The COVID-19 pandemic has required clinicians to urgently identify new treatment options or the re-purposing of existing drugs. Of particular interest are chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). The aims of this systematic review are to systematically identify and collate 24 studies describing the use of CQ and HCQ in human clinical trials and to provide a detailed synthesis of evidence of its efficacy and safety. Of clinical trials, 100% showed no significant difference in the probability of viral transmission or clearance in prophylaxis or therapy, respectively, compared to the control group. Among observational studies employing an endpoint specific to efficacy, 58% concurred with the finding of no significant difference in the attainment of outcomes. Three-fifths of clinical trials and half of observational studies examining an indicator unique to drug safety discovered a higher probability of adverse events in those treated patients suspected of, and diagnosed with, COVID-19. Of the total papers focusing on cardiac side-effects, 44% found a greater incidence of QTc prolongation and/or arrhythmias, 44% found no evidence of a significant difference, and 11% mixed results. The strongest available evidence points towards the inefficacy of CQ and HCQ in prophylaxis or in the treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19 大流行要求临床医生紧急确定新的治疗方案或重新利用现有药物。特别令人感兴趣的是氯喹（CQ）和羟氯喹（HCQ）。本系统综述的目的是系统地识别和整理 24 项描述 CQ 和 HCQ 在人体临床试验中使用的研究，并提供其功效和安全性证据的详细综合。在临床试验中，100% 的结果显示，与对照组相比，预防或治疗中病毒传播或清除的概率没有显着差异。在采用特定于疗效的终点的观察性研究中，58% 的人同意结果的实现没有显着差异的发现。五分之三的临床试验和一半的观察性研究检查了药物安全性特有的指标，发现在接受治疗的疑似或诊断患有 COVID-19 的患者中出现不良事件的可能性较高。在所有关注心脏副作用的论文中，44% 发现 QTc 延长和/或心律失常的发生率更高，44% 发现没有显着差异的证据，11% 的结果好坏参半。最有力的现有证据表明，CQ 和 HCQ 在预防或治疗住院 COVID-19 患者方面无效。