Hydroxychloroquine Prophylaxis against Coronavirus Disease-19: Practice Outcomes among Health-Care Workers

  1. Parloop Bhatt
  2. Vishva Patel
  3. Prachi Shah
  4. Keyur Parikh

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus responsible for the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine(HCQ) could prevent SARS CoV-2 in healthcare workers(HCW) at high-risk of exposure.

Method

This voluntary observational study for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 was conducted at a tertiary care center, from 12 th June to 12th October 2020(total 16 weeks). All consented asymptomatic HCW’s of CIMS hospital were administered 400 mg HCQ twice a day on day one followed by 400 mg once weekly to be taken with meals up to 16 weeks. Data collected included OPD registration, risk assessment, medical and family history (related to COVID), physical examination and vitals, pulse oximetry, ECG (pre and post HCQ), drug adherence, side effects, adverse drug reactions.

Result

The study enrolled 927 full-time, hospital-based HCWs ((including doctors, nurses, paramedical, lab technicians, sanitary workers and others), of whom 731(78.85%) initially started HCQ while 196 (21.14%) did not volunteer. The median age and weight of the study population was 27.5 years and 69.5 kg respectively. No major associated co-morbidities were present in these HCW’s. There was an increased trend towards non adherence to HCQ with each proceeding week more so after week 11. Of the 731 HCW’s taking HCQ a total of 167(22.8%) tested COVID positive at different intervals of time as against 30 HCW (15.3%) out of 196 not taking HCQ. The rate of COVID-19 positive was statistically significantly higher in the HCW’s taking HCQ (p=0.0220; 95% CI: 1.14% to 12.94%), as compared to those not on HCQ. Thus HCQ was not prophylactically effective against COVID 19 infection. No participants in this study experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events. No significant difference in the median of ECG changes in QTc between pre and post HCQ administration of 46 HCW’s was observed.

Conclusions

This clinical study did not detect a reduction in SARS CoV-2 transmission with prophylactic administration of 400 mg/HCQ in HCW’s. All participants who did contract SARSCoV-2 were either asymptomatic or had mild disease courses with full recoveries. All adverse events were self-limiting and no serious cardiovascular events were reported with use of HCQ. In the absence of robust data, it seems premature to recommend HCQ as a prophylactic panacea for COVID-19.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.02.21260750: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee (#ECR/206/Inst/GJ/2013/RR-20).
    Consent: All HCW irrespective of their HCQ consumption status, who were asymptomatic at baseline and were willing to give consent and take HCQ as recommended were included in the study.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All analyses were performed using STATA, version 11.0.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.08.02.21260750v1 on medRxiv