Early Hydroxychloroquine Administration for Rapid Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Eradication

Infection & Chemotherapy 2020³â 52±Ç 3È£ p.396 ~ p.402

È«°æ¼ö(Hong Kyung-Soo) - Yeungnam University College of Medicine Department of Internal Medicine
ÀåÁ¾°É(Jang Jong-Geol) - Yeungnam University College of Medicine Department of Internal Medicine
ÇãÁö¾È(Hur Ji-An) - Yeungnam University College of Medicine Department of Internal Medicine
ÀÌÁ¾È£(Lee Jong-Ho) - Yeungnam University College of Medicine Department of Laboratory Medicine
±èÈ«³²(Kim Hong-Nam) - Korea Institute of Science and Technology Brain Science Institute Center for BioMicrosystems
ÀÌ¿øÈ­(Lee Won-Hwa) - Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology Aging Research Center
¾ÈÁØÈ«(Ahn June-Hong) - Yeungnam University College of Medicine Department of Internal Medicine

Abstract

There are no proven therapeutics for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia outbreak. We observed and analyzed the clinical efficacy of the most used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for 30 days. In this study, administration of HCQ <5 days from diagnosis (odds ratio: 0.111, 95% confidence interval: 0.034 - 0.367, P = 0.001) was the only protective factor for prolonging of viral shedding in COVID-19 patients. Early administration of HCQ significantly ameliorates inflammatory cytokine secretion by eradicating COVID-19, at discharge. Our findings suggest that patients confirmed of COVID-19 infection should be administrated HCQ as soon as possible.

Å°¿öµå

Early, Hydroxychloroquine, Coronavirus disease 2019, Eradication
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI) KoreaMed ´ëÇÑÀÇÇÐȸ ȸ¿ø 
ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Å°¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
Early HCQ administration group had a higher initial NEWS (2.5 (IQR 0.75 - 5.0) vs. 1.0 (IQR 0 - 2.0), P = 0.002), and many had progressed toward ARDS (21.4% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.021) and septic shock (9.5% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.044).
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆdz⵵(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå