Hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 physicians survey: Despite lack of evidence, many would take or give to dear ones, and despite the perceived necessity of an RCT, few would participate

Outside any therapeutic trial prescription of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients with covid-19 during the first wave of the pandemic: A national inquiry of prescription patterns among French hospitalists

INTRODUCTION

During the first wave of the coronavirus-disease 2019 (covid-19) pandemic in early 2020, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was widely prescribed in light of in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Our objective was to evaluate in early 2020 the rate of French hospitalists declaring having prescribed HCQ to treat covid-19 patients outside any therapeutic trial, compare the reasons and the determinants for having prescribed HCQ or not.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A national inquiry submitted by email from May 7 to 25, 2020, to a sample of French hospitalists: doctors managing patients hospitalized for covid-19 in a French department of internal medicine or infectious diseases and identified in the directories of French hospitals or as a member of the French Infectious Diseases Society (SPILF). Primary outcome was the percentage of hospitalists declaring having prescribed HCQ to covid-19 patients. Secondary outcomes were reasons and determinants of HCQ prescription.

RESULTS

Among 400 (22.8%) responding hospitalists, 45.3% (95% CI, 40.4 to 50.1%) declared having prescribed HCQ to covid-19 patients. Two main profiles were discerned: HCQ prescribers who did not raise its efficacy as a motive, and non-prescribers who based their decision on evidence-based medicine. Multivariate analysis retained the following prescription determinants (adjusted odds ratio; 95% confidence interval): a departmental procedure for HCQ prescription (8.25; 4.79 to 14.20), having prescribed other treatments outside a therapeutic trial (3.21; 1.81 to 5.71), prior HCQ prescription (2.75; 1.5 to 5.03) and HCQ prescribed within the framework of a therapeutic trial (0.56; 0.33 to 0.95).

CONCLUSION

Almost half of the hospitalists prescribed HCQ. The physician's personality (questioning or not evidence-based-medicine principles in the context of the pandemic) and departmental therapeutic procedures were the main factors influencing HCQ prescription. Establishment of "therapeutic" procedures represents a potential means to improve the quality of therapeutic decision-making during a pandemic.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine prophylaxis among health-care workers: Was it really preventive? – Evidence from a multicentric cross-sectional study

Background:

Despite the low level of clinical evidence in hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) favor, it was prescribed for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis in India and worldwide. In absence of a large randomized control trial, the evidence needs to be generated through observation study, hence the study was conducted to find the evidence for prophylaxis of HCQ.

Materials and Methods:

A multi-centric cross-sectional study involving government hospitals was chosen for serosurvey conducted from August 21, 2020, to November 20, 2020. Questionnaire was adopted from WHO. Data about chloroquine (CQ) use among health-care workers (HCWs) were added and the duration of CQ intake was also noted.

Results:

A total of 2,224 HCWs were recruited. The mean duration of time of taking HCQ was 7.1 weeks (standard deviation ± 6.1 weeks, median = 4 weeks with IQR, 3–10 weeks). Training on personal protective equipment (PPE), knowledge of handwashing, direct care to the patient, availability of alcohol hand rub, close contact with the patient, duration of contact, and usage of PPE were associated with HCQ intake. The antibody formation in group taking HCQ was 16.9% compared to 19.8% not taking it (P = 0.08). The Chi-square for linear trend for weeks of HCQ intake and antibody formation. However, the same was not statistically significant (Chi-square = 3.61, P = 0.06).

Conclusion:

Our study did not find a statistically significant association in the large multicentric study. The absolute difference of 2.9% in the two groups may not be sufficient to warrant its widespread use for prophylaxis.

Perceptions of Romanian Physicians on Lockdowns for COVID-19 Prevention

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020, triggering important changes for the entire society and healthcare systems, as well as significant lockdown measures aimed to limit the disease spread. We herein intended to catch the dynamic of Romanian physicians' perceptions of COVID-19 impact. For this purpose, after a literature review, a 30-item questionnaire was designed. The questionnaire was twice distributed online, about 1 month apart, during which partial relaxation measures were decreed in Romania. The questionnaire was voluntarily filled in by Romanian physicians who were willing to participate in the study. A total of 214 physicians answered the questionnaire upon its first release, and 199 respondents were registered upon its second release, most of whom (94.9%) were involved in clinical work, with one-third working in units dedicated to COVID-19 patients. In parallel with the relaxation of lockdown measures, along with increased confidence in the efficiency of protective measures (46.7% vs. 31.3%), separation from household members decreased from 36.9% to 22.1%. Nevertheless, the feeling of rejection felt by doctors remained similar (22.4% vs. 24.6%). Furthermore, answers regarding the clinical picture, diagnostic approach, and treatment options are discussed. Most of therapeutic options considered for SARS-CoV-2 treatment (e.g., lopinavir/ritonavir, oseltamivir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, tocilizumab, and convalescent plasma) failed to confirm significant efficiency. On the contrary, vaccines for widescale use are already available despite the initial skepticism. In the beginning of the pandemic, 25.2% (18.2% vs. 32.2%) considered that there will not be an effective COVID-19 vaccine, while 41.6% (43.0% vs. 40.2%) thought that a vaccine would be available after at least 12 months. In conclusion, initially, following only a 1 month period, Romanian physicians' intention to consider treatments such as hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir for COVID-19 decreased significantly. Moreover, confidence in the efficiency of available protective measures increased, and the rates of separation from household members decreased.

Hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 physicians survey: Despite lack of evidence, many would take or give to dear ones, and despite the perceived necessity of an RCT, few would participate

INTRODUCTION

There was no evidence concerning the prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine, and only low-grade evidence regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. We performed a survey among Romanian physicians in order to see how many of them would administer prophylactically hydroxychloroquine to themselves or to people close to them, and if they would participate to a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Between March 30 and April 02, 2020, a 16-item questionnaire was shared in a Romanian Facebook group of 2645 physicians dedicated to COVID-19 information, asking to be completed by physicians who could be directly involved in the care of these patients.

RESULTS

A total of 785 answers were collected. Nine physicians (1.1%) thought that there was clear evidence on prescribing hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, 375 (48%) considered the evidence acceptable, 348 (44.3%) considered it weak, whereas 53 (6.8%) answered there was no evidence. 59 (7.5%) respondents were determined to take it (of which 31 = 4% already took), 192 (24.5%) were inclined to take, 271 (34.5%) were not decided yet. 175 (22.3%) of respondents declared they (would) give the treatment to their close ones, and this decision was associated with a higher age (P = 0.003), and the opinion that there was evidence (P < 0.001). When asked about the source of the treatment regimen, 286 (36.4%) indicated a scientific paper, while no scientific paper about the prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine existed at that time. 718 (91.5%) considered a randomized clinical trial necessary (RCT), but only 333 (42.4%) answered they would enrol in such a trial. There was only a very weak correlation (Kendall's tau _b = 0.255, P < 0.001) between the belief that an RCT is necessary and the willingness to enrol in such an RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of evidence, many physicians considered the evidence as existing, and were ready to take or to give hydroxychloroquine prophylactically to family. They considered an RCT necessary, but they were not willing to participate.