hydroxychloroquine versus control in COVID 19 outpatients, (subgroup)

hospitalization

Study Studied vs control treatments Type Study endpoint Relative effect (95%CI) x1/n1 x0/n0 Study risk of bias Indirectness Remarks Tags
BCN PEP-CoV-2-Study 2 (Mitja et al. Clin Infect Dis), 2020 NCT04304053 hydroxychloroquine vs standard of care RCT hospitalization 0.75 [0.32;1.77] -/137   -/157 some concern
- published
PATCH Cohort 1 (Amaravadi), 2021 NCT04329923 hydroxychloroquine vs standard of care RCT hospitalization 1.79 [0.06;57.93] C 1/15   0/13 some concern
-
Meta-analysis 0.79 [0.34; 1.81]
I2 = 0 %
-/152   -/170 some concern no overall indirectness k=2 studies; N=322 patients overall
x1: number of event in experimental group (studied treatment); n1: sample size of experimental group; x0: number of event in control group (control treatment); n0: sample size of control group;
Study risk of bias assessed for the study primary endpoint(s) or the main endpoints in case of no formally defined primary endpoint(s);
Conclusive (statistically conclusive): statistically significant with a strict control of overall risk of type 1 error (statistically demonstrated), does not take into account the risk of bias;

Forest plot

hydroxychloroquine in COVID 19 outpatients
hospitalization StudyTE95% CInROB BCN PEP-CoV-2-Study 2, 2020 1 BCN PEP-CoV-2-Study 2 (Mitja et al. Clin Infect Dis), 2020 hospitalization 0.75[0.32; 1.77]294some concern PATCH Cohort 1, 2021 2 PATCH Cohort 1 (Amaravadi), 2021 hospitalization 1.79[0.06; 57.93]28some concern Total I2 = 0% 0.79[0.34; 1.81]322some concern0.55.01.0studied trt. betterrelative treatment effectwww.metaEvidence.org2021-09-29 04:01 +02:00

1: Mitja et al. Clin Infect Dis; 2: Amaravadi;

Sensitivity analysis

SubsetOR95% CInkI2ROB randomized trialstitle aaa 0.79[0.34; 1.81]3220%moderate2 BCN PEP-CoV-2-Study 2 (Mitja et al. Clin Infect Dis), 2020, PATCH Cohort 1 (Amaravadi), 2021 observational studiestitle aaa -----0 low risk of biastitle aaa 0.79[0.34; 1.81]3220%moderate2 BCN PEP-CoV-2-Study 2 (Mitja et al. Clin Infect Dis), 2020, PATCH Cohort 1 (Amaravadi), 2021 high risk of biastitle aaa -----0 all studiestitle aaa 0.79[0.34; 1.81]3220%moderate2 BCN PEP-CoV-2-Study 2 (Mitja et al. Clin Infect Dis), 2020, PATCH Cohort 1 (Amaravadi), 20210.55.01.0

Bayesian posterior probability of treatment effect

1.0relative treatment effect (TE)studied trt. better0.020.071 %Risk of biaslowsome concernshigh

Bayesian (posterior) relative TE 95% CI: 0.79 [0.34; 1.81]

posterior probability of favorable treatment effect (PTE): 71.3 %

some concern risk of bias. This probability should be interpreted according to the risk of bias.

Publication bias, Funnel plot

funnel plot

Funnel plot not drawn. Less than 3 points!

Asymetry test p-value = NaN (by Egger's regression)

p values plot

Funnel plot not drawn. Less than 3 points.

treatments: 657, outcome: 448, pathologies: 97, subgroup: 0, T0: 649,650,589,651