Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences L. Sacco, "Luigi Sacco" University Hospital, Università di Milano, Milan, Italy.
School of Pharmacy, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;101:107-120. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1470. Epub 2020 Sep 29.
We critically evaluated the quality of evidence and quality of harm reporting in clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or chloroquine (CQ) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Scientific databases were systematically searched to identify relevant trials of HCQ/CQ for the treatment of COVID-19 published up to 10 September 2020. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials and non-randomized trials of interventions were used to assess risk of bias in the included studies. A 10-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension was used to assess quality of harm reporting in the included trials.
Sixteen trials, including fourteen randomized trials and two non-randomized trials, met the inclusion criteria. The results from the included trials were conflicting and lacked effect estimates adjusted for baseline disease severity or comorbidities in many cases, and most of the trials recruited a fairly small cohort of patients. None of the clinical trials met the CONSORT criteria in full for reporting harm data in clinical trials. None of the 16 trials had an overall 'low' risk of bias, while four of the trials had a 'high', 'critical', or 'serious' risk of bias. Biases observed in these trials arise from the randomization process, potential deviation from intended interventions, outcome measurements, selective reporting, confounding, participant selection, and/or classification of interventions.
In general, the quality of currently available evidence for the effectiveness of CQ/HCQ in patients with COVID-19 is suboptimal. The importance of a properly designed and reported clinical trial cannot be overemphasized amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and its dismissal could lead to poorer clinical and policy decisions, resulting in wastage of already stretched invaluable health care resources.
我们批判性地评估了评估羟氯喹(HCQ)或氯喹(CQ)治疗 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)疗效的临床试验的证据质量和不良事件报告质量。
系统检索科学数据库,以确定截至 2020 年 9 月 10 日发表的关于 HCQ/CQ 治疗 COVID-19 的相关试验。使用 Cochrane 随机试验和干预措施的非随机试验偏倚风险工具评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。使用 10 项 CONSORT 扩展不良事件报告标准来评估纳入试验的不良事件报告质量。
16 项试验,包括 14 项随机试验和 2 项非随机试验,符合纳入标准。纳入试验的结果相互矛盾,在许多情况下缺乏调整基线疾病严重程度或合并症的效应估计值,而且大多数试验招募的患者队列相对较小。在临床试验中,没有一项完全符合 CONSORT 标准来报告不良事件数据。在 16 项试验中,没有一项试验总体上具有“低”偏倚风险,而有 4 项试验具有“高”、“关键”或“严重”偏倚风险。这些试验中观察到的偏倚来自于随机化过程、潜在的偏离预期干预措施、结局测量、选择性报告、混杂、参与者选择和/或干预措施分类。
一般来说,目前关于 CQ/HCQ 治疗 COVID-19 患者有效性的证据质量不理想。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,强调适当设计和报告临床试验的重要性怎么强调都不为过,而忽视它可能导致更差的临床和政策决策,导致宝贵的卫生保健资源浪费。