The peer-reviewed version of the Pagliaro et al. preprint mentioned by the OP is here and appears to have been published in September 2020.
This meta-analysis (Cochrane review, published February 2021) doesn't include the Pagliaro et al. study but the authors (Singh et al., lead author is from the University of Liverpool) says the following on the need for hospitalisation specifically:
Evidence for prevention of hospital admission in outpatients with COVID‐19 is very uncertain. However, given the lack of benefit in hospitalized patients, and limited available evidence suggesting little or no effect on clearance of the virus from the respiratory tract, benefit from treatment of outpatients appears unlikely.
Their more general headline conclusions are (and they refer to mechanical ventilation, so not entirely unrelated to OP's question):
HCQ for people infected with COVID‐19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out.
These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely.
In terms of implications for research, they say:
No further trials in hospital inpatients are justified.
The evidence is less certain for ambulatory treatment of people with mild COVID‐19, and for prevention of COVID‐19 in people with, or at risk of, exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2.
Edit re. azithromycin (as per OP) Singh et al. say that "[a] higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ‐and‐azithromycin arm" of the study they considered, and..
Compared with usual care in one study in 444 people, hydroxychloroquine given with azithromycin (an antibiotic) made no difference to:
· how many people died;
· how many needed mechanical ventilation; or
· time spent in hospital.