SUMMARY OBJECTIVE To present scientific evidence based on a systematic review of the literature (PRISMA), aiming to systematize evidence of the ototoxic effects of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). METHODS The studies were selected using a combination based on the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). The databases searched were MEDLINE (PubMed), LILACS, SciELO, and BIREME, encompassing articles from January 2010 to May 2020, with no restrictions of language and place of publication. RESULTS A total of 148 articles with the potential to be included were retrieved. Of these, two answered the research question, which consisted of seeking evidence of the ototoxic effects of hydroxychloroquine. These studies scored 11 in their quality assessment with the modified protocol by Pithon et al.13. CONCLUSIONS The studies reported possible ototoxicity of HCQ. Audiovestibular changes, such as hearing loss, peripheral vestibular syndrome, and tinnitus were evidenced in patients submitted to HCQ. The improvement in the audiological examinations and the regression in the vestibular syndrome after stopping the treatment with HCQ are strong arguments in favor of the ototoxicity caused by this medication. However, there are still divergences about the relationship between ototoxic effects and the use of HCQ.

OBJECTIVE: To present scientific evidence based on a systematic review of the literature (PRISMA), aiming to systematize evidence of the ototoxic effects of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). METHODS: The studies were selected using a combination based on the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). The databases searched were MEDLINE (PubMed), LILACS, SciELO, and BIREME, encompassing articles from January 2010 to May 2020, with no restrictions of language and place of publication. RESULTS: A total of 148 articles with the potential to be included were retrieved. Of these, two answered the research question, which consisted of seeking evidence of the ototoxic effects of hydroxychloroquine. These studies scored 11 in their quality assessment with the modified protocol by Pithon et al.13. CONCLUSIONS: The studies reported possible ototoxicity of HCQ. Audiovestibular changes, such as hearing loss, peripheral vestibular syndrome, and tinnitus were evidenced in patients submitted to HCQ. The improvement in the audiological examinations and the regression in the vestibular syndrome after stopping the treatment with HCQ are strong arguments in favor of the ototoxicity caused by this medication. However, there are still divergences about the relationship between ototoxic effects and the use of HCQ.

OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to explore and summarize information from available cases of pediatric acute hydroxychloroquine overdose with confirmed hydroxychloroquine exposure to give the clinicians a helpful perspective for its better recognition and management. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO and Serbian Citation Index. The abstracts from 2 toxicology conferences were manually checked for additional relevant publications, as well as reference lists of the retrieved publications. Descriptive statistics, narrative summation, and tabulation of the extracted data were made. RESULTS: Nine publications and a total of 9 patients were included in the review. Reported age of the patients varied from 2.5 to 16 years (median, 16 years). There were more female patients (77.8%). Estimated total ingested hydroxychloroquine dose was reported in 7 cases (77.8%), and it ranged from 4.0 to 20.0 g (median: 12.0 g). Four patients (44.4%) ingested hydroxychloroquine with a coingestant. Altered mental status (100.0%), cardiotoxicity (88.9%), hypotension (77.8%), and hypokalemia (55.6%) were the most commonly reported clinical manifestations. The majority of the patients were hospitalized (88.9%). More than half of the patients (55.6%) were reported to be treated in the intensive care unit. Most frequently reported therapeutic measures were the following: administration of intravenous fluids/infusions (77.8%), vasopressors (77.8%), bicarbonate therapy-sodium bicarbonate (66.7%), potassium replacement (55.6%), and intubation/ventilation (55.6%). Three patients (33.3%) died. CONCLUSIONS: Management of acute hydroxychloroquine overdose in children should be symptomatic and tailored to observed clinical manifestations. There is a need for additional investigations to better understand the impact and effectiveness of various treatment options.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has recently been reported to be a promising and safe anti-proteinuric agent for IgA nephropathy (IgAN) patients. In the present systematic review, we aimed to summarize the evidence concerning the benefits and risks of HCQ therapy in IgAN. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for randomized, cohort, or case-control studies with IgAN biopsy-proven patients comparing the effects of HCQ with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers or immunosuppression on proteinuria reduction. RESULTS: Five studies, one randomized and three observational, involving a total of 504 patients, were eligible for inclusion. Overall, there was a tendency of HCQ treatment to reduce proteinuria. In the studies where the control arm was supportive therapy, HCQ significantly reduced proteinuria at 6 months. However, in the studies that compared HCQ to immunosuppressive therapy, we found no difference in proteinuria reduction. HCQ had no impact on eGFR. CONCLUSION: HCQ seems to be an efficient alternative therapy for patients with IgAN who insufficiently respond to conventional therapy. However, ethnically diverse randomized controlled studies with long-term follow-up are needed.

BACKGROUND: The global spread of COVID-19 and the lack of definite treatment have caused an alarming crisis in the world. We aimed to evaluate the outcome and potential harmful cardiac effects of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin compared to hydroxychloroquine alone for COVID-19 treatment. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and World Health Organization clinical trial registry were searched using appropriate keywords and identified six studies using PRISMA guidelines. The quantitative synthesis was performed using fixed or random effects for the pooling of studies based on heterogeneities. RESULTS: The risk of mortality (RR=1.16; CI: 0.92-1.46) and adverse cardiac events (OR=1.06; CI: 0.82-1.37) demonstrated a small increment though of no significance. There were no increased odds of mechanical ventilation (OR=0.84; CI: 0.33-2.15) and significant QTc prolongation (OR=0.84, CI: 0.59-1.21). Neither the critical QTc threshold (OR=1.92, CI: 0.81-4.56) nor absolute ?QTc ?60ms (OR=1.95, CI:0.55-6.96) increased to the level of statistical significance among hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin arm compared to hydroxychloroquine alone, but the slightly increased odds need to be considered in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin leads to small increased odds of mortality and cardiac events compared to hydroxychloroquine alone. The use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin led to increased odds of QT prolongation, although not statistically significant.

INTRODUCTION: The Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) is a picture of serious global health crisis and represents a situation of great uncertainty due to the lack of knowledge about the virus and about the management of patients that has been growing exponentially. Therefore, hypotheses have been raised for several drugs, including chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (drugs used in the treatment of malaria and rheumatologic disorders). AIM: To identify and systematically evaluate the best available scientific evidence on the effectiveness and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: It is a literature review, which used the electronic search in the Virtual Health Library (VHL) and in PubMed, of studies in Portuguese or English, published in the last year, which presented the descriptors: "Coronavirus" or "Coronavirus Infections" "Chloroquine" and "Hydroxychloroquine", together with the Boolean operator "AND". For data analysis and interpretation the Bardin Content Analysis Method was used. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles out of the three hundred and sixty-two publications found met the inclusion criteria and were used to compose this review. The scientific literature, in general, is still divergent regarding the effectiveness of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 disease. Most of the authors show that these drugs have little or no benefit, moreover, although these medications are safe, the borderline between therapeutic and toxic doses is narrow and severe disorders can be fatal. CONCLUSION: In view of the arguments presented, it is concluded that caution is needed regarding the use of these drugs in the treatment of patients infected by the new coronavirus, especially if the low level of evidence currently available and the possible adverse events of drug use are considered. It is expected that more studies on the subject will emerge in favor of minimizing the impacts of the coronavirus on the health of the population.

OBJECTIVE: Early in December 2019, a mass of sufferers with Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (SAS-CoV-19) in Wuhan (China) roused worldwide concern. Hardly any drugs showed the light of hope concerning the depletion in the period of treatment and virological suppression is troubled. Furthermore, numerous sufferers have undergone off-label use or compassionate use treatments as well as antiretroviral, antiparasitic agents, anti-inflammatory compounds, and convales-cent plasma in either oral/parenteral route. This study aims to compile and analyze the efficient value of Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine and give an insight to their drug profile in the treatment and management of COVID-19 patients. METHOD: The literature search from PubMed, Crossref, Springer, Bentham Sciences, Google Scholar, DOAJ, ScienceDirect, and MEDLINE by using keywords like COVID-19, SAS-COV-2, Remdesivir, and hydroxychloroquine was done and ap-propriate peer-reviewed review articles, as well as research articles, were included and compiled in this review paper. The figures were prepared by using ChemOffice 2016 (ChemDraw Professional 2016) and Microsoft Office. RESULTS: The results of this study indicate that remdesivir in 5/10 studies from collected literature show a reduction in time of recovery and 5/10 shows no variance and having limitations. However, 6/12 shows an increase in the survival/reduction in time of recovery and 6/12 shows no effect or has limitations in the case of hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSION: There is a need to assess more pharmacokinetics and randomized controlled trials (RCT) for both remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine. Furthermore, studies should be conducted in different combinations along with hydroxychloro-quine and remdesivir to get efficient results.

Introduction Since December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread throughout the world with a large medical and economic impact. On March 12, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified SARS-CoV-2 as a pandemic. As a result of this worldwide public health crisis, politicians, elected officials, and healthcare professionals emergently began trialing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in efforts to treat and prevent the transmission of the virus. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the effects of HCQ on patients with COVID-19. Methods  This meta-analysis adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRIMA) guidelines. Selected articles published between December 2019 and July 2020 were found utilizing the following search engines: PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, DisasterLit, Clinicaltrials.gov, Medrxiv, and Embase. Two independent physician reviewers screened eligible articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the analysis. The outcome measures analyzed were mortality rate, rate of disease progression/improvement, rate of disease severity, and adverse effects of treatment. Six out of 14 studies that met the study's eligibility criteria were selected and further analyzed, with a total of 381 participants (n= 381). Conclusion From the studies analyzed, it was found that groups treated with HCQ had an overall mortality rate that was 2.5 times greater than that of the control group. HCQ treated patients had higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes and side effects compared with the control populations. Lastly, there was a 1.2 times higher rate of improvement in the group of HCQ treated patients with mild to moderate symptoms as compared to the control group.

INTRODUCTION: Given the current lack of an approved and effective treatment or vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), repositioning old drugs for use as an antiviral treatment is an interesting strategy because knowledge about these drugs' safety profile, posology, and drug interactions is already known. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, widely used as antimalarial and autoimmune disease drugs, have recently been reported as a potential broad-spectrum antiviral drug. BACKGROUND: The in vitro antiviral activity of chloroquine has been identified since the late 1960s. However, antiviral mechanisms of chloroquine remain speculative. Several clinical trials have been conducted to test the efficacy and safety of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19-associated pneumonia. The quality of the studies and the outcomes are evaluated in this systematic review and meta-analysis. REVIEW RESULTS: Literature review revealed 23 clinical studies. Only 9 of 23 studies were randomized controlled trials. Of nine randomized controlled trials, only study by Skipper et al. was deemed to be at low risk of bias. All studies evaluated variedwith different outcomes. Mechanical ventilation and virological clearance were the only common outcomes evaluated in more than two studies. Virological clearance odds ratio (OR) was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.57-2.73; Chi2 = 0.83; I2 = 0%). GRADE quality of evidence was downgraded by three levels to very low due to concerns about the risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. For mechanical ventilation, OR was 1.09 (95% CI 0.80-1.50; Chi2 = 0; I2 = 0). GRADE quality of evidence was downgraded by two levels to low due to concerns about the risk of bias and imprecision. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for these two outcomes. CONCLUSION: As per the available evidence, based on our review, we conclude that hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine has not shown to be beneficial when used for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Shetty RM, Namachivayam A. Evidence for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine in the Treatment of COVID-19. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(4):441-452.

Rapid access to evidence is crucial in times of evolving clinical crisis. To that end, we propose a novel mechanism to answer clinical queries: Rapid Meta-Analysis (RMA). Unlike traditional meta-analysis, RMA balances quick time-to-production with reasonable data quality assurances, leveraging Artificial Intelligence to strike this balance. This article presents an example RMA to a currently relevant clinical question: Is ocular toxicity and vision compromise a side effect with hydroxychloroquine therapy? As of this writing, hydroxychloroquine is a leading candidate in the treatment of COVID-19. By combining AI with human analysis, our RMA identified 11 studies looking at ocular toxicity as a side effect and estimated the incidence to be 3.4% (95% CI: 1.11-9.96%). The heterogeneity across the individual study findings was high, and interpretation of the result should take this into account. Importantly, this RMA, from search to screen to analysis, took less than 30 minutes to produce.