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.

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.

Methods Used to Maximize Follow-Up: Lessons Learned From the Therapeutic Hypothermia After Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Trials.

OBJECTIVES: To describe telephone interview completion rates among 12-month cardiac arrest survivors enrolled in the Therapeutic Hypothermia after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest In-Hospital and Out-of-Hospital trials, identify key characteristics of the completed follow-up interviews at both 3- and 12-month postcardiac arrest, and describe strategies implemented to promote follow-up. SETTING: Centralized telephone follow-up interviews. DESIGN: Retrospective report of data collected for Therapeutic Hypothermia after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest trials, and summary of strategies used to maximize follow-up completion. PATIENTS: Twelve-month survivors (n = 251) from 39 Therapeutic Hypothermia after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest PICU sites in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 3- and 12-month telephone interviews included completion of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition data were available on 96% of 3-month survivors (242/251) and 95% of 12-month survivors (239/251) with no differences in demographics between those with and without completed Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition. At 12 months, a substantial minority of interviews were completed with caregivers other than parents (10%), after calls attempts were made on 6 or more days (18%), and during evenings/weekends (17%). Strategies included emphasizing the relationship between study teams and participants, ongoing communication between study team members across sites, promoting site engagement during the study's final year, and withholding payment for work associated with the primary outcome until work had been completed. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to use telephone follow-up interviews to successfully collect detailed neurobehavioral outcome about children following pediatric cardiac arrest. Future studies should consider availability of the telephone interviewer to conduct calls at times convenient for families, using a range of respondents, ongoing engagement with site teams, and site payment related to primary outcome completion.

Practice Patterns after the Therapeutic Hypothermia After Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Out-of-Hospital Trial: A Survey of Pediatric Critical Care Physicians.

The Therapeutic Hypothermia After Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Out-of-Hospital (THAPCA-OH) Trial showed therapeutic hypothermia, versus normothermia, did not significantly improve 1-year survival with good neurobehavioral outcome. Our survey of pediatric critical care physicians, designed to assess the use of targeted temperature management (TTM) after publication of the main THAPCA-OH Trial results, found most respondents were aware of trial results, and over 90% agreed THAPCA-OH was well-designed with important clinical outcomes. While most respondents reported TTM usage consistent with THAPCA-OH results in different patient scenarios, 15% did not select TTM for fever management. Since trials prior to THAPCA-OH established that fever is harmful following brain injury, the continued incomplete adoption of TTM warrants further research on challenges and facilitators to the adoption of clinical trial findings.

Therapeutic Hypothermia after In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Children.

BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management is recommended for comatose adults and children after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; however, data on temperature management after in-hospital cardiac arrest are limited. METHODS: In a trial conducted at 37 children's hospitals, we compared two temperature interventions in children who had had in-hospital cardiac arrest. Within 6 hours after the return of circulation, comatose children older than 48 hours and younger than 18 years of age were randomly assigned to therapeutic hypothermia (target temperature, 33.0°C) or therapeutic normothermia (target temperature, 36.8°C). The primary efficacy outcome, survival at 12 months after cardiac arrest with a score of 70 or higher on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, second edition (VABS-II, on which scores range from 20 to 160, with higher scores indicating better function), was evaluated among patients who had had a VABS-II score of at least 70 before the cardiac arrest. RESULTS: The trial was terminated because of futility after 329 patients had undergone randomization. Among the 257 patients who had a VABS-II score of at least 70 before cardiac arrest and who could be evaluated, the rate of the primary efficacy outcome did not differ significantly between the hypothermia group and the normothermia group (36% [48 of 133 patients] and 39% [48 of 124 patients], respectively; relative risk, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 1.27; P=0.63). Among 317 patients who could be evaluated for change in neurobehavioral function, the change in VABS-II score from baseline to 12 months did not differ significantly between the groups (P=0.70). Among 327 patients who could be evaluated for 1-year survival, the rate of 1-year survival did not differ significantly between the hypothermia group and the normothermia group (49% [81 of 166 patients] and 46% [74 of 161 patients], respectively; relative risk, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.34; P=0.56). The incidences of blood-product use, infection, and serious adverse events, as well as 28-day mortality, did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among comatose children who survived in-hospital cardiac arrest, therapeutic hypothermia, as compared with therapeutic normothermia, did not confer a significant benefit in survival with a favorable functional outcome at 1 year. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; THAPCA-IH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00880087 .).