Cited by 1,038COVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchLong-Term Effects of COVID-19

Effect of High vs Low Doses of Chloroquine Diphosphate as Adjunctive Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Borba, Mayla Gabriela Silva, Val, Fernando Fonseca Almeida, Sampaio, Vanderson Souza, Alexandre, Marcia Almeida Araújo, Melo, Gisely Cardoso, Brito, Marcelo, Mourão, Maria Paula Gomes, Brito-Sousa, José Diego +21 more·2020·JAMA Network Open

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Importance: There is no specific antiviral therapy recommended for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In vitro studies indicate that the antiviral effect of chloroquine diphosphate (CQ) requires a high concentration of the drug. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 CQ dosages in patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, double-masked, randomized, phase IIb clinical trial with 81 adult patients who were hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was conducted from March 23 to April 5, 2020, at a tertiary care facility in Manaus, Brazilian Amazon. Interventions: Patients were allocated to receive high-dosage CQ (ie, 600 mg CQ twice daily for 10 days) or low-dosage CQ (ie, 450 mg twice daily on day 1 and once daily for 4 days). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was reduction in lethality by at least 50% in the high-dosage group compared with the low-dosage group. Data presented here refer primarily to safety and lethality outcomes during treatment on day 13. Secondary end points included participant clinical status, laboratory examinations, and electrocardiogram results. Outcomes will be presented to day 28. Viral respiratory secretion RNA detection was performed on days 0 and 4. Results: Out of a predefined sample size of 440 patients, 81 were enrolled (41 [50.6%] to high-dosage group and 40 [49.4%] to low-dosage group). Enrolled patients had a mean (SD) age of 51.1 (13.9) years, and most (60 [75.3%]) were men. Older age (mean [SD] age, 54.7 [13.7] years vs 47.4 [13.3] years) and more heart disease (5 of 28 [17.9%] vs 0) were seen in the high-dose group. Viral RNA was detected in 31 of 40 (77.5%) and 31 of 41 (75.6%) patients in the low-dosage and high-dosage groups, respectively. Lethality until day 13 was 39.0% in the high-dosage group (16 of 41) and 15.0% in the low-dosage group (6 of 40). The high-dosage group presented more instance of QTc interval greater than 500 milliseconds (7 of 37 [18.9%]) compared with the low-dosage group (4 of 36 [11.1%]). Respiratory secretion at day 4 was negative in only 6 of 27 patients (22.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: The preliminary findings of this study suggest that the higher CQ dosage should not be recommended for critically ill patients with COVID-19 because of its potential safety hazards, especially when taken concurrently with azithromycin and oseltamivir. These findings cannot be extrapolated to patients with nonsevere COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04323527.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8857

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [15]Science Direct. Chloroquine retinopathy. Accessed March 20, 2020. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/chloroquine-retinopathy
  2. [32]Keyaerts E, Vijgen L, Maes P, Neyts J, Van Ranst M. In vitro inhibition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus by chloroquine. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004; 323(1): 264- 268. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.08.085 15351731 PMC7092815 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borba, M. G. S., Val, F. F. A., Sampaio, V. S., Alexandre, M. A. A., Melo, G. C., Brito, M., Mourão, M. P. G., Brito-Sousa, J. D., Baía-da-Silva, D., Guerra, M. V. F., Hajjar, L. A., Pinto, R. C., Balieiro, A. A. S., Pacheco, A. G. F., Santos, J. D. O., Naveca, F. G., Xavier, M. S., Siqueira, A. M., Schwarzbold, A., Croda, J., Nogueira, M. L., Romero, G. A. S., Bassat, Q., Fontes, C. J., Albuquerque, B. C., Daniel-Ribeiro, C.-T., Monteiro, W. M., Lacerda, M. V. G., & for the CloroCovid-19 Team
Affiliations
  • Fundação de Medicina Tropical (BR)
  • Fundação de Medicina Tropical Dr Heitor Vieira Dourado, Manaus, Brazil
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Fundação de Vigilância em Saúde do Amazonas, Manaus, Brazil
  • Instituto Leônidas and Maria Deane, Fiocruz Amazonas, Manaus, Brazil
  • Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (BR)
  • Universidade Federal do Amazonas (BR)
  • Fiocruz Amazônia (BR)
  • Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (BR)
  • Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul (BR)
  • Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto (BR)
  • Universidade de Brasília (BR)
  • Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES)
  • Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso, Brazil
  • Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Corresponding author
Lacerda, Marcus Vinícius Guimarães
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2020-04-24
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
e208857
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3020239101
Cited by
1,038
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 93 · 2021: 297 · 2020: 575 · 2019: 1
FWCI
32.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Arca - Repositório Institucional da Fiocruz (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Generalitat de Catalunya
  • Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
Keywords
chloroquine phosphate, COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, mortality, viral load, drug safety, adverse events, hospitalized patients, electrocardiographic changes, heart disease comorbidity, viral RNA detection
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Aged, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Antiviral Agents, Brazil, Chloroquine, Disease Outbreaks, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pneumonia, Viral, Azithromycin, Coronavirus Infections, Oseltamivir, Pandemics, Tertiary Care Centers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review