medRxiv - Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19

[Gert van der Hoek]

Joseph Magagnoli, Siddharth Narendran, Felipe Pere ira, Tammy Cummings, James W Hardin, S Scott Sutton, Jayakrishna Ambati
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

• Abstract
• Info/History
• Metrics
• Preview PDF

Abstract


BACKGROUND: Despite limited and conflicting data on the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized the emergency use of this drug when clinical trials are unavailable or infeasible. Hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin, is being widely used in Covid-19 therapy based on anecdotal and limited observational evidence.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from patients hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in all United States Veterans Health Administration medical centers until April 11, 2020. Patients were categorized based on their exposure to hydroxychloroquine alone (HC) or with azithromycin (HC+AZ) as treatments in addition to standard supportive management for Covid-19. The two primary outcomes were death and the need for mechanical ventilation. We determined the association between treatment and the primary outcomes using competing risk hazard regression adjusting for clinical characteristics via propensity scores.Discharge and death were taken into account as competing risks and subdistribution hazard ratios are presented.

RESULTS: A total of 368 patients were evaluated (HC, n=97; HC+AZ, n=113; no HC, n=158). Rates of death in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 27.8%, 22.1%, 11.4%, respectively. Rates of ventilation in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 13.3%, 6.9%, 14.1%, respectively. Compared to the no HC group, the risk of death from any cause was higher in the HC group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.10 to 6.17; P=0.03) but not in the HC+AZ group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.32; P=0.72). The risk of ventilation was similar in the HC group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.53 to 3.79; P=0.48) and in the HC+AZ group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.12; P=0.09), compared to the no HC group.

CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone.

These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs.

 

[Pathfinder]

Response to Magagnoli, MedRxiv, 2020

Matthieu MILLION1,2, Yanis ROUSSEL1,2, Didier RAOULT1,2

1 IHU-M?diterran?e Infection, Marseille, France
2 Aix Marseille Univ, IRD, AP-HM, MEPHI, Marseille, France

In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and
may lead to scientific misconduct. The article by Magagnoli et al. (Magagnoli, 2020) is an absolutely
spectacular example of this. Indeed, in this work, it is concluded, in the end, that hydroxychloroquine
(HCQ) would double the mortality in patients with COVID with a fatality rate of 28% (versus 11% in
the NoHCQ group), which is extraordinarily hard to believe. The analysis of the data shows two major
biases, which show a welling to be convinced before starting the work :

The first is that lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups (25% in the HCQ, 31% in the
HCQ+AZ group versus 14% in the no HCQ group, p =.02) and there is an absolute correlation between
lymphopenia (<0.5G/L) and fatality rate, which is well known (Tan, 2020) and confirmed here : 28%
deaths, 22% and 11% in the HCQ, HCQ+AZ and No HCQ group, respectively. Lymphopenia is the most
obvious criterion of patient severity (in our cohort, lymphocytes in dead individuals (n=22, mean ?
standard deviation, 0.94 ? 0.45), versus in the living (n=2405, 1.79 ? 0.84, p < .0001)). As the authors
acknowledge, the severity of the patients in the different groups was very different, and their
analysis can only make sense if there is a selection of patients with the same degree of severity, i.e.
the same percentage of lymphopenia.

The second major bias is that in an attempt to provide meaningful data, by eliminating the initial
severity at the time of treatment, two tables are shown: one table where drugs are prescribed before
intubation, and which shows no significant difference in the 3 different groups (9/90 (10%) in the
HCQ group, 11/101 (10. 9%) HCQ+AZ, and 15/177 (8.5%) in the group without HCQ, chi-square =
0.47, ddl = 2, p = 0.79), and one table, where it is not clear when the drugs were prescribed, where
there are significant differences. These differences are most likely related to the fact that the
patients had been intubated for some before receiving hydroxychloroquine in desperation. It is
notable that this is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm, as it is unlikely that
hydrochloroquine alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.

Moreover, incomprehensibly, the “untreated” group actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases,
without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for
COVID (Gautret, 2020) with in vitro efficacy (Andreani, 2020), and to mix it with patients who are
supposedly untreated is something that is closer to scientific fraud than reasonable analysis.
Altogether these 3 voluntary biases are all pushing to the idea of dangerosity of hydroxychloroquine
safest drug as reported on nearly 1 million people (Lane, 2020).

All in all, this is a work that shows that, in this period, it is possible to propose things that do not
stand up to any methodological analysis to try to demonstrate that one is right.

References
Andreani J, Le Bideau M, Duflot I, Jardot P, Rolland C, Boxberger M, Wurtz N, Rolain JM, Colson P, La
Scola B, Raoult D. In vitro testing of combined Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin on SARS-CoV-2
shows synergistic effect. Microbial pathogenesis. 2020. In press.
Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, Hoang VT, Meddeb L, Mailhe M, Doudier B, Courjon J, Giordanengo V,
Vieira VE, Dupont HT, Honor? S, Colson P, Chabri?re E, La Scola B, Rolain JM, Brouqui P, Raoult D.
Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label nonrandomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 20:105949. doi:
10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949.
Lane JCE, Weaver J, Kostka K, et al. Safety of hydroxychloroquine, alone and in combination with
azithromycin, in light of rapid wide-spread use for COVID-19: a multinational, network cohort and
self-controlled case series study. medRxiv 2020.04.08.20054551; doi:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.08.20054551
Magagnoli J, Narendran S, Pereira F, Cummings T, Hardin JW, Sutton SS, Ambati J. Outcomes of
hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19. medRxiv
2020.04.16.20065920; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920
Tan, L., Wang, Q., Zhang, D. et al. Lymphopenia predicts disease severity of COVID-19: a descriptive
and predictive study. Sig Transduct Target Ther 5, 33 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-020-
0148-4.

https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Response-to-Magagnoli.pdf

 

[Emily]

My questions about the validity of the Magagnoli study have been answered. Thank you for finding this, Pathfinder.