Chemoprophylaxis of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine - a study of health care workers attitude, adherence to regime and side effects

  1. Debajyoti Bhattacharyya
  2. Neeraj Raizada
  3. Bharathnag Nagappa
  4. Arvind Tomar
  5. Prateek Maurya
  6. Ashok Chaudhary
  7. Mini George
  8. Deepty Katiyal
  9. Srishti Rajora
  10. Nikky Singh

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

There are apprehensions amongst healthcare worker (HCWs) about COVID-19. The HCWs have been given hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) chemoprophylaxis for seven weeks as per Government of India guidelines.

Objectives

To assess the apprehensions amongst HCWs about COVID-19 and to document accessibility, adherence and side effects related to HCQ prophylaxis in HCWs.

Methods

A longitudinal follow up study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital. HCQ was given in the dose of 400 mg twice on day one, and then 400 mg weekly for seven weeks. 391 HCWs were interviewed using semi structured questionnaire.

Results

62.2% HCWs expressed perceived danger posted by COVID-19 infection. Doctors (54%) showed least acceptance and paramedics (88%) showed highest acceptance to chemoprophylaxis. 17.5% participants developed at least one of the side effects to HCQ. Females and nursing profession were significantly associated with adverse effects. Common side effects were gastro-intestinal symptoms, headache and abnormal mood change. Most of these were mild, not requiring any intervention. Gender, professions and perceived threat of COVID-19 were significantly associated with acceptance and adherence to HCQ prophylaxis.

Conclusion

Two third of HCWs had perceived danger due to COVID-19. Three fourth of the HCWs accepted chemoprophylaxis and four out of five who accepted had complete adherence to prophylaxis schedule. One out of five had developed at least one of side effects; however, most of these were mild not requiring any intervention.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.11.20126359: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: All the HCWs were invited to participate in the study, and consent was obtained from all of them who were willing to participate.
    IACUC: Ethical Approval: This study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical methods: Data were extracted in Microsoft Excel and analysed in Statistical Package for Social Science version 22.
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The study has a few limitations like, 1) participation was entirely voluntary basis which may lead to selection bias, and 2) adherence to chemoprophylaxis was self-reported which may be slightly higher than actual adherence.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.11.20126359v1 on medRxiv