Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Dhibar DP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9825075 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Dhibar Deba Prasad DP Arora Navneet N Chaudhary Deepak D Prakash Ajay A Medhi Bikash B Singla Neeraj N Mohindra Ritin R Suri Vikas V Bhalla Ashish A Sharma Navneet N Singh Mini P MP Lakshmi P V M PVM Goyal Kapil K Ghosh Arnab A

Scientific reports 20230107 1

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 matchin ...[more]

PMID: 36611040

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAntiretroviral-based HIV prevention, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), is expanding in generalized epidemic settings, but additional prevention options are needed for individuals with periodic, high-risk sexual exposures. Non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is recommended in global guidelines. However, in Africa, awareness of and access to PEP for sexual exposures are limited. We assessed feasibility, acceptability, uptake and adherence in a pilot study of a patient-centred PEP programme with options for facility- or community-based service delivery.MethodsAfter population-level HIV testing with universal access to PrEP for persons at elevated HIV risk (SEARCH Trial:NCT01864603), we conducted a pilot PEP study in five rural communities in Kenya and Uganda between December 2018 and May 2019. We assessed barriers to PEP in the population and implemented an intervention to address these barriers, building on existing in-country PEP protocols. We used community leaders for sensitization. Test kits and medications were acquired through the Ministry of Health supply chain and healthcare providers based at the Ministry of Health clinics were trained on PEP delivery. Additional intervention components were (a)PEP availability seven days/week, (b)PEP hotline staffed by providers and (c)option for out-of-facility medication delivery. We assessed implementation using the Proctor framework and measured seroconversions via repeat HIV testing. Successful "PEP completion" was defined as self-reported adherence over four weeks of therapy with post-PEP HIV testing.ResultsCommunity leaders were able to sensitize and mobilize for PEP. The Ministry of Health supplied test kits and PEP medications; after training, healthcare providers delivered the 28-day regimen with high completion rates. Among 124 persons who sought PEP, 66% were female, 24% were ≤25 years and 42% were fisherfolk. Of these, 20% reported exposure with a serodifferent partner, 72% with a new or existing relationship and 7% from transactional sex. 12% of all visits were conducted at out-of-facility community-based sites; 35% of participants had ≥1 out-of-facility visit. No serious adverse events were reported. Overall, 85% met the definition of PEP completion. There were no HIV seroconversions.ConclusionsAmong individuals with elevated-risk exposures in rural East African communities, patient-centred PEP was feasible, acceptable and provides a promising addition to the current prevention toolkit.

Project description:Background/introductionLeprosy control remains a challenge in Nepal. Single-dose rifampicin post-exposure prophylaxis (SDR-PEP) shows promise in reducing leprosy incidence among contacts of index cases, contributing to reducing the transmission of Mycobacterium (M.) leprae. This study evaluates the effectiveness of routine SDR-PEP implementation in Nepal in addition to contact screening, focusing on its impact on reducing leprosy risk among contacts and potential population-level effects.MethodologyWe conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare leprosy case notification rates and leprosy risk among close contacts. We compared two districts implementing SDR-PEP (the intervention group) and two without (the comparator group). Data from 2015 onwards included demographics, index case types, and contact relationships. Statistical analyses, including Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival curves, assessed the impact of SDR-PEP implementation.FindingsAll four districts showed a decrease in case notification rates since 2015, with the steepest decline in the intervention districts. The risk of developing leprosy among contacts was significantly lower in the intervention districts (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18-0.44). SDR-PEP offered 72% protection, consistent over time, as shown in Kaplan-Meier plots. The protective effect was equally strong in blood-related contacts (HR 0.29 versus 0.27 in others, p = 0.32), and the proportion of MB cases among incident cases was not significantly different post-PEP (51.4% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.82).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the substantial protective effect of integrating SDR-PEP in routine leprosy control programs with contact screening, significantly lowering leprosy risk among contacts. SDR-PEP is equally effective for blood-related contacts and does not preferentially prevent PB cases. While suggesting potential population-level impact, the study design does not allow for firm conclusions at this level. Further research is needed to fully assess SDR-PEP's effectiveness in diverse contexts and optimize its implementation. Integrating SDR-PEP within well-organized contact screening programs is effective and is expected to reduce leprosy transmission when applied as a rolling intervention.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets