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

Evaluation of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19 (COPCOV): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has proved ineffective in treating patients hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but uncertainty remains over its safety and efficacy in chemoprevention. Previous chemoprevention randomised controlled trials (RCTs) did not individually show benefit of HCQ against COVID-19 and, although meta-analysis did suggest clinical benefit, guidelines recommend against its use.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Healthy adult participants from the healthcare setting, and later from the community, were enrolled in 26 centres in 11 countries to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of COVID-19 chemoprevention. HCQ was evaluated in Europe and Africa, and chloroquine (CQ) was evaluated in Asia, (both base equivalent of 155 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was symptomatic COVID-19, confirmed by PCR or seroconversion during the 3-month follow-up period. The secondary and tertiary endpoints were: asymptomatic laboratory-confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; severity of COVID-19 symptoms; all-cause PCR-confirmed symptomatic acute respiratory illness (including SARS-CoV-2 infection); participant reported number of workdays lost; genetic and baseline biochemical markers associated with symptomatic COVID-19, respiratory illness and disease severity (not reported here); and health economic analyses of HCQ and CQ prophylaxis on costs and quality of life measures (not reported here). The primary and safety analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Recruitment of 40,000 (20,000 HCQ arm, 20,000 CQ arm) participants was planned but was not possible because of protracted delays resulting from controversies over efficacy and adverse events with HCQ use, vaccine rollout in some countries, and other factors. Between 29 April 2020 and 10 March 2022, 4,652 participants (46% females) were enrolled (HCQ/CQ n = 2,320; placebo n = 2,332). The median (IQR) age was 29 (23 to 39) years. SARS-CoV-2 infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic) occurred in 1,071 (23%) participants. For the primary endpoint the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was 240/2,320 in the HCQ/CQ versus 284/2,332 in the placebo arms (risk ratio (RR) 0.85 [95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.00; p = 0.05]). For the secondary and tertiary outcomes asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred in 11.5% of HCQ/CQ recipients and 12.0% of placebo recipients: RR: 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.12; p = 0.6). There were no differences in the severity of symptoms between the groups and no severe illnesses. HCQ/CQ chemoprevention was associated with fewer PCR-confirmed all-cause respiratory infections (predominantly SARS-CoV-2): RR 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.88; p = 0.009) and fewer days lost to work because of illness: 104 days per 1,000 participants over 90 days (95% CI, 12 to 199 days; p < 0.001). The prespecified meta-analysis of all published pre-exposure RCTs indicates that HCQ/CQ prophylaxis provided a moderate protective benefit against symptomatic COVID-19: RR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91). Both drugs were well tolerated with no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Study limitations include the smaller than planned study size, the relatively low number of PCR-confirmed infections, and the lower comparative accuracy of serology endpoints (in particular, the adapted dried blood spot method) compared to the PCR endpoint. The COPCOV trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; number NCT04303507.

INTERPRETATION

In this large placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial, HCQ and CQ were safe and well tolerated in COVID-19 chemoprevention, and there was evidence of moderate protective benefit in a meta-analysis including this trial and similar RCTs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04303507; ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN10207947.

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.

Impact of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine on ultrastructural impairment and cellular SARS-CoV-2 infection in different cells of bronchoalveolar lavage fluids of COVID-19 patients

Many drugs were recommended as antiviral agents for infection control and effective therapy to reduce the mortality rate for COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), an antimalarial drug, has been controversially recommended for prophylactic use in many countries, including India, to control SARS-CoV-2 infections. We have explored the effect of prophylactic HCQ from the cells of bronchoalveolar lavage fluids from COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome patients to determine the level of infection and ultrastructural alterations in the ciliated epithelium, type II pneumocytes, alveolar macrophages, neutrophils, and enucleated granulocytes. Ultrastructural investigation of ciliated epithelium and type II pneumocytes showed lesser infections and cellular impairment in the prophylactic HCQ+ group than HCQ- group. However, macrophages and neutrophils displayed similar infection and ultrastructural alterations in both patient groups. The enucleated fragments of granulocytes showed phagocytosis of the matured virus in HCQ+ groups. The present report unveils the ultrastructural proof to complement the paradox regarding the role of prophylactic HCQ in COVID-19 patients.

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.

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.

Metabolic Activation of PARP as a SARS-CoV-2 Therapeutic Target-Is It a Bait for the Virus or the Best Deal We Could Ever Make with the Virus? Is AMBICA the Potential Cure?

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a great impact on global health and is an economic burden. Even with vaccines and anti-viral medications we are still scrambling to get a balance. In this perspective, we have shed light upon an extremely feasible approach by which we can control the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the associated complications, bringing some solace to this ongoing turmoil. We are providing some insights regarding an ideal agent which could prevent SARS-CoV-2 multiplication. If we could identify an agent which is an activator of metabolism and is also bioactive, we could prevent corona activation (AMBICA). Some naturally occurring lipid molecules best fit this identity as an agent which has the capacity to replenish our host cells, specifically immune cells, with ATP. It could also act as a source for providing a substrate for host cell PARP family members for MARylation and PARylation processes, leading to manipulation of the viral macro domain function, resulting in curbing the virulence and propagation of SARS-CoV-2. Identification of the right lipid molecule or combination of lipid molecules will fulfill the criteria. This perspective has focused on a unique angle of host-pathogen interaction and will open up a new dimension in treating COVID-19 infection.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

OBJECTIVE

To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.

FINDINGS

This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

Hospital-Based Quasi-Experimental Study on Hydroxychloroquine Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 in Healthcare Providers with Its Potential Side-Effects

Considering that it has been more than 24 months since SARS-CoV-2 emerged, it is crucial to identify measures that prevent and control pathogen transmission in workplace settings. Our aim was to report results of a hospital-based program that delivered hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) tablets as COVID-19 prophylaxis to the frontline healthcare workers (HCW)s who cared for COVID-19 patients and to evaluate the efficacy of HCQ. Setting and participants: Quasi-experimental, controlled, single-center study. The included participants were doctors, nurses, health workers, cleaning staff, and non-healthcare supportive staff. The main outcome was contracting COVID-19 anytime during the period of taking the prophylaxis, confirmed by RT-PCR. A total of 336 participants, without any clinical evidence of COVID-19 and without any known contact with family members, were included in the trial; 230 were assigned to HCQ and 106 declined to take any drug. Results: Among the participants, 43 (18.7%) in the HCQ group and 11 (10.4%) participants in the control group developed COVID-19. For the evaluation of side effects, we evaluated 12-lead ECGs of both groups at the baseline and after 4 weeks to monitor QTc interval. A total of 91% (198 of 217) participants in the prophylaxis group and 92% (11 of 12) in the control group had a QTc < 45o msec, which is within normal limits. Conclusions: Although the number of symptomatic infections in health personnel was lower in the control group, the difference was not statistically significant. However, in the absence of any effective pre-exposure prophylaxis medicine for COVID-19, practicing proper infection prevention and control (IPC) and vaccination is the only way forward.

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.

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.

Individual and Synergistic Anti-Coronavirus Activities of SOCS1/3 Antagonist and Interferon α1 Peptides

Suppressors of Cytokine Signaling (SOCS) are intracellular proteins that negatively regulate the induction of cytokines. Amongst these, SOCS1 and SOCS3 are particularly involved in inhibition of various interferons. Several viruses have hijacked this regulatory pathway: by inducing SOCS1and 3 early in infection, they suppress the host immune response. Within the cell, SOCS1/3 binds and inhibits tyrosine kinases, such as JAK2 and TYK2. We have developed a cell penetrating peptide from the activation loop of the tyrosine kinase, JAK2 (residues 1001-1013), denoted as pJAK2 that acts as a decoy and suppresses SOCS1 and 3 activity. This peptide thereby protects against several viruses in cell culture and mouse models. Herein, we show that treatment with pJAK2 inhibited the replication and release of the beta coronavirus HuCoV-OC43 and reduced production of the viral RNA, as measured by RT-qPCR, Western blot and by immunohistochemistry. We confirmed induction of SOCS1 and 3 in rhabdomyosarcoma (RD) cells, and this induction was suppressed by pJAK2 peptide. A peptide derived from the C-terminus of IFNα (IFNα-C) also inhibited replication of OC43. Furthermore, IFNα-C plus pJAK2 provided more potent inhibition than either peptide alone. To extend this study to a pandemic beta-coronavirus, we determined that treatment of cells with pJAK2 inhibited replication and release of SARS-CoV-2 in Calu-3 cells. We propose that these peptides offer a new approach to therapy against the rapidly evolving strains of beta-coronaviruses.