Efficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine vs Placebo for Pre-exposure SARS-CoV-2 Prophylaxis Among Health Care Workers: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Preimplantation development of in vitro-produced bovine embryos treated with hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a safe antimalarial drug but its overdosage or inappropriate use, such as during the pandemic, may cause adverse effects once this drug is considered a potent inhibitor of autophagy. Information about HCQ's effects on the reproductive field, including gametes and initial embryos, is limited. In this study, we evaluated the effect of HCQ (1, 6, 12, and 24 μM) on pre-implantation embryo development, autophagy, and apoptosis of bovine embryos produced in vitro. A dose-response experiment showed a reduction (p < 0.05) in cleavage only at the highest concentration. Blastocyst rate was gradually reduced (p < 0.05) with the increase of HCQ dosage starting at 6 μM, with no embryo formation occurring at 24 μM. Further analysis showed that embryos treated with 12 μM of HCQ had a higher (p < 0.05) accumulation of acidic autophagic vesicles on Days 5 and 7 of development and a higher (p < 0.01) apoptotic index on Day 7. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the effects of HCQ on embryo pre-implantation development in mammals. The results contribute with more information related to the study of autophagy in embryology as well as add some discussion on HCQ toxicology and its effects on reproductive cells.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on SLE

Little is known about the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and autoimmune diseases, especially in the case of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). SLE patients met with many questions during the pandemic in COVID-19, such as how to minimize risk of infection, the complex pathological features and cytokine profiles, diagnosis and treatment, rational choice of drugs and vaccine, good nursing, psychological supervision, and so on. In this study, we review and discuss the multifaceted effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients living with SLE using the available literature. Cross-talk in implicated inflammatory pathways/mechanisms exists between SLE and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and SARS-CoV-2 displays similar clinical characteristics and immuno-inflammatory responses to SLE. Current epidemiological data inadequately assess the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection in patients with SLE. More evidence has shown that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine cannot prevent COVID-19. During the pandemic, patients with SLE had a higher rate of hospitalization. Vaccination helps to reduce the risk of infection. Several therapies for patients with SLE infected with COVID-19 are discussed. The cases in the study can provide meaningful information for clinical diagnosis and management. Our main aim is to help preventing infection and highlight treatment options for patients with SLE infected with COVID-19.

Microfluidic-assisted single-cell RNA sequencing facilitates the development of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

As a class of antibodies that specifically bind to a virus and block its entry, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (neutralizing mAbs) have been recognized as a top choice for combating COVID-19 due to their high specificity and efficacy in treating serious infections. Although conventional approaches for neutralizing mAb development have been optimized for decades, there is an urgent need for workflows with higher efficiency due to time-sensitive concerns, including the high mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2. One promising approach is the identification of neutralizing mAb candidates via single-cell RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), as each B cell has a unique transcript sequence corresponding to its secreted antibody. The state-of-the-art high-throughput single-cell sequencing technologies, which have been greatly facilitated by advances in microfluidics, have greatly accelerated the process of neutralizing mAb development. Here, we provide an overview of the general procedures for high-throughput single-cell RNA-seq enabled by breakthroughs in droplet microfluidics, introduce revolutionary approaches that combine single-cell RNA-seq to facilitate the development of neutralizing mAbs against SARS-CoV-2, and outline future steps that need to be taken to further improve development strategies for effective treatments against infectious diseases.

An Update on SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Trial Results-What We Can Learn for the Next Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed over 7 million lives worldwide, providing a stark reminder of the importance of pandemic preparedness. Due to the lack of approved antiviral drugs effective against coronaviruses at the start of the pandemic, the world largely relied on repurposed efforts. Here, we summarise results from randomised controlled trials to date, as well as selected in vitro data of directly acting antivirals, host-targeting antivirals, and immunomodulatory drugs. Overall, repurposing efforts evaluating directly acting antivirals targeting other viral families were largely unsuccessful, whereas several immunomodulatory drugs led to clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with severe disease. In addition, accelerated drug discovery efforts during the pandemic progressed to multiple novel directly acting antivirals with clinical efficacy, including small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. We argue that large-scale investment is required to prepare for future pandemics; both to develop an arsenal of broad-spectrum antivirals beyond coronaviruses and build worldwide clinical trial networks that can be rapidly utilised.

How have mathematical models contributed to understanding the transmission and control of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare settings? A systematic search and review

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, mathematical models have been widely used to inform public health recommendations regarding COVID-19 control in healthcare settings. The objective of this study was to systematically review SARS-CoV-2 transmission models in healthcare settings, and to summarize their contributions to understanding nosocomial COVID-19. A systematic search and review of published articles indexed in PubMed was carried out. Modelling studies describing dynamic inter-individual transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare settings, published by mid-February 2022 were included. Models have mostly focused on acute-care and long-term-care facilities in high-income countries. Models have quantified outbreak risk, showing great variation across settings and pandemic periods. Regarding surveillance, routine testing rather than symptom-based was highlighted as essential for COVID-19 prevention due to high rates of silent transmission. Surveillance impacts depended critically on testing frequency, diagnostic sensitivity, and turn-around time. Healthcare re-organization also proved to have large epidemiological impacts: beyond obvious benefits of isolating cases and limiting inter-individual contact, more complex strategies (staggered staff scheduling, immune-based cohorting) reduced infection risk. Finally, vaccination impact, while highly effective for limiting COVID-19 burden, varied substantially depending on assumed mechanistic impacts on infection acquisition, symptom onset and transmission. Modelling results form an extensive evidence base that may inform control strategies for future waves of SARS-CoV-2 and other viral respiratory pathogens. We propose new avenues for future models of healthcare-associated outbreaks, with the aim of enhancing their efficiency and contributions to decision-making.

Repurposed drug studies on the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Current evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically evaluate published studies on repurposed drugs for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 among healthy adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

ELIGIBILITY

Quantitative experimental and observational intervention studies that evaluated the effectiveness of repurposed drugs for the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 disease.

DATA SOURCE

PubMed and Embase (1 January 2020-28 September 2022).

RISK OF BIAS

Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were applied to assess the quality of studies.

DATA ANALYSIS

Meta-analyses for each eligible drug were performed if ≥2 similar study designs were available.

RESULTS

In all, 65 (25 trials, 40 observational) and 29 publications were eligible for review and meta-analyses, respectively. Most studies pertained to hydroxychloroquine (32), ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (11), statin (8), and ivermectin (8). In trials, hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis reduced laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90), I2=48%), a result largely driven by one clinical trial (weight: 60.5%). Such beneficial effects were not observed in observational studies, nor for prognostic clinical outcomes. Ivermectin did not significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR: 0.35 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.26), I2=96%) and findings for clinical outcomes were inconsistent. Neither ACEi or ARB were beneficial in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of the evidence from clinical trials was of moderate quality and of lower quality in observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from our analysis are insufficient to support an evidence-based repurposed drug policy for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis because of inconsistency. In the view of scarce supportive evidence on repurposing drugs for COVID-19, alternative strategies such as immunisation of vulnerable people are warranted to prevent the future waves of infection.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021292797.

Role and clinical implication of autophagy in COVID-19

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic constitutes a serious public health concern worldwide. Currently, more than 6 million deaths have occurred despite drastic containment measures, and this number is still increasing. Currently, no standard therapies for COVID-19 are available, which necessitates identifying effective preventive and therapeutic agents against COVID-19. However, developing new drugs and vaccines is a time-consuming process, and therefore, repurposing the existing drugs or redeveloping related targets seems to be the best strategy to develop effective therapeutics against COVID-19. Autophagy, a multistep lysosomal degradation pathway contributing to nutrient recycling and metabolic adaptation, is involved in the initiation and progression of numerous diseases as a part of an immune response. The key role of autophagy in antiviral immunity has been extensively studied. Moreover, autophagy can directly eliminate intracellular microorganisms by selective autophagy, that is, "xenophagy." However, viruses have acquired diverse strategies to exploit autophagy for their infection and replication. This review aims to trigger the interest in the field of autophagy as an antiviral target for viral pathogens (with an emphasis on COVID-19). We base this hypothesis on summarizing the classification and structure of coronaviruses as well as the process of SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication; providing the common understanding of autophagy; reviewing interactions between the mechanisms of viral entry/replication and the autophagy pathways; and discussing the current state of clinical trials of autophagy-modifying drugs in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We anticipate that this review will contribute to the rapid development of therapeutics and vaccines against COVID-19.

Safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as prophylactic against COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

We studied the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs), using a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify randomised trials studying HCQ.

STUDY SELECTION

Ten RCTs were identified (n=5079 participants).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used in this systematic review and meta-analysis between HCQ and placebo using a Bayesian random-effects model. A pre-hoc statistical analysis plan was written.

MAIN OUTCOMES

The primary efficacy outcome was PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and the primary safety outcome was incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome included clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, HCWs randomised to HCQ had no significant difference in PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.92, 95% credible interval (CI): 0.58, 1.37) or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.10), but significant difference in adverse events (OR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.73).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Our meta-analysis of 10 RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of HCQ as pre-exposure prophylaxis in HCWs found that compared with placebo, HCQ does not significantly reduce the risk of confirmed or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, while HCQ significantly increases adverse events.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021285093.

Hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in health care workers: a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes of Hydroxychloroquine (HERO-HCQ)

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 infections among health care workers (HCWs).

METHODS

In a 1: 1 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial at 34 US clinical centers, 1360 HCWs at risk for COVID-19 infection were enrolled between April and November 2020. Participants were randomized to HCQ or matched placebo. The HCQ dosing included a loading dose of HCQ 600 mg twice on day 1, followed by 400 mg daily for 29 days. The primary outcome was a composite of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 clinical infection by day 30, defined as new-onset fever, cough, or dyspnea and either a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test (confirmed) or a lack of confirmatory testing due to local restrictions (suspected).

RESULTS

Study enrollment closed before full accrual due to recruitment challenges. The primary end point occurred in 41 (6.0%) participants receiving HCQ and 53 (7.8%) participants receiving placebo. No difference in the proportion of participants experiencing clinical infection (estimated difference of -1.8%, 95% confidence interval -4.6-0.9%, P = 0.20) was identified nor any significant safety issues.

CONCLUSION

Oral HCQ taken as prescribed appeared safe among HCWs. No significant clinical benefits were observed. The study was not powered to detect a small but potentially important reduction in infection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04334148.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Testing Hydroxychloroquine for Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 Viral Shedding and Hospitalization in Early Outpatient COVID-19 Infection

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, no effective treatment existed to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19 among recently diagnosed outpatients. At the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, we conducted a phase 2 prospective parallel group randomized placebo-controlled trial (NCT04342169) to determine whether hydroxychloroquine given early in disease reduces the duration of SARS-CoV-2 shedding. We enrolled nonhospitalized adults (≥18 years of age) with a recent positive diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 (within 72 h of enrollment) and adult household contacts. Participants received either 400 mg hydroxychloroquine by mouth twice daily on day 1 followed by 200 mg by mouth twice daily on days 2 to 5 or oral placebo with the same schedule. We performed SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) on oropharyngeal swabs on days 1 to 14 and 28 and monitored clinical symptomatology, rates of hospitalization, and viral acquisition by adult household contacts. We identified no overall differences in the duration of oropharyngeal carriage of SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio of viral shedding time comparing hydroxychloroquine to placebo, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91, 1.62). Overall, 28-day hospitalization incidence was similar between treatments (4.6% hydroxychloroquine versus 2.7% placebo). No differences were seen in symptom duration, severity, or viral acquisition in household contacts between treatment groups. The study did not reach the prespecified enrollment target, which was likely influenced by a steep decline in COVID-19 incidence corresponding to the initial vaccine rollout in the spring of 2021. Oropharyngeal swabs were self-collected, which may introduce variability in these results. Placebo treatments were not identical to hydroxychloroquine treatments (capsules versus tablets) which may have led to inadvertent participant unblinding. In this group of community adults early in the COVID-19 pandemic, hydroxychloroquine did not significantly alter the natural history of early COVID-19 disease. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT04342169). IMPORTANCE Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, no effective treatment existed to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19 among recently diagnosed outpatients. Hydroxychloroquine received attention as a possible early treatment; however, quality prospective studies were lacking. We conducted a clinical trial to test the ability of hydroxychloroquine to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19.

The 'myth of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of COVID-19' is far from reality

The efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of COVID-19 was contentious. In this randomized control double-blind clinical trial, asymptomatic individuals with direct contact with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were randomized into PEP/HCQ (N = 574) and control/placebo (N = 594) group. The PEP/HCQ group received tablet HCQ 400 mg q 12 hourly on day one followed by 400 mg once weekly for 3 weeks, and the control/Placebo group received matching Placebo. The incidence of COVID-19 was similar (p = 0.761) in PEP [N = 24 out of 574, (4.2%)] and control [N = 27 out of 594, (4.5%)] groups. Total absolute risk reduction for the incidence of new-onset COVID-19 was -0.3% points with an overall relative risk of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.60) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was 333 to prevent the incident of one case of COVID-19. The study found that, PEP with HCQ was not advantageous for the prevention of COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Though HCQ is a safer drug, the practice of irrational and indiscriminate use of HCQ for COVID-19 should be restrained with better pharmacovigilance.

Tocilizumab-coated solid lipid nanoparticles loaded with cannabidiol as a novel drug delivery strategy for treating COVID-19: A review

Commonly used clinical strategies against coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), including the potential role of monoclonal antibodies for site-specific targeted drug delivery, are discussed here. Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) tailored with tocilizumab (TCZ) and loading cannabidiol (CBD) are proposed for the treatment of COVID-19 by oral route. TCZ, as a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody and an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor agonist, can attenuate cytokine storm in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. CBD (an anti-inflammatory cannabinoid and TCZ agonist) alleviates anxiety, schizophrenia, and depression. CBD, obtained from Cannabis sativa L., is known to modulate gene expression and inflammation and also shows anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory properties. It has also been recognized to modulate angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2) expression in SARS-CoV-2 target tissues. It has already been proven that immunosuppressive drugs targeting the IL-6 receptor may ameliorate lethal inflammatory responses in COVID-19 patients. TCZ, as an immunosuppressive drug, is mainly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, although several attempts have been made to use it in the active hyperinflammatory phase of COVID-19, with promising outcomes. TCZ is currently administered intravenously. It this review, we discuss the potential advances on the use of SLN for oral administration of TCZ-tailored CBD-loaded SLN, as an innovative platform for managing SARS-CoV-2 and related infections.

A prospective, randomized clinical trial of emergency treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia by pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF)

AIMS

As one of the mainstays of breast cancer therapy, chemotherapy inevitably induces neutropenia. In this study, we explored the role of PEG-rhG-CSF (pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) in the emergency treatment of chemotherapy-induced grades 3-4 neutropenia.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients with breast cancer were randomized (1:1) into the study. Fifty patients randomized to the experimental group were treated with PEG-rhG-CSF after grades 3-4 neutropenia following the first cycle of chemotherapy, while 50 patients randomized to the control group received a daily injection of rhG-CSF (recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor). The primary endpoint was the recovery time of grades 3-4 neutropenia.

RESULTS

Compared with patients in the control group, the mean ± SD recovery time of grades 3-4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) was significantly shorter for patients in the experimental group (grades 3-4, P = .000; grade 4, P = .000; FN, P = .038). There is no significant difference in the incidence of FN for the two groups. In the experimental group, the duration of grades 3-4 neutropenia in patients aged <60 years and ≥60 years was 2.15 and 3.20 days, respectively (P = .037). Adverse events (AEs) of any grade were reported in 37 (75.5%) and 28 (59.6%) patients from the two groups, respectively. No grade ≥3 AEs were reported.

CONCLUSION

This study supported that the PEG-rhG-CSF was more effective and convenient than rhG-CSF for treating grades 3-4 neutropenia and FN in patients with breast cancer and had manageable toxicity.

Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine in Pre-exposure Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Prophylaxis among High-Risk HealthCare Workers: A Multicenter Study

Background

Prophylaxis could be an established strategy to potentially prevent and control infectious diseases and should be considered in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis treatment strategy in the reduction of the risk of COVID-19 among health professionals.

Materials and Methods

The health professionals were randomly assigned (1:1) to the control group without receiving any hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis and the hydroxychloroquine group receiving a weekly hydroxychloroquine dose of 400 mg up to 12 weeks.

Results

A total of 146 health professionals were randomly enrolled in this study between August 11 and November 11 in 2020. Among the screened health professionals, 21 (14.6%) were infected with COVID-19 during the 12 weeks, and 14 (66.6%) out of the 21 health professionals were in the control group. Most participants with COVID-19 had mild symptoms (62%). In addition, 9.5% (n = 2) of the participants suffered from moderate disease and 28.5% were diagnosed with severe symptoms. In the hydroxychloroquine group, 5 (7.1%) and 2 (2.8%) participants were reported with mild and moderate symptoms of COVID-19, respectively, and 2 participants had moderate, 8 (10.9%) participants had mild symptoms, and 6 (8.2%) participants had severe symptoms in the control group, within 3 months. Severe symptoms of COVID-19 were not observed in the hydroxychloroquine group.

Conclusion

This study addressed the effect and benefit of hydroxychloroquine administration for the prevention of COVID-19 among health professionals. The improved perception of prophylaxis might highlight its important role in future COVID-19 outbreaks to prevent hospital transmission, which is a major route of spread.

Daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial in healthcare workers

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) as pre-exposure prophylaxis on COVID-19 risk.

METHODS

EPICOS is a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted in Spain, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Healthcare workers with negative SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG test were randomly assigned to the following: daily TDF/FTC plus HCQ for 12 weeks, TDF/FTC plus HCQ placebo, HCQ plus TDF/FTC placebo, and TDF/FTC placebo plus HCQ placebo. Randomization was performed in groups of four. Primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19. We also studied any (symptomatic or asymptomatic) COVID-19. We compared group-specific 14-week risks via differences and ratios with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Of 1002 individuals screened, 926 (92.4%) were eligible and there were 14 cases of symptomatic COVID-19: 220 were assigned to the TDF/FTC plus HCQ group (3 cases), 231 to the TDF/FTC placebo plus HCQ group (3 cases), 233 to the TDF/FTC plus HCQ placebo group (3 cases), and 223 to the double placebo group (5 cases). Compared with the double placebo group, 14-week risk ratios (95% CI) of symptomatic COVID-19 were 0.39 (0.00-1.98) for TDF + HCQ, 0.34 (0.00-2.06) for TDF, and 0.49 (0.00-2.29) for HCQ. Corresponding risk ratios of any COVID-19 were 0.51 (0.21-1.00) for TDF + HCQ, 0.81 (0.44-1.49) for TDF, and 0.73 (0.41-1.38) for HCQ. Adverse events were generally mild.

DISCUSSION

The target sample size was not met. Our findings are compatible with both benefit and harm of pre-exposure prophylaxis with TDF/FTC and HCQ, alone or in combination, compared with placebo.

Development of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with rheumatic conditions on hydroxychloroquine monotherapy vs. patients without rheumatic conditions: A retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

The primary purpose of the current study was to examine whether patients with rheumatologic conditions receiving only chronic hydroxychloroquine therapy for their disease are at less risk of developing SARS-CoV-2 infection than a comparative group of patients without rheumatologic conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational, nationwide stratified propensity analysis was conducted comparing patients only on chronic treatment with hydroxychloroquine for their rheumatologic condition to a random sample of patients without rheumatologic conditions and not receiving hydroxychloroquine, utilizing a Veterans Health Administration nationwide clinical administrative database.

RESULTS

The 1-to-1 stratified propensity analysis was undertaken using a random sample of patients without rheumatoid conditions and not receiving hydroxychloroquine (n  33,081) and patients with rheumatoid conditions receiving hydroxychloroquine as the lone medication for their condition (n  6047). A total of 5,474 patients in each group were successfully matched. The incidence of documented SARS-CoV-2 infections during the study period did not differ between patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and patients not receiving hydroxychloroquine (41/5,474 [0.749%] vs. 36/5,474 [0.658%], respectively, p = 0.57; Odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.79). There were no statistically-significant differences in secondary outcomes between the two groups in patients who developed active SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multivariate logistic regression to determine independent variables associated with the development of active SARS-CoV-2 infection failed to include receipt of hydroxychloroquine (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.62-1.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Hydroxychloroquine failed to demonstrate a preventative effect against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large group of patients with rheumatologic conditions compared to patients without rheumatologic conditions.

Analysis of the Prophylactic use of Hydroxychloroquine at the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Physicians

Objective

Throughout the pandemic, physicians working at the frontlines have embarked on various quests to protect themselves, and many physicians preferred using hydroxychloroquine (HQN) as a prophylactic agent. This study aimed to investigate the reasons leading physicians to use HQN and its effects on them.

Materials and Methods

This study is cross-sectional with a target population of physicians working in pandemic hospitals in İstanbul, Turkey. We invited participants from seven hospitals via email between May 14 and June 13, 2020. An online questionnaire, including 57 questions, was sent to physicians.

Results

A total of 148 (26%) physicians out of 564 participants had used hydroxychloroquine for prevention. Older physicians and those with a history of exposure to COVID-19 patients without protection used prophylactic HQN more frequently. The use of HQN did not differ statistically in terms of being infected among the exposed physicians (p=0.52). Nineteen (13%) physicians using HQN developed side effects related to the drug. Diarrhea and nausea were the most common.

Conclusion

Prophylactic HQN use was more common among physicians older than 40 years and with higher exposure rates to a COVID-19 patient without protection. The physicians working on the front line had the highest rate of infection. HQN was not effective in the prophylaxis of COVID-19 among the exposed physicians.

The danger of the single storyline obfuscating the complexities of managing SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie showed how a single story is limited and thereby distorts the true nature of an issue. During this COVID-19 pandemic there have been, at least, three consecutive single stories-the 'lethal threat' story, followed by the 'economic threat' story, and finally the 'vaccine miracle' story. None of these single stories can convincingly and permanently capture the dynamics of the pandemic. This is because countries experienced different morbidity and mortality patterns, different socioeconomic disadvantage, age and vulnerability of population, timing and level of lockdown with economic variability, and, despite heavy promotion, vaccines were beset with a significant and variable degree of hesitancy. Lack of transparency, coherence and consistency of pandemic management-arising from holding on to single storylines-showed the global deficiency of public health policy and planning, an underfunding of (public) health and social services, and a growing distrust in governments' ability to manage crises effectively. Indeed, the global management has increased already large inequities, and little has been learnt to address the growing crises of more infectious and potentially more lethal virus mutations. Holding onto single stories prevents the necessary learnings to understand and manage the complexities of 'wicked' problems, whereas listening to the many stories provides insights and pathways to do so effectively as well as efficiently.

Biologic Functions of Hydroxychloroquine in Disease: From COVID-19 to Cancer

Chloroquine (CQ) and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), initially utilized in the treatment of malaria, have now developed a long list of applications. Despite their clinical relevance, their mechanisms of action are not clearly defined. Major pathways by which these agents are proposed to function include alkalinization of lysosomes and endosomes, downregulation of C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4) expression, high-mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB1) inhibition, alteration of intracellular calcium, and prevention of thrombus formation. However, there is conflicting data present in the literature. This is likely the result of the complex overlapping pathways between these mechanisms of action that have not previously been highlighted. In fact, prior research has focused on very specific portions of particular pathways without describing these in the context of the extensive CQ/HCQ literature. This review summarizes the detailed data regarding CQ/HCQ's mechanisms of action while also providing insight into the overarching themes. Furthermore, this review provides clinical context to the application of these diverse drugs including their role in malaria, autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular disease, thrombus formation, malignancies, and viral infections.

Treatment and case fatality rate of COVID-19 in Africa

In Africa, the treatment of COVID-19 depends on each country. Several protocols are observed with real results that we described in this study. The objective of this review was to describe the treatment of COVID-19 and the case fatality rate in African countries, by reviewing the literature on treatment and case fatality in African countries whose data was available through the internet during the writing period until February 7, 2021. The majority of African countries had a treatment based on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine + azithromycin, used in varying doses depending on the country. The lethality in Africa remains low compared to European and American countries. The same treatment being used in some northern countries does not fully explain the low case fatality.

Care for adults with COVID ‐19: living guidelines from the National COVID ‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

Introduction

The Australian National COVID‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up‐to‐date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels.

Main recommendations

In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non‐pregnant adults with COVID‐19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID‐19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care.

Changes in management as a result of the guideline

The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID‐19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

RESULTS

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in an Actively Monitored Cohort of Patients with Lupus Nephritis

(1) Background: We sought to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with lupus nephritis (LN); (2) Methods: A total of 95 patients with LN actively monitored in our department between 26 February 2020, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in Romania, and 1 May 2021, were included in the study. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the independent risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection; (3) Results: A total of 15 patients (15.8%) had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during a total follow-up time of 105.9 patient-years (unadjusted incidence rate: 14.28 SARS-CoV-2 infections per 100 patient-years). Median time to SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.3 months (IQR: 7.2–11.3). The majority of patients had a mild form of SARS-CoV-2 infection (73.3%), while the remaining had moderate forms. None of the patients had a severe infection or a SARS-CoV-2-related death. The most frequent symptom was fatigue (73.3%), followed by loss of taste/smell (53.3%) and fever (46.7%). Forty percent of those with SARS-CoV-2 infection were hospitalized for a median 11.5 days (IQR:3.75–14). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, a current oral corticosteroid dose ≥ 15 mg/day was associated with a 7.69-fold higher risk (OR, 7.69; 95%, 1.3–45.46), while the use of hydroxychloroquine was associated with a 91% lower risk for a SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR, 0.09; 95%CI, 0.01–0.59). (4) Conclusions: Our study confirms that the SARS-CoV-2 infection-associated morbidity might only be moderately increased in patients with LN. The current oral corticosteroid dose was the only independent predictor of infection occurrence, while use of hydroxychloroquine was associated with a protective effect.

Identification of Suitable Drug Combinations for Treating COVID-19 Using a Novel Machine Learning Approach: The RAIN Method

Simple Summary

This study follows an improved approach to systematic reviews, called the Systematic Review and Artificial Intelligence Network Meta-Analysis (RAIN), registered within PROSPERO (CRD42021256797), in which, the PRISMA criterion is still considered. Drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19 were searched in the databases of ScienceDirect, Web of Science (WoS), ProQuest, Embase, Medline (PubMed), and Scopus. In addition, using artificial intelligence and the measurement of the p-value between human genes affected by COVID-19 and drugs that have been suggested by clinical experts, and reported within the identified research papers, suitable drug combinations are proposed for the treatment of COVID-19. During the systematic review process, 39 studies were selected. Our analysis shows that most of the reported drugs, such as azithromycin and hydroxyl-chloroquine on their own, do not have much of an effect on the recovery of COVID-19 patients. Based on the result of the new artificial intelligence, on the other hand, at a significance level of less than 0.05, the combination of the two drugs therapeutic corticosteroid + camostat with a significance level of 0.02, remdesivir + azithromycin with a significance level of 0.03, and interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat with a significance level 0.02 are considered far more effective for the treatment of COVID-19 and are therefore recommended.

Abstract

COVID-19 affects several human genes, each with its own p-value. The combination of drugs associated with these genes with small p-values may lead to an estimation of the combined p-value between COVID-19 and some drug combinations, thereby increasing the effectiveness of these combinations in defeating the disease. Based on human genes, we introduced a new machine learning method that offers an effective drug combination with low combined p-values between them and COVID-19. This study follows an improved approach to systematic reviews, called the Systematic Review and Artificial Intelligence Network Meta-Analysis (RAIN), registered within PROSPERO (CRD42021256797), in which, the PRISMA criterion is still considered. Drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19 were searched in the databases of ScienceDirect, Web of Science (WoS), ProQuest, Embase, Medline (PubMed), and Scopus. In addition, using artificial intelligence and the measurement of the p-value between human genes affected by COVID-19 and drugs that have been suggested by clinical experts, and reported within the identified research papers, suitable drug combinations are proposed for the treatment of COVID-19. During the systematic review process, 39 studies were selected. Our analysis shows that most of the reported drugs, such as azithromycin and hydroxyl-chloroquine on their own, do not have much of an effect on the recovery of COVID-19 patients. Based on the result of the new artificial intelligence, on the other hand, at a significance level of less than 0.05, the combination of the two drugs therapeutic corticosteroid + camostat with a significance level of 0.02, remdesivir + azithromycin with a significance level of 0.03, and interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat with a significance level 0.02 are considered far more effective for the treatment of COVID-19 and are therefore recommended. Additionally, at a significance level of less than 0.01, the combination of interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat + azithromycin + tocilizumab + oseltamivir with a significance level of 0.006, and the combination of interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat + chloroquine + favipiravir + tocilizumab7 with corticosteroid + camostat + oseltamivir + remdesivir + tocilizumab at a significant level of 0.009 are effective in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and are also recommended. The results of this study provide sets of effective drug combinations for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. In addition, the new artificial intelligence used in the RAIN method could provide a forward-looking approach to clinical trial studies, which could also be used effectively in the treatment of diseases such as cancer.

Evolution of Approaches to Therapeutic Prevention and Treatment of the New Coronavirus Infection

The means of drug intervention for the prevention and treatment of new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) are discussed. Changes in approaches aimed at the main links of pathogenesis and capable of positively influencing the course and outcome of the disease that have been implemented after the appearance of the results of numerous randomized trials are presented. Some aspects of the ongoing study of the problem are characterized.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Background

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

Methods

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

Results

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

Conclusions

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Solid Organ Rejection following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination or COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection is extremely rare but can occur. T-cell recognition of antigen is the primary and central event that leads to the cascade of events that result in rejection of a transplanted organ. Objectives: To describe the results of a systematic review for solid organ rejections following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection. Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for studies on the incidence of solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection, published from 1 December 2019 to 31 May 2022, with English language restriction. Results: One hundred thirty-six cases from fifty-two articles were included in the qualitative synthesis of this systematic review (56 solid organs rejected post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and 40 solid organs rejected following COVID-19 infection). Cornea rejection (44 cases) was the most frequent organ observed post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and following COVID-19 infection, followed by kidney rejection (36 cases), liver rejection (12 cases), lung rejection (2 cases), heart rejection (1 case) and pancreas rejection (1 case). The median or mean patient age ranged from 23 to 94 years across the studies. The majority of the patients were male (n = 51, 53.1%) and were of White (Caucasian) (n = 51, 53.7%) and Hispanic (n = 15, 15.8%) ethnicity. A total of fifty-six solid organ rejections were reported post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 31), Moderna (n = 14), Oxford Uni-AstraZeneca (n = 10) and Sinovac-CoronaVac (n = 1)]. The median time from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to organ rejection was 13.5 h (IQR, 3.2–17.2), while the median time from COVID-19 infection to organ rejection was 14 h (IQR, 5–21). Most patients were easily treated without any serious complications, recovered and did not require long-term allograft rejection therapy [graft success (n = 70, 85.4%), graft failure (n = 12, 14.6%), survived (n = 90, 95.7%) and died (n = 4, 4.3%)]. Conclusion: The reported evidence of solid organ rejections post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COIVD-19 infection should not discourage vaccination against this worldwide pandemic. The number of reported cases is relatively small in relation to the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have occurred, and the protective benefits offered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination far outweigh the risks.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19

Background

Recruitment into randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prevention of COVID-19 has been adversely affected by a widespread conviction that HCQ is not effective for prevention. In the absence of an updated systematic review, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials that study the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19.

Methods

A search of PubMed, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov combined with expert consultation found 11 completed randomized trials: 7 pre-exposure prophylaxis trials and 4 post-exposure prophylaxis trials. We obtained or calculated the risk ratio of COVID-19 diagnosis for assignment to HCQ versus no HCQ (either placebo or usual care) for each trial, and then pooled the risk ratio estimates.

Results

The pooled risk ratio estimate of the pre-exposure prophylaxis trials was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.58–0.90) when using either a fixed effect or a standard random effects approach, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55–0.95) when using a conservative modification of the Hartung-Knapp random effects approach. The corresponding estimates for the post-exposure prophylaxis trials were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72–1.16) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.62–1.35). All trials found a similar rate of serious adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups.

Discussion

A benefit of HCQ as prophylaxis for COVID-19 cannot be ruled out based on the available evidence from randomized trials. However, the “not statistically significant” findings from early prophylaxis trials were widely interpreted as definite evidence of lack of effectiveness of HCQ. This interpretation disrupted the timely completion of the remaining trials and thus the generation of precise estimates for pandemic management before the development of vaccines.

Friend or Foe? Implication of the autophagy-lysosome pathway in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19

There is increasing amount of evidence indicating the close interplays between the replication cycle of SARS-CoV-2 and the autophagy-lysosome pathway in the host cells. While autophagy machinery is known to either assist or inhibit the viral replication process, the reciprocal effects of the SARS-CoV-2 on the autophagy-lysosome pathway have also been increasingly appreciated. More importantly, despite the disappointing results from the clinical trials of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in treatment of COVID-19, there is still ongoing effort in discovering new therapeutics targeting the autophagy-lysosome pathway. In this review, we provide an update-to-date summary of the interplays between the autophagy-lysosome pathway in the host cells and the pathogen SARS-CoV-2 at the molecular level, to highlight the prognostic value of autophagy markers in COVID-19 patients and to discuss the potential of developing novel therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 by targeting the autophagy-lysosome pathway. Thus, understanding the nature of such interactions between SARS-CoV-2 and the autophagy-lysosome pathway in the host cells is expected to provide novel strategies in battling against this global pandemic.

Dimethoxycurcumin Acidifies Endolysosomes and Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Entry

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to take a huge toll on global health. Although improving, currently there are only limited therapies against SARS-CoV-2. Curcumin, a natural polyphenol, exerts antiviral effects against a wide variety of viruses and can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 entry. However, undesirable physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of curcumin limit its clinical application. Here, we determined the effects of dimethoxycurcumin (DiMC), a methylated analog of curcumin with improved bioavailability, on the entry of SARS-CoV-2. DiMC blocked entry of pseudo-SARS-CoV-2 into Calu-3 human non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma cells and Vero E6 green monkey kidney epithelial cells. Mechanistically, DiMC acidified lysosomes, enhanced lysosome degradation capabilities, and promoted lysosome degradation of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a major receptor for SARS-CoV-2 entry, as well as pseudo-SARS-CoV-2 and the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein. Furthermore, other lysosome acidifying agents, including the TRPML1 agonist ML-SA1 and the BK channel activator NS1619, also blocked the entry of pseudo-SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 potential of DiMC and lysosome acidifying agents might be explored further as possible effective therapeutic strategies against COVID-19.

Changes in dispensing of medicines proposed for re-purposing in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia

Background

Since COVID-19 was first recognised, there has been ever-changing evidence and misinformation around effective use of medicines. Understanding how pandemics impact on medicine use can help policymakers act quickly to prevent harm. We quantified changes in dispensing of common medicines proposed for “re-purposing” due to their perceived benefits as therapeutic or preventive for COVID-19 in Australia.

Methods

We performed an interrupted time series analysis and cross-sectional study using nationwide dispensing claims data (January 2017-November 2020). We focused on six subsidized medicines proposed for re-purposing: hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin, colchicine, corticosteroids, and calcitriol (Vitamin D analog). We quantified changes in monthly dispensing and initiation trends during COVID-19 (March-November 2020) using autoregressive integrated moving average models and compared characteristics of initiators in 2020 and 2019.

Results

In March 2020, we observed a 99% (95%CI: 96%-103%) increase in hydroxychloroquine dispensing (approximately 22% attributable to new users), and a 199% increase (95%CI: 184%-213%) in initiation, with an increase in prescribing by general practitioners (42% in 2020 vs 25% in 2019) rather than specialists. These increases subsided following regulatory restrictions on prescribing. There was a small but sustained increase in ivermectin dispensing over multiple months, with an 80% (95%CI 42%-118%) increase in initiation in May 2020 following its first identification as potentially disease-modifying in April. Other than increases in March related to stockpiling, we observed no change in the initiation of calcitriol or colchicine during COVID-19. Dispensing of corticosteroids and azithromycin was lower than expected from April through November 2020.

Conclusions

While most increases in dispensing observed early on during COVID-19 were temporary and appear to be related to stockpiling among existing users, we observed increases in the initiation of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and a shift in prescribing patterns which may be related to the media hype around these medicines. A quick response by regulators can help limit inappropriate repurposing to lessen the impact on medicine supply and patient harm.

Hydroxychloroquine plus personal protective equipment versus personal protective equipment alone for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial from India

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether hydroxychloroquine when used with personal protective equipment reduces the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among healthcare workers in comparison to the use of personal protective equipment alone.

DESIGN

Multicentre, parallel-group, open-label randomised trial. Enrolment started on 29 June 2020 and stopped on 4 February 2021. Participants randomised in HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation were followed for 6 months.

SETTING

9 hospitals across India.

PARTICIPANTS

Healthcare workers in an environment with exposure to COVID-19 were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to hydroxychloroquine plus use of personal protective equipment or personal protective equipment alone. 886 participants were screened and 416 randomised (213 hydroxychloroquine arm and 203 personal protective equipment).

INTERVENTION

Participants in intervention arm received 800 mg of hydroxychloroquine on day of randomisation and then 400 mg once a week for 12 weeks in addition to the use of personal protective equipment. In the control arm, participants continued to use personal protective equipment alone.

MAIN OUTCOME

Proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the 6 months after randomisation.

RESULTS

Participants were young (mean age 32.1 years, SD 9.1 years) with low-comorbid burden. 47.4% were female. In the 6 months after randomisation (primary analysis population=413), 11 participants assigned to the hydroxychloroquine group and 12 participants assigned to the standard practice group met the primary endpoint (5.2% vs 5.9%; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07, p=0.72). There was no heterogeneity of treatment effect in any prespecified subgroup. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. The adverse event rates were 9.9% and 6.9% in the hydroxychloroquine and standard practice arms, respectively. There were no serious adverse events in either group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Hydroxychloroquine along with personal protective equipment was not superior to personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Definitive conclusions are precluded as the trial stopped early for futility, and hence was underpowered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2020/05/025067.

Safety of Short-Term Treatments with Oral Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in Patients with and without COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have recently become the focus of global attention as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current systematic review aims to assess their safety in short treatments (≤14 days), whether used alone or in combination with other drugs. Following the PRISMA and SWiM recommendations, a search was conducted using four health databases for all relevant English-, Chinese-, and Spanish-language studies from inception through 30 July 2021. Patients treated for any condition and with any comparator were included. The outcomes of interest were early drug adverse effects and their frequency. A total of 254 articles met the inclusion criteria, including case and case-control reports as well as cross-sectional, cohort, and randomised studies. The results were summarised either qualitatively in table or narrative form or, when possible (99 studies), quantitatively in terms of adverse event frequencies. Quality evaluation was conducted using the CARE, STROBE, and JADAD tools. This systematic review showed that safety depended on drug indication. In COVID-19 patients, cardiac adverse effects, such as corrected QT interval prolongation, were relatively frequent (0–27.3% and up to 33% if combined with azithromycin), though the risk of torsade de pointes was low. Compared to non-COVID-19 patients, COVID-19 patients experienced a higher frequency of cardiac adverse effects regardless of the regimen used. Dermatological adverse effects affected 0–10% of patients with autoimmune diseases and COVID-19. A broad spectrum of neuropsychiatric adverse effects affected patients treated with CQ for malaria with variable frequencies and some cases were reported in COVID-19 patients. Gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred regardless of drug indication affecting 0–50% of patients. In conclusion, CQ and HCQ are two safe drugs widely used in the treatment of malaria and autoimmune diseases. However, recent findings on their cardiac and neuropsychiatric adverse effects should be considered if these drugs were to be proposed as antivirals again.

Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review

Objective

To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts.

Results

Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17, 77%) followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%).

Conclusion

We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

The relationship between hydroxychloroquine plasma concentration and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients in Saudi Arabia

Background

The drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is widely used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and has been repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19. This study aims to determine whether HCQ concentration levels in individuals with RA alter the incidence of COVID-19 or its complications.

Methods

We collected plasma samples from 13 individuals with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to measure HCQ concentration levels. The study included individuals at least 18 years old who had been taking HCQ for at least six months at daily doses ranging from 200 to 400 mg.

Results

The study enrolled a total of 13 RA patients. All patients were chronic HCQ users. Among the 13 patients, 7 patients were receiving HCQ at a dose of 200 mg per day, and 6 patients were receiving HCQ at a dose of 400 mg per day. COVID-19 confirmed cases accounted for approximately 46% of all patients. Half of the infected patients (n = 3) were taking a daily dose of 200 mg daily, while the other half were taking 400 mg daily. COVID-19 symptoms ranged from mild to moderate, and the intensity of the symptoms was not severe enough to necessitate hospitalization. COVID-19 symptoms in RA patients included headache, fever, fatigue, dry cough, and loss of taste or smell.

Conclusions

Our findings indicated that there was no correlation between HCQ concentrations in rheumatoid arthritis patients and the occurrence of COVID-19 or its complications.

COVID 19 pandemic challenges and their management: A review of medicines, vaccines, patents and clinical trials with emphasis on psychological health issues

The SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID 19) paroxysm is a dominant health exigency that caused significant distress, affecting physical and mental health. Increased mortality, a stressed healthcare system, financial crisis, isolation, and new living and working styles enhanced societal commiseration leading to poor health outcomes. Though people try to maintain good physical health but unfortunately the mental affliction is still ignored. Poor psychological health has emerged as a burgeoning social issue and demands attention. Henceforth, the fundamental objective of this review article is to collate information about COVID-linked physical and psychological agony in diverse population groups with related symptoms and accessible diagnosis techniques. Recent studies have unraveled the fragile mental states of people who have either contracted COVID 19 or had near and dear ones falling prey to it. The impact of the epidemic on the human mind both in short and long-term, with possible risk and preventive factors together with suggested solutions for maintaining good health have also been discussed here. It also enlists the available medications, vaccines and investigational research in the form of patents and clinical trials. This article can be taken as an updated information sheet for COVID 19, accompanied by its management techniques with special emphasis on coping strategies for mental health. Further, it may also assist the policymakers to devise approaches that could enable the public to overcome the pandemic-driven adversity not only in the given situation but also futuristically.

Hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine had attracted significant attention in the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic but current recommendations do not support its use. However, the evidence against its use as pre-exposure prophylaxis have been of low to moderate quality and have been limited by high risk of bias.

METHODS

Following institutional ethics committee approval, healthcare workers (n = 1294) completing their first week-long COVID in-patient duty, subsequent institutional quarantine and RT-PCR testing for COVID-19 infection were included for this prospective cohort study. Demographic data, hydroxychloroquine usage and related adverse effects were captured through a 'Caring for the Caregivers' surveillance system. A chi-Square test of independence was used to determine the effect of hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Among the 1294 participants (age: 31 ± 7 years, 61% women), 273 (21.1%) healthcare workers used hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis as per Indian Council of Medical Research recommendations and 83/1294 (6.4%) tested positive after their duty. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 incidence between those on hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis and those not on it (5.9% vs 6.6%, χ2 = 0.177, p = 0.675; RR = 0.89, 95% CI - 0.53 to 1.52). There were no significant adverse effects to hydroxychloroquine usage.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated no benefit of hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis and provides quality evidence against its use in COVID-19 prevention.

Clinical progress of therapeutics and vaccines: Rising hope against COVID-19 treatment

Cases of deaths due to COVID-19 (COrona VIrus Disease-19) infection are increasing gradually worldwide. Immense research is ongoing to control this pandemic condition. Continual research outcomes are indicating that therapeutic and prophylactic agents are the possible hope to prevent the pandemic from spreading and to combat this increasing death count. Experience gained from previous coronavirus infections (eg., SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), MERS (Middle Ease Respiratory Syndrome), accumulated clinical knowledge during this pandemic, and research helped to identify a few therapeutic agents for emergency treatment of COVID-19. Thereby, monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, broad-spectrum antimicrobials, immunomodulators, and supplements are being suggested for treatment depending on the stage of the disease. These recommended treatments are authorized under medical supervision in emergency conditions only. Urgent need to control the pandemic condition had resulted in various approaches of repurposing the existing drugs, However, poorly designed clinical trials and associated outcomes do not provide enough evidence to fully approve treatments against COVID-19. So far, World Health Organization (WHO) authorized three vaccines as prophylactic against SARS-CoV-2. Here, we discussed about various therapeutic agents, their clinical trials, and limitations of trials for the management of COVID-19. Further, we have also spotlighted different vaccines in research in combating COVID-19.

Emergence of Two Distinct SARS-CoV-2 Gamma Variants and the Rapid Spread of P.1-like-II SARS-CoV-2 during the Second Wave of COVID-19 in Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil

The western mesoregion of the state of Santa Catarina (SC), Southern Brazil, was heavily affected as a whole by the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2021. This study aimed to evaluate the dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreading patterns in the SC state from March 2020 to April 2021 using genomic surveillance. During this period, there were 23 distinct variants, including Beta and Gamma, among which the Gamma and related lineages were predominant in the second pandemic wave within SC. A regionalization of P.1-like-II in the Western SC region was observed, concomitant to the increase in cases, mortality, and the case fatality rate (CFR) index. This is the first evidence of the regionalization of the SARS-CoV-2 transmission in SC and it highlights the importance of tracking the variants, dispersion, and impact of SARS-CoV-2 on the public health systems.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency and critical care clinician: Medical management

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.

OBJECTIVE

This is the second part in a series on COVID-19 updates providing a focused overview of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians.

DISCUSSION

COVID-19, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. A variety of medical therapies have been introduced for use, including steroids, antivirals, interleukin-6 antagonists, monoclonal antibodies, and kinase inhibitors. These agents have each demonstrated utility in certain patient subsets. Prophylactic anticoagulation in admitted patients demonstrates improved outcomes. Further randomized data concerning aspirin in outpatients with COVID-19 are needed. Any beneficial impact of other therapies, such as colchicine, convalescent plasma, famotidine, ivermectin, and vitamins and minerals is not present in reliable medical literature. In addition, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not recommended.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a focused update of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians to help improve care for these patients.

Coronavirus Usurps the Autophagy-Lysosome Pathway and Induces Membranes Rearrangement for Infection and Pathogenesis

Autophagy is a crucial and conserved homeostatic mechanism for early defense against viral infections. Recent studies indicate that coronaviruses (CoVs) have evolved various strategies to evade the autophagy–lysosome pathway. In this minireview, we describe the source of double-membrane vesicles during CoV infection, which creates a microenvironment that promotes viral RNA replication and virion synthesis and protects the viral genome from detection by the host. Firstly, CoVs hijack autophagy initiation through non-structural proteins and open-reading frames, leading to the use of non-nucleated phagophores and omegasomes for autophagy-derived double-membrane vesicles. Contrastingly, membrane rearrangement by hijacking ER-associated degradation machinery to form ER-derived double-membrane vesicles independent from the typical autophagy process is another important routine for the production of double-membrane vesicles. Furthermore, we summarize the molecular mechanisms by which CoV non-structural proteins and open-reading frames are used to intercept autophagic flux and thereby evade host clearance and innate immunity. A comprehensive understanding of the above mechanisms may contribute to developing novel therapies and clinical drugs against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the future.

Effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions, excluding personal protective equipment, to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and call for action

Many infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions have been adopted by hospitals to limit nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this systematic review is to identify evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. We conducted a literature search of five databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, COVID-19 Portfolio (pre-print), Web of Science). SWIFT ActiveScreener software was used to screen English titles and abstracts published between 1st January 2020 and 6th April 2021. Intervention studies, defined by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, that evaluated IPC interventions with an outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in either patients or healthcare workers were included. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was excluded as this intervention had been previously reviewed. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised trials (RoB2) and non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). From 23,156 screened articles, we identified seven articles that met the inclusion criteria, all of which evaluated interventions to prevent infections in healthcare workers and the majority of which were focused on effectiveness of prophylaxes. Due to heterogeneity in interventions, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. All agents used for prophylaxes have little to no evidence of effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections. We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions including but not limited to screening, isolation and improved ventilation. There is limited evidence from interventional studies, excluding PPE, evaluating IPC measures for SARS-CoV-2. This review calls for urgent action to implement such studies to inform policies to protect our most vulnerable populations and healthcare workers.

Hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 in health workers: A randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Health care workers are at high risk of being infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Our aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) in health personnel exposed to patients infected by SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled single center clinical trial. Included subjects were health care workers caring for severe COVID-19 patients. Main outcome was time to symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

127 subjects with a confirmed baseline negative RT-PCR SARS-CoV2 test were included in the trial. 62 assigned to HCQ and 65 to placebo. One subject (1.6%) in the HCQ group and 6 (9.2%) subjects in the placebo group developed COVID-19 (Log-Rank test p = 0.07). No severe COVID-19 cases were observed. The study was suspended because of a refusal to participate and losses to follow up after several trials reported lack of effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

The effect size of hydroxychloroquine was higher than placebo for COVID-19 symptomatic infection in health personnel, although this was not statistically significant. The trial is underpowered due to the failure to complete the estimated sample size.

Melatonin in the Prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Workers (MeCOVID): A Randomised Clinical Trial

We evaluated in this randomised, double-blind clinical trial the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Healthcare workers fulfilling inclusion criteria were recruited in five hospitals in Spain and were randomised 1:1 to receive melatonin 2 mg administered orally for 12 weeks or placebo. The main outcome was the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. A total of 344 volunteers were screened, and 314 were randomised: 151 to placebo and 163 to melatonin; 308 received the study treatment (148 placebo; 160 melatonin). We detected 13 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 2.6% in the placebo arm and 5.5% in the melatonin arm (p = 0.200). A total of 294 adverse events were detected in 127 participants (139 in placebo; 155 in melatonin). We found a statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events related to treatment: 43 in the placebo arm and 67 in the melatonin arm (p = 0.040), and in the number of participants suffering from somnolence related to treatment: 8.8% (n = 14) in the melatonin versus 1.4% (n = 2) in the placebo arm (p = 0.008). No severe adverse events related to treatment were reported. We cannot confirm our hypothesis that administration of melatonin prevents the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers.

Justificativa e Desenho do Ensaio Clínico Randomizado COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE - Coalition V): Hidroxicloroquina vs. Placebo em Pacientes Não Hospitalizados

Fundamento

Apesar da necessidade de opções terapêuticas específicas para a doença do coronavírus 2019 (covid-19), ainda não há evidências da eficácia de tratamentos específicos no contexto ambulatorial. Há poucos estudos randomizados que avaliam a hidroxicloroquina (HCQ) em pacientes não hospitalizados. Esses estudos não indicaram benefício com o uso da HCQ; no entanto, avaliaram desfechos primários diferentes e apresentaram vieses importantes na avaliação dos desfechos.

Objetivo

Investigar se a HCQ possui o potencial de prevenir hospitalizações por covid-19 quando comparada ao placebo correspondente.

Métodos

O estudo COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE) é um ensaio clínico randomizado, pragmático, duplo-cego, multicêntrico e controlado por placebo que avalia o uso da HCQ (800 mg no dia 1 e 400 mg do dia 2 ao dia 7) ou placebo correspondente na prevenção de hospitalizações por covid-19 em casos precoces confirmados ou suspeitos de pacientes não hospitalizados. Os critérios de inclusão são adultos (≥ 18 anos) que procuraram atendimento médico com sintomas leves de covid-19, com randomização ≤ 7 dias após o início dos sintomas, sem indicação de hospitalização na triagem do estudo e com pelo menos um fator de risco para complicações (> 65 anos, hipertensão, diabetes melito, asma, doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica ou outras doenças pulmonares crônicas, tabagismo, imunossupressão ou obesidade). Todos os testes de hipótese serão bilaterais. Um valor de p < 0,05 será considerado estatisticamente significativo em todas as análises. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04466540.

Resultados

Os desfechos clínicos serão avaliados centralmente por um comitê de eventos clínicos independente cegado para a alocação dos grupos de tratamento. O desfecho primário de eficácia será avaliado de acordo com o princípio da intenção de tratar.

Conclusão

Este estudo apresenta o potencial de responder de forma confiável a questão científica do uso da HCQ em pacientes ambulatoriais com covid-19. Do nosso conhecimento, este é o maior estudo avaliando o uso de HCQ em indivíduos com covid-19 não hospitalizados.

Hospitalization costs for COVID-19 in Ethiopia: Empirical data and analysis from Addis Ababa's largest dedicated treatment center

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused profound health, economic, and social disruptions globally. We assessed the full costs of hospitalization for COVID-19 disease at Ekka Kotebe COVID-19 treatment center in Addis Ababa, the largest hospital dedicated to COVID-19 patient care in Ethiopia.

Methods and findings

We retrospectively collected and analysed clinical and cost data on patients admitted to Ekka Kotebe with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections. Cost data included personnel time and salaries, drugs, medical supplies and equipment, facility utilities, and capital costs. Facility medical records were reviewed to assess the average duration of stay by disease severity (either moderate, severe, or critical). The data collected covered the time-period March-November 2020. We then estimated the cost per treated COVID-19 episode, stratified by disease severity, from the perspective of the provider. Over the study period there were 2,543 COVID-19 cases treated at Ekka Kotebe, of which, 235 were critical, 515 were severe, and 1,841 were moderate. The mean patient duration of stay varied from 9.2 days (95% CI: 7.6–10.9; for moderate cases) to 19.2 days (17.9–20.6; for critical cases). The mean cost per treated episode was USD 1,473 (95% CI: 1,197–1,750), but cost varied by disease severity: the mean cost for moderate, severe, and critical cases were USD 1,266 (998–1,534), USD 1,545 (1,413–1,677), and USD 2,637 (1,788–3,486), respectively.

Conclusions

Clinical management and treatment of COVID-19 patients poses an enormous economic burden to the Ethiopian health system. Such estimates of COVID-19 treatment costs inform financial implications for resource-constrained health systems and reinforce the urgency of implementing effective infection prevention and control policies, including the rapid rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, in low-income countries like Ethiopia.

Efficacy of antiviral therapies for COVID-19: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose a significant threat to public health worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review current evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed to identify randomized controlled trials published up to September 4, 2021 that examined the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Studies that were not randomized controlled trials or that did not include treatment of COVID-19 with approved antivirals were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) method. Due to study heterogeneity, inferential statistics were not performed and data were expressed as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 2,284 articles retrieved, 31 (12,440 patients) articles were included. Overall, antivirals were more effective when administered early in the disease course. No antiviral treatment demonstrated efficacy at reducing COVID-19 mortality. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir results suggested clinical improvement, although statistical power was low. Remdesivir exhibited efficacy in reducing time to recovery, but results were inconsistent across trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although select antivirals have exhibited efficacy to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, none demonstrated efficacy in reducing mortality. Larger RCTs are needed to conclusively establish efficacy.

Use of hiPSC-Derived Cardiomyocytes to Rule Out Proarrhythmic Effects of Drugs: The Case of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19

In the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, drug repurposing was widely used to identify compounds that could improve the prognosis of symptomatic patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was one of the first drugs used to treat COVID-19 due to its supposed capacity of inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication in vitro. While its efficacy is debated, HCQ has been associated with QT interval prolongation and potentially Torsades de Pointes, especially in patients predisposed to developing drug-induced Long QT Syndrome (LQTS) as silent carriers of variants associated with congenital LQTS. If confirmed, these effects represent a limitation to the at-home use of HCQ for COVID-19 infection as adequate ECG monitoring is challenging. We investigated the proarrhythmic profile of HCQ with Multi-Electrode Arrays after exposure of human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) from two healthy donors, one asymptomatic and two symptomatic LQTS patients. We demonstrated that: I) HCQ induced a concentration-dependent Field Potential Duration (FPD) prolongation and halted the beating at high concentration due to the combined effect of HCQ on multiple ion currents. II) hiPSC-CMs from healthy or asymptomatic carriers tolerated higher concentrations of HCQ and showed lower susceptibility to HCQ-induced electrical abnormalities regardless of baseline FPD. These findings agree with the clinical safety records of HCQ and demonstrated that hiPSC-CMs potentially discriminates symptomatic vs. asymptomatic mutation carriers through pharmacological interventions. Disease-specific cohorts of hiPSC-CMs may be a valid preliminary addition to assess drug safety in vulnerable populations, offering rapid preclinical results with valuable translational relevance for precision medicine.

Assessment of Risk Factors for Coronavirus Disease-2019 in Healthcare Workers: A Case–Control Study

Background and aims

With the rise of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) cases globally, the infection among frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) escalates many folds. There is, however, limited literature from low middle-income countries regarding risk factors for COVID-19 infection in HCWs. We conducted a case–control study to evaluate the risk factors of COVID-19 infection to HCWs.

Materials and methods

This case–control study was conducted in a designated COVID-19 hospital. Eighty-one HCWs involved in direct care of COVID-19 patients, identified as cases, and 266 were recruited as controls. Telephonic interviews with participants were conducted, and information regarding demographic variables, chemoprophylaxis, exposure to infected patients, and adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) measures was collected.

Results

We observed a statistically significant difference in the number of times training session for IPC measures attended by HCWs (p = 0.02), performance of aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs) (p <0.001), practices of donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) (p <0.001), hand hygiene (p <0.001), and decontamination of highly touched surfaces (p <0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed if the decontamination of highly touched surfaces is decreased by one unit, the odds of getting COVID-19 infection is multiplied by a factor of 0.41 and AGMPs decrease the risk of being a case by 0.76.

Conclusion

This study highlighted that inadequate observation of IPC methods increases the risk of COVID-19 infection to frontline HCWs, whereas performance of AGMPs does not enhance the risk. In this study, HCWs undertaking an AGMP, because of concern of acquiring infection, were more diligent during procedures and hence had lesser infection.

How to cite this article

Kerai S, Singh R, Saxena KN, Desai SD. Assessment of Risk Factors for Coronavirus Disease-2019 in Healthcare Workers: A Case–Control Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(1):76–84.