemoglobinemia and hemolysis. An empiric pamaquine (plasmochin) combination with quinine was widely used in the British military with relatively little toxicity. Attempts to use pamaquine with a new synthetic antimalarial drug (atabrine, quinacrine) in the 1930-1940s, however, resulted in hemolytic reactions and some deaths from renal failure. An improved 8-aminoquinoline, primaquine, was particularly effective against Plasmodium vivax relapses when combined with either quinine or chloroquine. When used in reduced daily doses (15 mg) over 2 weeks, it was safely given to many thousands of U.S. soldiers returning from Korea. CP tablets (chloroquine 300 mg, primaquine 45 mg weekly) were widely used during the Vietnam War with few hemolytic reactions and no known deaths. Efficacy and toxicity of 8-aminoquinolines is determined in part by the selection of appropriate partner drugs.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

RESULTS

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Malaria in the US: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Malaria is caused by protozoa parasites of the genus Plasmodium and is diagnosed in approximately 2000 people in the US each year who have returned from visiting regions with endemic malaria. The mortality rate from malaria is approximately 0.3% in the US and 0.26% worldwide.

OBSERVATIONS

In the US, most malaria is diagnosed in people who traveled to an endemic region. More than 80% of people diagnosed with malaria in the US acquired the infection in Africa. Of the approximately 2000 people diagnosed with malaria in the US in 2017, an estimated 82.4% were adults and about 78.6% were Black or African American. Among US residents diagnosed with malaria, 71.7% had not taken malaria chemoprophylaxis during travel. In 2017 in the US, P falciparum was the species diagnosed in approximately 79% of patients, whereas P vivax was diagnosed in an estimated 11.2% of patients. In 2017 in the US, severe malaria, defined as vital organ involvement including shock, pulmonary edema, significant bleeding, seizures, impaired consciousness, and laboratory abnormalities such as kidney impairment, acidosis, anemia, or high parasitemia, occurred in approximately 14% of patients, and an estimated 0.3% of those receiving a diagnosis of malaria in the US died. P falciparum has developed resistance to chloroquine in most regions of the world, including Africa. First-line therapy for P falciparum malaria in the US is combination therapy that includes artemisinin. If P falciparum was acquired in a known chloroquine-sensitive region such as Haiti, chloroquine remains an alternative option. When artemisinin-based combination therapies are not available, atovaquone-proguanil or quinine plus clindamycin is used for chloroquine-resistant malaria. P vivax, P ovale, P malariae, and P knowlesi are typically chloroquine sensitive, and treatment with either artemisinin-based combination therapy or chloroquine for regions with chloroquine-susceptible infections for uncomplicated malaria is recommended. For severe malaria, intravenous artesunate is first-line therapy. Treatment of mild malaria due to a chloroquine-resistant parasite consists of a combination therapy that includes artemisinin or chloroquine for chloroquine-sensitive malaria. P vivax and P ovale require additional therapy with an 8-aminoquinoline to eradicate the liver stage. Several options exist for chemoprophylaxis and selection should be based on patient characteristics and preferences.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Approximately 2000 cases of malaria are diagnosed each year in the US, most commonly in travelers returning from visiting endemic areas. Prevention and treatment of malaria depend on the species and the drug sensitivity of parasites from the region of acquisition. Intravenous artesunate is first-line therapy for severe malaria.

Prevalence of ECG testing and characteristics among new hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine users within a multi-center tertiary care center

COVID-19 raised concern regarding cardiotoxicity and QTc prolongation of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ). We examined the frequency and patient factors associated with ECG testing and the detection of prolonged QTc among new HCQ/CQ users in a large academic medical system. 10,248 subjects with a first HCQ/CQ prescription (1/2015–3/2020) were included. We assessed baseline (1 year prior to and including day of initiation of HCQ/CQ through 2 months after initial HCQ/CQ prescription) and follow-up (10 months after the baseline period) patient characteristics and ECGs obtained from electronic health records. Among 8384 female HCQ/CQ new users, ECGs were obtained for 22.3%, 14.3%, and 7.6%, at baseline, follow, and both periods, respectively. Among 1864 male HCQ/CQ new users, ECGs were obtained more frequently at baseline (29.7%), follow-up (18.0%), and both periods (11.3%). Female HCQ/CQ users with a normal QTc at baseline but prolonged QTc (> 470 ms) at follow-up (13.1%) were older at HCQ/CQ initiation [mean 64.7 (SD 16.5) vs. 58.7 (SD 16.9) years, p = 0.004] and more likely to have history of myocardial infarction (41.0% vs. 21.6%, p = 0.0003) compared to those who had normal baseline and follow-up QTc. The frequency of prolonged QTc development was similar (12.4%) among male HCQ/CQ new users (> 450 ms). Prior to COVID-19, ECG testing before and after HCQ/CQ prescription was infrequent, particularly for females who are disproportionately affected by rheumatic diseases and were just as likely to develop prolonged QTc (> 1/10 new users). Prospective studies are needed to guide future management of HCQ/CQ therapy in rheumatic populations.

Higher-Dose Primaquine to Prevent Relapse of Plasmodium vivax Malaria

BACKGROUND

In most of the Americas, the recommended treatment to prevent relapse of Plasmodium vivax malaria is primaquine at a total dose of 3.5 mg per kilogram of body weight, despite evidence of only moderate efficacy.

METHODS

In this trial conducted in Brazil, we evaluated three primaquine regimens to prevent relapse of P. vivax malaria in children at least 5 years of age and in adults with microscopy-confirmed P. vivax monoinfection. All the patients received directly observed chloroquine for 3 days (total dose, 25 mg per kilogram). Group 1 received a total primaquine dose of 3.5 mg per kilogram (0.5 mg per kilogram per day) over 7 days with unobserved administration; group 2 received the same regimen as group 1 but with observed administration; and group 3 received a total primaquine dose of 7.0 mg per kilogram over 14 days (also 0.5 mg per kilogram per day) with observed administration. We monitored the patients for 168 days.

RESULTS

We enrolled 63 patients in group 1, 96 in group 2, and 95 in group 3. The median age of the patients was 22.4 years (range, 5.4 to 79.8). By day 28, three P. vivax recurrences were observed: 2 in group 1 and 1 in group 2. By day 168, a total of 70 recurrences had occurred: 24 in group 1, 34 in group 2, and 12 in group 3. No serious adverse events were noted. On day 168, the percentage of patients without recurrence was 58% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44 to 70) in group 1, 59% (95% CI, 47 to 69) in group 2, and 86% (95% CI, 76 to 92) in group 3. Survival analysis showed a difference in the day 168 recurrence-free percentage of 27 percentage points (97.5% CI, 10 to 44; P<0.001) between group 1 and group 3 and a difference of 27 percentage points (97.5% CI, 12 to 42; P<0.001) between group 2 and group 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of primaquine at a total dose of 7.0 mg per kilogram had higher efficacy in preventing relapse of P. vivax malaria than a total dose of 3.5 mg per kilogram through day 168. (Supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03610399.).

Oral pigmentation as an adverse effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine use: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are 2 medications used to treat some systemic diseases.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this scoping review was to assess the occurrence of oral pigmentation induced by chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine and to understand the pathogenic mechanism behind this phenomenon.

METHODS

The review was performed according to the list of PRISMA SrC recommendations and the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis for Scoping Reviews. MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, EMBASE, SciELO, Web of Science, Lilacs, and LIVIVO were primary sources, and "gray literature" was searched in OpenThesis and Open Access Thesis and Dissertations (OATD). Studies that screened the occurrence of oral pigmentation associated to the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine were considered eligible. No restrictions of year and language of publication were applied. Study selection and data extraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed through the JBI tool, depending on the design of the selected studies.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 2238 studies, of which 19 were eligible. Sixteen studies were case reports, 2 had case-control design and 1 was cross-sectional. Throughout the studies, 44 cases of oral pigmentation were reported. The hard palate was the anatomic region most affected with pigmentation (66%). According to the case reports, most of the lesions (44%) were bluish-gray. The minimum time from the beginning of treatment (chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine) to the occurrence of pigmentation was 6 months. The mean treatment time with the medications was 4.9 years, and the mean drug dosage was 244 mg. Most of the studies (63.1%) had low risk of bias (high methodological quality).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of this study suggest that hyperpigmentation depend on drug dosage and treatment length. Hyperpigmentation was detected after a long period of treatment with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine from randomized controlled trials on malarial and non-malarial conditions

BACKGROUND

Despite the expectations regarding the effectiveness of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) management, concerns about their adverse events have remained.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of CQ and HCQ from malarial and non-malarial randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The primary outcomes were the frequencies of serious adverse events (SAEs), retinopathy, and cardiac complications. Search strategies were applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Trip databases. We used a random-effects model to pool results across studies and Peto's one-step odds ratio (OR) for event rates below 1%. Both-armed zero-event studies were excluded from the meta-analyses. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

One hundred and six RCTs were included. We found no significant difference between CQ/HCQ and control (placebo or non-CQ/HCQ) in the frequency of SAEs (OR: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.26, 33 trials, 15,942 participants, moderate certainty of evidence). However, there was a moderate certainty of evidence that CQ/HCQ increases the incidence of cardiac complications (RR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.10-2.38, 16 trials, 9908 participants). No clear relationship was observed between CQ/HCQ and retinopathy (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: - 0.4-6.57, 5 trials, 344 participants, very low certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

CQ and HCQ probably do not increase SAEs, with low frequency of these adverse events on malarial and non-malarial conditions. However, they may increase cardiac complications especially in patients with COVID-19. No clear effect of their use on the incidence of retinopathy was observed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020177818.

Effect of drug metabolism in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 from an entirely computational perspective

Understanding the effects of metabolism on the rational design of novel and more effective drugs is still a considerable challenge. To the best of our knowledge, there are no entirely computational strategies that make it possible to predict these effects. From this perspective, the development of such methodologies could contribute to significantly reduce the side effects of medicines, leading to the emergence of more effective and safer drugs. Thereby, in this study, our strategy is based on simulating the electron ionization mass spectrometry (EI-MS) fragmentation of the drug molecules and combined with molecular docking and ADMET models in two different situations. In the first model, the drug is docked without considering the possible metabolic effects. In the second model, each of the intermediates from the EI-MS results is docked, and metabolism occurs before the drug accesses the biological target. As a proof of concept, in this work, we investigate the main antiviral drugs used in clinical research to treat COVID-19. As a result, our strategy made it possible to assess the biological activity and toxicity of all potential by-products. We believed that our findings provide new chemical insights that can benefit the rational development of novel drugs in the future.

Risk factors for prolonged virus shedding of respiratory tract and fecal in adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection

BACKGROUND

The dynamic alteration and comparative study of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA shedding pattern during treatment are limited. This study explores the potential risk factors influencing prolonged viral shedding in COVID-19.

METHODS

A total of 126 COVID-19 patients were enrolled in this retrospective longitudinal study. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to estimate the potential risk factors.

RESULTS

38.1% (48/126) cases presented prolonged respiratory tract viral shedding, and 30 (23.8%) cases presented prolonged rectal swab viral shedding. Obesity (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.08-10.09), positive rectal swab (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.53-7.7), treatment by lopinavir/ritonavir with chloroquine phosphate (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.04-6.03), the interval from onset to antiviral treatment more than 7 days (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.04-4.93), lower CD4+ T cell (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99) and higher NK cells (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.20) were significantly associated with prolonged respiratory tract viral shedding. CD3-CD56+ NK cells (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) were related with prolonged fecal shedding.

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity, delayed antiviral treatment, and positive SARS-CoV-2 for stool were independent risk factors for prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding of the respiratory tract. A combination of LPV/r and abidol as the initial antiviral regimen was effective in shortening the duration of viral shedding compared with LPV/r combined with chloroquine phosphate. CD4+ T cell and NK cells were significantly associated with prolonged viral shedding, and further studies are to be warranted to determine the mechanism of immunomodulatory response in virus clearance.

No difference in biomarkers of ischemic heart injury and heart failure in patients with COVID-19 who received treatment with chloroquine phosphate and those who did not

Background

Chloroquine was promoted as a COVID-19 therapeutic early in the pandemic. Most countries have since discontinued the use of chloroquine due to lack of evidence of any benefit and the risk of severe adverse events. The primary aim of this study was to examine if administering chloroquine during COVID-19 imposed an increased risk of ischemic heart injury or heart failure.

Methods

Medical records, laboratory findings, and electrocardiograms of patients with COVID-19 who were treated with 500 mg chloroquine phosphate daily and controls not treated with chloroquine were reviewed retrospectively. Controls were matched in age and severity of disease.

Results

We included 20 patients receiving chloroquine (500 mg twice daily) for an average of five days, and 40 controls. The groups were comparable regarding demographics and biochemical analyses including C-reactive protein, thrombocytes, and creatinine. There were no statistically significant differences in cardiac biomarkers or in electrocardiograms. Median troponin T was 10,8 ng/L in the study group and 17.9 ng/L in the control group, whereas median NT-proBNP was 399 ng/L in patients receiving chloroquine and 349 ng/L in the controls.

Conclusions

We found no increased risk of ischemic heart injury or heart failure as a result of administering chloroquine. However, the use of chloroquine to treat COVID-19 outside of clinical trials is not recommended, considering the lack of evidence of its effectiveness, as well as the elevated risk of fatal arrythmias.

Corrected QT interval in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019: Focus on drugs therapy

Corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation has been associated with poor patient prognosis. In this study, we assessed the effects of different drugs and cardiac injury on QTc interval prolongation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).The study cohort consisted of 395 confirmed COVID-19 cases from the Wuhan Union Hospital West Campus. All hospitalized patients were treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), quinolones, interferon, Arbidol, or Qingfei Paidu decoction (QPD) and received at least 1 electrocardiogram after drug administration.Fifty one (12.9%) patients exhibited QTc prolongation (QTc ≥ 470 ms). QTc interval prolongation was associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality (both P < .001). Administration of CQ/HCQ (odds ratio [OR], 2.759; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.318-5.775; P = .007), LPV/r (OR, 2.342; 95% CI, 1.152-4.760; P = .019), and quinolones (OR, 2.268; 95% CI, 1.171-4.392; P = .015) increased the risk of QTc prolongation. In contrast, the administration of Arbidol, interferon, or QPD did not increase the risk of QTc prolongation. Notably, patients treated with QPD had a shorter QTc duration than those without QPD treatment (412.10 [384.39-433.77] vs 420.86 [388.19-459.58]; P = .042). The QTc interval was positively correlated with the levels of cardiac biomarkers (creatine kinase-MB fraction [rho = 0.14, P = .016], high-sensitivity troponin I [rho = .22, P < .001], and B-type natriuretic peptide [rho = 0.27, P < .001]).In conclusion, QTc prolongation was associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. The risk of QTc prolongation was higher in patients receiving CQ/HCQ, LPV/r, and quinolones. QPD had less significant effects on QTc prolongation than other antiviral agents.

Selection of pfcrt K76 and pfmdr1 N86 Coding Alleles after Uncomplicated Malaria Treatment by Artemether-Lumefantrine in Mali

Background: Artemether-lumefantrine is a highly effective artemisinin-based combination therapy that was adopted in Mali as first-line treatment for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. This study was designed to measure the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine and to assess the selection of the P. falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter (pfcrt) and P. falciparum multi-drug resistance 1 (pfmdr1) genotypes that have been associated with drug resistance. Methods: A 28-day follow-up efficacy trial of artemether-lumefantrine was conducted in patients aged 6 months and older suffering from uncomplicated falciparum malaria in four different Malian areas during the 2009 malaria transmission season. The polymorphic genetic markers MSP2, MSP1, and Ca1 were used to distinguish between recrudescence and reinfection. Reinfection and recrudescence were then grouped as recurrent infections and analyzed together by PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) to identify candidate markers for artemether-lumefantrine tolerance in the P. falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter (pfcrt) gene and the P. falciparum multi-drug resistance 1 (pfmdr1) gene. Results: Clinical outcomes in 326 patients (96.7%) were analyzed and the 28-day uncorrected adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) rate was 73.9%. The total PCR-corrected 28-day ACPR was 97.2%. The pfcrt 76T and pfmdr1 86Y population prevalence decreased from 49.3% and 11.0% at baseline (n = 337) to 38.8% and 0% in patients with recurrent infection (n = 85); p = 0.001), respectively. Conclusion: Parasite populations exposed to artemether-lumefantrine in this study were selected toward chloroquine-sensitivity and showed a promising trend that may warrant future targeted reintroduction of chloroquine or/and amodiaquine.

Safety of treatment with chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine: A ten-year systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of adverse events (AE) in chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine users.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using MEDLINE (2010-2020) and EMBASE (2010-2020) databases, reporting AE in chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine users during treatment for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, malaria and COVID-19. The protocol for this systematic review is registered at the PROSPERO database (CRD42020197938). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-Bias tool and relevant data were extracted though a customized data collection form, independently, by two authors. The IRR of AE was estimated using a random-effect model meta-analysis and heterogeneity was evaluated by T² and I². Subgroup analysis was performed, and publication bias was assessed by funnel-plot.

RESULTS

Forty-six RCTs met our eligibility criteria and were included in our analysis (23132 patients). There was not a single death attributed to chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine use in the included RCTs. The IRR of general AE during antimalarial use was 1.15 [CI 95% 1.01-1.31]. COVID-19 patients treated with either antimalarial presented an 83% and 165% higher risk of developing general and gastrointestinal AE, respectively, in comparison with controls. The use of antimalarial increased the risk of developing dermatological AE by 92% in malarial studies and reduced by 65% in lupus studies. We did not find a significatively higher risk of cardiovascular nor ophthalmological AE in antimalarial users.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data reinforces that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have a good safety profile though caution is advised when using higher than usual doses in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Applying the CiPA approach to evaluate cardiac proarrhythmia risk of some antimalarials used off-label in the first wave of COVID-19

We applied a set of in silico and in vitro assays, compliant with the Comprehensive In Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) paradigm, to assess the risk of chloroquine (CLQ) or hydroxychloroquine (OH-CLQ)-mediated QT prolongation and Torsades de Pointes (TdP), alone and combined with erythromycin (ERT) and azithromycin (AZI), drugs repurposed during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Each drug or drug combination was tested in patch clamp assays on seven cardiac ion channels, in in silico models of human ventricular electrophysiology (Virtual Assay) using control (healthy) or high-risk cell populations, and in human-induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC)-derived cardiomyocytes. In each assay, concentration-response curves encompassing and exceeding therapeutic free plasma levels were generated. Both CLQ and OH-CLQ showed blocking activity against some potassium, sodium, and calcium currents. CLQ and OH-CLQ inhibited IKr (half-maximal inhibitory concentration [IC50 ]: 1 µM and 3-7 µM, respectively) and IK1 currents (IC50 : 5 and 44 µM, respectively). When combining OH-CLQ with AZI, no synergistic effects were observed. The two macrolides had no or very weak effects on the ion currents (IC50  > 300-1000 µM). Using Virtual Assay, both antimalarials affected several TdP indicators, CLQ being more potent than OH-CLQ. Effects were more pronounced in the high-risk cell population. In hiPSC-derived cardiomyocytes, all drugs showed early after-depolarizations, except AZI. Combining CLQ or OH-CLQ with a macrolide did not aggravate their effects. In conclusion, our integrated nonclinical CiPA dataset confirmed that, at therapeutic plasma concentrations relevant for malaria or off-label use in COVID-19, CLQ and OH-CLQ use is associated with a proarrhythmia risk, which is higher in populations carrying predisposing factors but not worsened with macrolide combination.

Summary of adverse drug events for hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and chloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Given the increased use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), chloroquine (CQ), and azithromycin (AZM) during the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is a need to evaluate the associated safety concerns. The objective of this study was to summarize the adverse drug events (ADEs) associated with HCQ, CQ, and AZM use during the national COVID-19 emergency and compare the results with known adverse reactions listed in the drugs' package inserts.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study design was used. The publicly available Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System quarterly data extract files from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020 were downloaded. A disproportionality analysis was conducted using the proportional reporting ratio to identify possible ADE signals. A Poisson regression was used to assess if the number of ADE reports for the 3 drugs increased over time.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant increasing trend in the reported ADEs for both HCQ (P < 0.001) and AZM (P < 0.001). Before the declaration of the national emergency, there were 592 reported drug-ADE pairs for the 3 drugs compared with 2492 drug-ADE pairs reported after March 13, 2020. These 2492 drug-ADE pairs represented 848 ADEs across the 3 drugs, of which 114 (13.4%) were identified as potential signals including 55 (48.2%) that were not listed in the prescribing information.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that the reported ADEs for HCQ and AZM have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Differences were observed in both the type of and frequency of the highest reported ADEs for the 3 selected drugs before and after the national emergency declaration. Although causation cannot be determined from ADE reports, further investigation of some reports may be warranted. Our results highlight the need for pharmacovigilance and education of health care professionals on the safety of these drugs when being used for COVID-19 prophylaxis or treatment.

Use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

COVID-19 has quickly become a public health problem worldwide, and treatment for this new disease is needed. Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial that in vitro studies have shown action against SARS-CoV-2, which is why it has been the target of clinical studies with conflicting results. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to assess the association of hydroxychloroquine use with the virological cure, clinical recovery, mortality, and development of adverse effects in patients with COVID-19. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Lilacs were searched until 7 January 2021, for randomized clinical trials with COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine. Of the 130 studies found, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Compared to the patient's control group, the risk ratio (RR) for the virological cure and clinical recovery with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine use was 1.04 (95%CI 0.91-1.17) and 1.03 (95%CI 0.92-1.13), respectively. Hydroxychloroquine (with or without azithromycin) was also not associated with mortality (RR = 1.09, 95%CI 0.98-1.20). Treatment with hydroxychloroquine was associated with any adverse effects (RR = 1.50, 95%CI 1.18-1.81). Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine use did not have a significant effect on virological cure, the time of clinical recovery, and improvement in survival in COVID-19 patients. However, patients who used hydroxychloroquine showed an increase in adverse effects.

The therapeutic effect and safety of the drugs for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread almost all regions of the world and caused great loss to the whole body of mankind. Thus, numerous clinical trials were conducted to find specific medicine for COVID-19 recently. However, it remains unanswered whether they are beneficial.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of the COVID-19 medicine.

METHODS

Studies were determined through searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Medline. The studies of COVID-19 medicine were involved with eligible end points containing mortality, discharge rate, rate of clinical improvement, and rate of serious adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies involving 37,879 patients were included in our study, whose intervening measures contained three major types of COVID-19 medicine, ACEI/ARB, antiviral medicine, and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine. Compared to control group, COVID-19 drugs have no distinct effect on mortality (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79-1.11, P = .43) and discharge rate (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.14, P = .13). However, antiviral medicine presents the obvious advantage in clinical improvement (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.23, P < .05). In addition, the serious adverse events rate (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88, P < .05) of COVID-19 medicine is lower than control group.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated antiviral medicine was potential specific medicine for COVID-19 treatment by improving clinical symptoms, but it failed to increase the discharge rate and reduce mortality. Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine and ACEI/ARB had no significant effect on treatment of COVID-19, thus they were not recommended for routine medication. Moreover, more trials are needed to find effective drugs to lower the mortality of COVID-19 patients.

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/ ). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

Cardiotoxic Potential of Hydroxychloroquine, Chloroquine and Azithromycin in Adult Human Primary Cardiomyocytes

Substantial efforts have been recently committed to develop coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) medications, and Hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with Azithromycin has been promoted as a repurposed treatment. Although these drugs may increase cardiac toxicity risk, cardiomyocyte mechanisms underlying this risk remain poorly understood in humans. Therefore, we evaluated the proarrhythmia risk and inotropic effects of these drugs in the cardiomyocyte contractility-based model of the human heart. We found Hydroxychloroquine to have a low proarrhythmia risk, whereas Chloroquine and Azithromycin were associated with high risk. Hydroxychloroquine proarrhythmia risk changed to high with low level of K+, whereas high level of Mg2+ protected against proarrhythmic effect of high Hydroxychloroquine concentrations. Moreover, therapeutic concentration of Hydroxychloroquine caused no enhancement of elevated temperature-induced proarrhythmia. Polytherapy of Hydroxychloroquine plus Azithromycin and sequential application of these drugs were also found to influence proarrhythmia risk categorization. Hydroxychloroquine proarrhythmia risk changed to high when combined with Azithromycin at therapeutic concentration. However, Hydroxychloroquine at therapeutic concentration impacted the cardiac safety profile of Azithromycin and its proarrhythmia risk only at concentrations above therapeutic level. We also report that Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine, but not Azithromycin, decreased contractility while exhibiting multi-ion channel block features, and Hydroxychloroquine's contractility effect was abolished by Azithromycin. Thus, this study has the potential to inform clinical studies evaluating repurposed therapies, including those in the COVID-19 context. Additionally, it demonstrates the translational value of the human cardiomyocyte contractility-based model as a key early discovery path to inform decisions on novel therapies for COVID-19, malaria, and inflammatory diseases.

Not All Heart Uptakes on 99mTc-DPD Scintigraphy Are Amyloidosis: Chloroquine-Induced Cardiomyopathy

ABSTRACT

This was the case of a 61-year-old woman with a medical history significant for hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis treated with chloroquine for the last 10 years. She was admitted to our hospital for heart failure symptoms. Echocardiography revealed severe concentric left ventricular hypertrophy. Serum and urine immunofixation electrophoresis and serum light chain assay were negative. No late gadolinium enhancement was observed on cardiovascular magnetic resonance. 99mTc-99mTc-DPD (3,3-diphosphono-1,2-propanodicarboxylic acid) scintigraphy showed myocardial uptake (Perugini score 2/3). Genetic testing excluded hereditary transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis. Endomyocardial biopsy analysis did not show findings suggestive of amyloidosis but consistent with chloroquine toxicity. Chloroquine-mediated cardiotoxicity is rare, and there are very few reports about bone scintigraphy imaging features.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine - safety profile of potential COVID-19 drugs from the rheumatologist's perspective

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic causes vital concerns due to the lack of proved, effective, and safe therapy. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine seem to be useful, but recently serious concerns regarding their adverse events have risen. The aim of the study was to broaden the general perspective of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine use in COVID-19 treatment, based on an analysis of their current safety profile among patients with rheumatic diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was based on a group of 152 patients with rheumatic diseases, aged 20-78 years, treated either with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Analyzed data included age, gender, comorbidities, type of drug, dosage, treatment duration, and reported adverse events. Cases of drug withdrawal related to adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

The dosage was consistent in both groups: 250 mg of chloroquine or 200 mg of hydroxychloroquine daily. 77.6% of patients did not experience any adverse reactions to the treatment. Hydroxychloroquine showed better safety profile, with 10.9% of patients reporting side-ffects, compared to 28.9% in patients treated with chloroquine. The overall incidence of ophthalmic complications was 6.6%. For both drugs, no statistically significant correlation between adverse events and age, chronic heart or liver disease, or hypertension was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine at lower doses, as used in rheumatic diseases, prove to be relatively safe. Data from the literature show that high dosage as recommended in COVID-19 treatment may pose a risk of toxicity and require precise management, but prophylactic, long-term use of lower, safe doses might be a promising solution.

SARS-CoV 2 Infection (Covid-19) and Cardiovascular Disease in Africa: Health Care and Socio-Economic Implications

The current pandemic of SARS-COV 2 infection (Covid-19) is challenging health systems and communities worldwide. At the individual level, the main biological system involved in Covid-19 is the respiratory system. Respiratory complications range from mild flu-like illness symptoms to a fatal respiratory distress syndrome or a severe and fulminant pneumonia. Critically, the presence of a pre-existing cardiovascular disease or its risk factors, such as hypertension or type II diabetes mellitus, increases the chance of having severe complications (including death) if infected by the virus. In addition, the infection can worsen an existing cardiovascular disease or precipitate new ones. This paper presents a contemporary review of cardiovascular complications of Covid-19. It also specifically examines the impact of the disease on those already vulnerable and on the poorly resourced health systems of Africa as well as the potential broader consequences on the socio-economic health of this region.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for severe chloroquine intoxication in a child - a case report

BACKGROUND

Chloroquine use has increased worldwide recently in the setting of experimental treatment for the novel coronavirus disease (Covid-19). Nevertheless, in case of chloroquine intoxication, it can be life threatening, with cardiac arrest, due to its cardiac toxicity.

CASE PRESENTATION

This case study reports on a 14-years-old girl who presented in cardiac arrest after an uncommon suicide attempt by ingesting 3 g of chloroquine. After 66 min of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) was initiated, allowing cardiac function to recover.

CONCLUSIONS

Chloroquine intoxication is a rare but serious condition due to its cardiac toxicity. Use of ECPR in this case of transient toxicity allowed a favorable evolution with little neurological impairment.

Interventions for cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus

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.

Ethosuximide inhibits acute histamine- and chloroquine-induced scratching behavior in mice

We have recently reported that the Cav3.2 T-type calcium channel which is well known for its key role in pain signalling, also mediates a critical function in the transmission of itch/pruritus. Here, we evaluated the effect of the clinically used anti-seizure medication ethosuximide, a well known inhibitor of T-type calcium channels, on male and female mice subjected to histaminergic- and non-histaminergic itch. When delivered intraperitoneally ethosuximide significantly reduced scratching behavior of mice of both sexes in response to subcutaneous injection of either histamine or chloroquine. When co-delivered subcutaneously together with either pruritogenic agent ethosuximide was also effective in inhibiting scratching responses in both male and female animals. Overall, our results are consistent with an important role of Cav3.2 T-type calcium channels in modulating histamine-dependent and histamine-independent itch transmission in the primary sensory pathway. Our findings also suggest that ethosuximide could be explored further as a possible therapeutic for the treatment of itch.

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality. Some specialists proposed chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating or preventing the disease. The efficacy and safety of these drugs have been assessed in randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for 1) treating people with COVID-19 on death and time to clearance of the virus; 2) preventing infection in people at risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 3) preventing infection in people exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the COVID-19-specific resources www.covid-nma.com and covid-19.cochrane.org, for studies of any publication status and in any language. We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020. We contacted researchers to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in people with COVID-19, people at risk of COVID-19 exposure, and people exposed to COVID-19. Adverse events (any, serious, and QT-interval prolongation on electrocardiogram) were also extracted.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of search results, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data for some studies. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model for outcomes where pooling of effect estimates was appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

1. Treatment of COVID-19 disease We included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults. Studies were from China (4); Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and North America (each 1 study); and a global study in 30 countries (1 study). Nine were in hospitalized patients, and three from ambulatory care. Disease severity, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of co-interventions varied substantially between trials. We found potential risks of bias across all domains for several trials. Nine trials compared HCQ with standard care (7779 participants), and one compared HCQ with placebo (491 participants); dosing schedules varied. HCQ makes little or no difference to death due to any cause (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.19; 8208 participants; 9 trials; high-certainty evidence). A sensitivity analysis using modified intention-to-treat results from three trials did not influence the pooled effect estimate.  HCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in little to no difference in progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 4521 participants; 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in an almost three-fold increased risk of adverse events (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.64; 1394 participants; 6 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.79; 1004 participants; 6 trials; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on time to clinical improvement or risk of prolongation of QT-interval on electrocardiogram (very low-certainty evidence). One trial (22 participants) randomized patients to CQ versus lopinavir/ritonavir, a drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, and did not report any difference for clinical recovery or adverse events. One trial compared HCQ combined with azithromycin against standard care (444 participants). This trial did not detect a difference in death, requirement for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital admission, or serious adverse events. A higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ-and-azithromycin arm; this included QT-interval prolongation, when measured. One trial compared HCQ with febuxostat, another drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (60 participants). There was no difference detected in risk of hospitalization or change in computed tomography (CT) scan appearance of the lungs; no deaths were reported. 2. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Ongoing trials are yet to report results for this objective. 3. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 One trial (821 participants) compared HCQ with placebo as a prophylactic agent in the USA (around 90% of participants) and Canada. Asymptomatic adults (66% healthcare workers; mean age 40 years; 73% without comorbidity) with a history of exposure to people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited. We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on the primary outcomes, for which few events were reported: 20/821 (2.4%) developed confirmed COVID-19 at 14 days from enrolment, and 2/821 (0.2%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (very low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.11; 700 participants; 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ may result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (no RR: no participants experienced serious adverse events; low-certainty evidence). One cluster-randomized trial (2525 participants) compared HCQ with standard care for the prevention of COVID-19 in people with a history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Most participants were working or residing in nursing homes; mean age was 49 years. There was no difference in the risk of symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 or production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between the two study arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.

Investigational Treatments for COVID-19 may Increase Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Through Drug Interactions

Many drugs that have been proposed for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are reported to cause cardiac adverse events, including ventricular arrhythmias. In order to properly weigh risks against potential benefits, particularly when decisions must be made quickly, mathematical modeling of both drug disposition and drug action can be useful for predicting patient response and making informed decisions. Here, we explored the potential effects on cardiac electrophysiology of four drugs proposed to treat COVID-19: lopinavir, ritonavir, chloroquine, and azithromycin, as well as combination therapy involving these drugs. Our study combined simulations of pharmacokinetics (PKs) with quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) modeling of ventricular myocytes to predict potential cardiac adverse events caused by these treatments. Simulation results predicted that drug combinations can lead to greater cellular action potential prolongation, analogous to QT prolongation, compared with drugs given in isolation. The combination effect can result from both PK and pharmacodynamic drug interactions. Importantly, simulations of different patient groups predicted that women with pre-existing heart disease are especially susceptible to drug-induced arrhythmias, compared with diseased men or healthy individuals of either sex. Statistical analysis of population simulations revealed the molecular factors that make certain women with heart failure especially susceptible to arrhythmias. Overall, the results illustrate how PK and QSP modeling may be combined to more precisely predict cardiac risks of COVID-19 therapies.

Cracking the Chloroquine Conundrum: The Application of Defective UiO-66 Metal-Organic Framework Materials to Prevent the Onset of Heart Defects-In Vivo and In Vitro

In this study, we present a modulated synthesis nanocrystalline defective UiO-66 metal-organic framework as a potential chloroquine diphosphate (CQ) delivery system. Increasing the concentration of hydrochloric acid during the modulated synthesis resulted in a considerable increase of pore volume, which enhanced the CQ loading in CQ@UiO-66 composites. Drug release tests for CQ@UiO-66 composites have confirmed prolonged CQ release in comparison with pure CQ. In vivo tests on a Danio reiro model organism have revealed that CQ released from CQ@UiO-66 25% showed lower toxicity and fewer cardiotoxic effects manifested by cardiac malformations and arrhythmia in comparison to analogous doses of CQ. Cytotoxicity tests proved that the CQ loaded on the defective UiO-66 cargo resulted in increased viability of cardiac cells (H9C2) as compared to incubation with pure CQ. The experimental results presented here may be a step forward in the context of reducing the cardiotoxicity CQ.

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.

Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

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.

Safety assessment of drug combinations used in COVID-19 treatment: in silico toxicogenomic data-mining approach

Improvement of COVID-19 clinical condition was seen in studies where combination of antiretroviral drugs, lopinavir and ritonavir, as well as immunomodulant antimalaric, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine together with the macrolide-type antibiotic, azithromycin, was used for patient's treatment. Although these drugs are "old", their pharmacological and toxicological profile in SARS-CoV-2 - infected patients are still unknown. Thus, by using in silico toxicogenomic data-mining approach, we aimed to assess both risks and benefits of the COVID-19 treatment with the most promising candidate drugs combinations: lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin. The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD; http://CTD.mdibl.org), Cytoscape software (https://cytoscape.org) and ToppGene Suite portal (https://toppgene.cchmc.org) served as a foundation in our research. Our results have demonstrated that lopinavir/ritonavir increased the expression of the genes involved in immune response and lipid metabolism (IL6, ICAM1, CCL2, TNF, APOA1, etc.). Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin interacted with 6 genes (CCL2, CTSB, CXCL8, IL1B, IL6 and TNF), whereas chloroquine and azithromycin affected two additional genes (BCL2L1 and CYP3A4), which might be a reason behind a greater number of consequential diseases. In contrast to lopinavir/ritonavir, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin downregulated the expression of TNF and IL6. As expected, inflammation, cardiotoxicity, and dyslipidaemias were revealed as the main risks of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment, while chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin therapy was additionally linked to gastrointestinal and skin diseases. According to our results, these drug combinations should be administrated with caution to patients suffering from cardiovascular problems, autoimmune diseases, or acquired and hereditary lipid disorders.

COVID-19 infection in known epileptic and non-epileptic children: what is the place of chloroquine sulfate? (a case report)

The coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) disease, which was declared in China in December 2019, very early on became a pandemic, claiming more than 28 million victims worldwide to date. Its impact on the central nervous system is still poorly understood. The objective of this work is to assess the involvement of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the aggravation of seizures in children known to have epilepsy and in the epileptogenesis of children hitherto seizure-free. Prior to conducting this work, we had obtained informed consent from patients and parents. We report the cases of three (3) patients, one known epileptic and the other two apparently healthy, who presented a febrile seizure in a context of COVID-19 infection. The aggravation of the epileptic seizure was indicative of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first patient, while the seizure occurred after induction of chloroquine sulfate treatment in the 2 other patients. Although our current concern is to limit the spread of the disease to COVID-19, it is crucial to address its possible complications. Notably, the worsening of seizures in children with epilepsy and the occurrence of first seizures in children without epilepsy following drug treatment. Equipping our COVID-19 patient management facilities with electroencephalogram (EEG) equipment could facilitate continuous electroencephalographic monitoring of children for proper management.

An overview of the safety assessment of medicines currently used in the COVID-19 disease treatment

On 11^th March 2020, the pandemic of the new coronavirus was declared by the World Health Organization. At the moment, there are no new registered medicines that can effectively treat the coronavirus infection. However, a number of ongoing clinical trials are investigating the efficacy and safety of the medicines which have already been registered and used for the treatment of other diseases, in the treatment of the coronavirus infection. The proposed combinations of these medicines could potentially present a safety risk, since most of these medicines have the potential to cause numerous side or toxic effects, even when used in monotherapy. Thus, the aim of this study was to review and evaluate the literature data on the toxicity of the selected individual drugs (ritonavir, lopinavir, remdesivir, chloroquine, and umifenovir) and the available clinical data concerning the possible adverse effects of the selected drug combinations (lopinavir/ritonavir + umifenovir, lopinavir/ritonavir + interferon β, chloroquine + remdesivir, and chloroquine + azithromycin). The most often reported toxic effects of these medicines such as hepatotoxicity, retinal damage, nephrotoxicity, and cardiotoxicity, together with the fact that the health status of the patients with COVID-19 disease is often complicated by co-existing illnesses and therapy implicate that the decision on the therapeutic strategy should be made with caution.