Trial *
Publication Sali S, Novelty in Biomedicine, 2021 (published paper)
Funding: Public/non profit (Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences)
Conflict of interest: *
Methods | |
RCT Blinding: Unblinded | |
Location :
Single center / Iran Follow-up duration (days): * | |
Inclusion criteria | Age above 18;
Hospitalized; Fever (Oral temperature ≥ 38 °C); At least one of the following - a respiratory rate more than 24/min or an O2 Saturation level less than 93% or the PaO2/ FiO2 ratio lower than 300; Confirmed PCR for the nuclide acid of SARS-COV-2 in a nasopharyngeal swab specimen or a chest lung CT scan compatible with COVID-19 patterns |
Exclusion criteria | Dissatisfaction with being included in or continuing the study;
Having a known allergic reaction to interventional drugs; Pregnancy or breastfeeding; Any prior experimental treatments for COVID-19; Heart rate less than 60/min; Taking amiodarone; Evidence of multiorgan failure; Requiring mechanical ventilation at the screening; eGFR of less than 50 ml/min |
Interventions | |
Treatment
Hydroxychloroquine+Sofosbuvir HCQ: 200 mg twice a day (every 12 hours) orally for 7 to 14 days SOF: 400 mg per day orally for 7 to 14 days |
|
Control
Hydroxychloroquine+Lopinavir-Ritonavir ( / ) | |
Participants | |
Randomized 54 participants (n1=22 / n2= 32) | |
Characteristics of participants N=54 Mean age : 57.1 29 males Severity : Mild: n=0 / Moderate: n=*/ Severe: n=* Critical: n=0 | |
Primary outcome | |
In the register NR | |
In the report NR | |
Documents available |
Protocol NR Statistical plan NR Data-sharing stated Unclear |
Risk of bias Overall The overall risk of bias reported in the table corresponds to the highest risk of bias for the outcomes assessed for the systematic review |
Some concerns |
General comment | Only the published article was used in data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. The study protocol, statistical plan, and trial registry were not available. The study achieved the planned sample size reported in the methods section. There is some question about the number of patients included in the final analysis. The article reports that the “number of patients from groups A and B who withdrew from the study were 3 and 2, respectively (Table-3)”. Yet Table 3 does not report withdrawals, and these numbers equate to the numbers of deaths in these arms. It is believed this is likely a translation error. Groups were imbalanced regarding PCR positive test results (HCQ+LPV/r vs HCQ+SOF: 100% vs 50%); spiral chest CT scan consistent with COVID-19 for all patients. The overall follow-up of the study (including the timepoint at which mortality data were collected) and the primary outcome were not reported. |