Sunday, April 9, 2023
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) Flips from Not Good (June 2021) to Good it Works with Azithromycin(April 2023). 2023-04-09. Jorma Jyrkkanen
During early Pandemic
nature scientific reports articles
Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Open Access
Published: 07 June 2021
Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bahman Amani, Ahmad Khanijahani & Behnam Amani
Scientific Reports volume 11, Article number: 11974 (2021) Cite this article
4674 Accesses
12 Citations
41 Altmetric
Metrics details
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: − 1.06, 95% CI − 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: − 0.64, 95% CI − 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.
Today 2023-04-09
Summary Conclusion
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) Good or Bad (June 2021). The Jury May Have Just Changed its Mind (April 2023).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
MOJMIR BABACHEK ON EMF FREQUNCIES ON PHYSIOLOGY HEALTH AND BEHAVIOUR REPOST OCT 2023
In the year 1962 the American scientist Allan H. Frey carried out experiments with pulsed microwaves, which produced clicking, buzz, hissing...
-
FAUCI AND GATES FUNDED GAIN OF FUNCTION ON H5N1 Technical Report: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Viruses EspaƱol | Other Language...
-
Environment Gene Interactions Just another WordPress.com weblog « Chimp Origin of AIDS in Koprowski’s Live Polio Vaccinations of Leopoldvil...
-
Biden-US Govt DOD Funded ECOHEALTH In Wuhan and 46 others in Ukraine 2023-01-30 in possible contravention of the UN Convention Prohibiting ...
No comments:
Post a Comment