Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Nebulized Hydroxychloroquine: A Pilot Study in Healthy Volunteers.

Background: Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drew substantial attention as a potential COVID-19 treatment based on its antiviral and immunomodulatory effects in vitro. However, HCQ showed a lack of efficacy in vivo, and different groups of researchers attributed this failure to the insufficient drug concentration in the lung following oral administration (HCQ is only available in the market in the tablet form). Delivering HCQ by inhalation represents a more efficient route of administration to increase HCQ exposure in the lungs while minimizing systemic toxicity. In this pilot study, the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of HCQ nebulizer solution were evaluated in healthy volunteers. Methods: Twelve healthy participants were included in this study and were administered 2 mL of HCQ01 solution (equivalent to 25 mg of HCQ sulfate) through Aerogen® Solo, a vibrating mesh nebulizer. Local tolerability and systemic safety were assessed by forced expiratory volume in the first and second electrocardiograms, clinical laboratory results (e.g., hematology, biochemistry, and urinalysis), vital signs, and physical examinations. Thirteen blood samples were collected to determine HCQ01 systemic exposure before and until 6 hours after inhalation. Results: The inhalation of HCQ01 was well tolerated in all participants. The mean value of Cmax for the 12 participants was 9.66 ng/mL. Tmax occurred at around 4.8 minutes after inhalation and rapidly decreased thereafter. The reported systemic exposure was very low with a mean value of 5.28 (0.6-15.6) ng·h/mL. Conclusion: The low systemic concentrations of HCQ01 of 9.66 ng/mL reported by our study compared with 1 µg/mL previously predicted after 200 mg BID oral administration, and the safety and tolerability of HCQ01 administered as a single dose through nebulization, support the assessment of its efficacy, safety, and tolerability in further studies for the treatment of COVID-19.

Mitigating psychological distress in healthcare workers as COVID-19 waves ensue: a repeated cross-sectional study from Jordan.

BACKGROUND: Jordan has experienced several COVID-19 waves in the past 2 years. Cross-sectional studies have been conducted to evaluate distress in healthcare practitioners (HCPs), but there is limited evidence with regards to the impact of continuing pandemic waves on levels of distress in HCPs. We previously studied psychological distress in HCPs during the start of the pandemic (period 1, when cases were infrequent and the country was in lockdown), and demonstrated that HCPs were experiencing considerable stress, despite the country reporting low caseloads at the time. In this study, we sought to utilize the same methodology to reexamine levels of distress as COVID-19 peaked in the country and HCPs began managing large numbers of COVID-19 cases (period 2). METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey utilizing a tool previously used during period 1 was completed by HCPs working in various settings. Demographic, professional and psychological factors such as distress, anxiety, depression, burnout, sleep issues, exhaustion, and fear were assessed; and coping strategies also were measured. Items in the tool were assessed for reliability and validity. A multivariable regression was used to identify factors that continued to impact distress during period 2. RESULTS: Samples in both periods (n = 937, n = 876, respectively) were relatively comparable in demographic characteristics, but in period 2, a greater proportion of nurses and healthcare practitioners reported working in general hospitals. During the pandemic peak (period 2), 49.0% of HCPs reported high levels of distress (compared to 32% in period 1); anxiety and depression scores were approximately 21% higher in period 2; and 50.6% reported fatigue (compared to 34.3% in period 1). Variables significantly associated with greater distress in period 2 included experiencing burnout, experiencing sleep disturbances, being fatigued, having fatalistic fears, and having fears related to workload. Conversely, being male, reporting satisfaction at work, and using positive coping practices were associated with a significantly lower odds of being in distress. CONCLUSIONS: Between the two periods (early pandemic and first wave), COVID-19-related mental health continued to deteriorate among HCPs, highlighting the need to do more to support HCP front-liners facing COVID-19 surges.

The inevitability of Covid-19 related distress among healthcare workers: Findings from a low caseload country under lockdown.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize psychological distress and factors associated with distress in healthcare practitioners working during a stringent lockdown in a country (Jordan) that had exhibited one of the lowest incidence rates of Covid-19 globally at the time of the survey. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey sent to healthcare practitioners working in various hospitals and community pharmacies. Demographic, professional and psychological characteristics (distress using Kessler-6 questionnaire, anxiety, depression, burnout, sleep issues, exhaustion) were measured as were sources of fear. Descriptive and multivariable statistics were performed using level of distress as the outcome. RESULTS: We surveyed 937 practitioners (56.1% females). Approximately 68%, 14%, and 18% were nurses/technicians, physicians, and pharmacists (respectively). 32% suffered from high distress while 20% suffered from severe distress. Exhaustion, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances were reported (in past seven days) by approximately 34%, 34%, 19%, and 29% of subjects (respectively). Being older or male, a positive perception of communications with peers, and being satisfied at work, were significantly associated with lower distress. Conversely, suffering burnout; reporting sleep-related functional problems; exhaustion; being a pharmacist (relative to a physician); working in a cancer center; harboring fear about virus spreading; fear that the virus threatened life; fear of alienation from family/friends; and fear of workload increases, were significantly associated with higher distress. CONCLUSION: Despite low caseloads, Jordanian practitioners still experienced high levels of distress. Identified demographic, professional and psychological factors influencing distress should inform interventions to improve medical professionals' resilience and distress likelihood, regardless of the variable Covid-19 situation.

Development of a Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Model of Nebulized Hydroxychloroquine for Pulmonary Delivery to COVID-19 Patients.

Despite inconclusive evidence, chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)are commonly used for the treatment of Corona virus Disease 2019(COVID-19) in critically ill patients.It was hypothesized that HCQ as an aerosol application can reach the antiviral concentration of ~1-5 µM in the alveolar cells which has been proven effective in vitro. A physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model of nebulized HCQ for pulmonary delivery to COVID-19 patients using the Nasal-Pulmonary Module in GastroPlus® V9.7 simulator, in order to calculate the necessary inhalation dose regimen of HCQ, was developed. The physiological, drug disposition, and pharmacokinetic parameters were obtained from the literature and used during model building after optimization using Optimization Module, while oral data was used for validation. The 25 mg BID inhalation dosing was predicted to lead to alveolar HCQ levels of 7 µM (above EC50 of ~1-5 µM), and small plasma levels of 0.18 µM (as compared to plasma levels of 3.22 µM after 200 mg BID oral dosing). However, average contact time (>1 µM) is around 0.5 h in lung parts, suggesting indirect exposure response effect of HCQ.The developed PBPK model herein predicted HCQ levels in plasma and different lung parts of adults after multiple inhalation dosing regimens for 5 days. This in-silico work needs to be tested in vivo on healthy subjects and COVID-19 patients using 12.5 mg BID and 25 mg BID inhalation doses.