Suppr超能文献

羟氯喹安全性:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

Hydroxychloroquine safety: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

机构信息

Faculty of Pharmacy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.

Faculty of Pharmacy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 Jul-Aug;36:101812. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101812. Epub 2020 Jul 6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is currently being examined for COVID-19. No previous meta-analysis has evaluated its side effects versus placebo. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the safety of HCQ versus placebo.

METHODS

Two authors independently searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults comparing the adverse events (AEs) of HCQ versus placebo for any indication. Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on random-effects models. The heterogeneity (I) was assessed using Cochran's Q test.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs (eight were double-blind) with a total of 916 patients were included. HCQ caused significantly more skin pigmentation than placebo (Peto OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.13 to 19.00; P-value = 0.033; I = 0%). The increase in other AEs did not reach statistical significance: rash (Peto OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.3 to 3.77; P-value = 0.03; I = 0%); gastrointestinal AEs (Peto OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.55 to 3.72; P-value = 0.46; I = 15.17%); headache (Peto OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.65 to 5.78; P-value = 0.23; I = 9.99%); dizziness (Peto OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.49 to 3.52; P-value = 0.58; I = 0%); fatigue (Peto OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.76 to 5.98; P-value = 0.15; I = 0%); and visual AEs (Peto OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.76 to 3.41; P-value = 0.22; I = 0%). Cardiac toxicity was not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of RCTs found a significantly higher risk of skin pigmentation in HCQ users versus placebo. More data are needed to evaluate HCQ in the context of COVID-19 treatment.

摘要

背景

羟氯喹(HCQ)目前正在研究用于治疗 COVID-19。此前没有进行过荟萃分析来评估其与安慰剂相比的副作用。我们进行这项荟萃分析是为了比较 HCQ 与安慰剂的安全性。

方法

两位作者独立检索了 PubMed 和 EMBASE 数据库,以寻找比较 HCQ 与安慰剂用于任何适应症的不良事件(AE)的成人随机对照试验(RCT)。根据随机效应模型计算 Peto 比值比(Peto OR)和 95%置信区间(CI)。使用 Cochran's Q 检验评估异质性(I)。

结果

纳入了 9 项 RCT(其中 8 项为双盲),共 916 名患者。与安慰剂相比,HCQ 导致皮肤色素沉着的风险显著增加(Peto OR,4.64;95%CI,1.13 至 19.00;P 值=0.033;I=0%)。其他 AE 的增加未达到统计学意义:皮疹(Peto OR,1.11;95%CI,0.3 至 3.77;P 值=0.03;I=0%);胃肠道 AE(Peto OR,1.43;95%CI,0.55 至 3.72;P 值=0.46;I=15.17%);头痛(Peto OR,1.94;95%CI,0.65 至 5.78;P 值=0.23;I=9.99%);头晕(Peto OR,1.32;95%CI,0.49 至 3.52;P 值=0.58;I=0%);疲劳(Peto OR,2.13;95%CI,0.76 至 5.98;P 值=0.15;I=0%)和视觉 AE(Peto OR,1.61;95%CI,0.76 至 3.41;P 值=0.22;I=0%)。未报告心脏毒性。

结论

这项 RCT 的荟萃分析发现,HCQ 使用者皮肤色素沉着的风险明显高于安慰剂。需要更多的数据来评估 HCQ 在 COVID-19 治疗中的作用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/31ff/7342171/a01c94c957a1/gr1_lrg.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验