Systematic Review of Psychiatric Adverse Effects Induced by Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine: Case Reports and Population Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review on the psychiatric adverse effects of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ); to summarize what is known about psychiatric adverse effects of these drugs; to compare clinical trials, populational studies, and case report studies; and to increase awareness of the potential psychiatric adverse effects of these drugs. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed to identify manuscripts published between December 1962 and June 2022. Search terms included CQ, HCQ, psychiatry, psychosis, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, delirium, and psychotic disorders. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant studies included reports of adverse effects after CQ or HCQ ingestion. DATA SYNTHESIS: The current literature presents evidence for a risk of short-term psychiatric adverse effects induced by either CQ or HCQ. However, the populational-level studies presented some limitations regarding the voluntary response in survey data, self-report adverse effects, and placebo group reporting similar symptoms to the case group. Thus, populational-level studies addressing the discussed limitations and the nature and extent of possible psychiatric adverse effects are needed. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Most of the patients who developed such adverse effects did not report a family history of psychiatric disease. The frequency of psychiatric adverse effects depends on the patient's biological sex, age, and body mass index, but not on the drug dosage. CONCLUSIONS: Based on clinical trials and case reports, the current literature presents evidence for a risk of short-term psychiatric adverse effects induced by either drug.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".