Discharge Disposition and Loss of Independence Among Survivors of COVID-19 Admitted to Intensive Care: Results From the SCCM Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS).

OBJECTIVES: To describe incidence and risk factors of loss of previous independent living through nonhome discharge or discharge home with health assistance in survivors of intensive care unit (ICU) admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DESIGN: Multicenter observational study including patients admitted to the ICU from January 2020 till June 30, 2021. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that there is a high risk of nonhome discharge in patients surviving ICU admission due to COVID-19. SETTING: Data were included from 306 hospitals in 28 countries participating in the SCCM Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 registry. PATIENTS: Previously independently living adult ICU survivors of COVID-19. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was nonhome discharge. Secondary outcome was the requirement of health assistance among patients who were discharged home. Out of 10 820 patients, 7101 (66%) were discharged alive; 3791 (53%) of these survivors lost their previous independent living status, out of those 2071 (29%) through nonhome discharge, and 1720 (24%) through discharge home requiring health assistance. In adjusted analyses, loss of independence on discharge among survivors was predicted by patient age ≥ 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47-3.14, P < .0001), former and current smoking status (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.46, P = .003 and 1.60 (95% CI 1.18-2.16), P = .003, respectively), substance use disorder (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.12-2.06, P = .007), requirement for mechanical ventilation (aOR 4.17, 95% CI 3.69-4.71, P < .0001), prone positioning (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.38, P = .02), and requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.55-3.34, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of ICU survivors hospitalized for COVID-19 are unable to return to independent living status, thereby imposing a significant secondary strain on health care systems worldwide.

The Building Emotional Awareness and Mental health (BEAM) program developed with a community partner for mothers of infants: protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Drastic increases in the rates of maternal depression and anxiety have been reported since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Most programs aim to improve maternal mental health or parenting skills separately, despite it being more effective to target both concurrently. The Building Emotional Awareness and Mental health (BEAM) program was developed to address this gap. BEAM is a mobile health program aiming to mitigate the impacts of pandemic stress on family well-being. Since many family agencies lack infrastructure and personnel to adequately treat maternal mental health concerns, a partnership will occur with Family Dynamics (a local family agency) to address this unmet need. The study's objective is to examine the feasibility of the BEAM program when delivered with a community partner to inform a larger randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: A pilot RCT will be conducted with mothers who have depression and/or anxiety with a child 6-18 months old living in Manitoba, Canada. Mothers will be randomized to the 10 weeks of the BEAM program or a standard of care (i.e., MoodMission). Back-end App data (collected via Google Analytics and Firebase) will be used to examine feasibility, engagement, and accessibility of the BEAM program; cost-effectiveness will also be examined. Implementation elements (e.g., maternal depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9] and anxiety [Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7]) will be piloted to estimate the effect size and variance for future sample size calculations. DISCUSSION: In partnership with a local family agency, BEAM holds the potential to promote maternal-child health via a cost-effective and an easily accessible program designed to scale. Results will provide insight into the feasibility of the BEAM program and will inform future RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION {2A}: This trial was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrial.gov ( NCT05398107 ) on May 31st, 2022.

Determinants of Professional Fulfillment and Burnout Among Intensivists: A National Survey by the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists in 2022.

BACKGROUND: Increased burnout and decreased professional fulfillment among intensive care physicians is partly due to intensive care unit (ICU) workload. Although the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic increased ICU workload, it also may have increased feelings of personal fulfillment due to positive public perceptions of physicians caring for COVID patients. We surveyed critical care anesthesiologists to identify the effect of provider demographics, ICU workload, and COVID-19-related workload, on professional fulfillment and burnout. METHODS: We performed an exploratory survey of 606 members of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA) in January and February 2022. We used the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) to grade levels of professional fulfillment and markers of burnout (ie, work exhaustion and disengagement). Univariable and multivariable models were used to identify associations between provider demographics and practice characteristics and professional fulfillment and work exhaustion. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-five intensivists (29%) responded. A total of 65% were male and 49% were between 36 and 45 years old. The overall median PFI score-0 (none) to 24 (most professional fulfillment)-was 17 (IQR, 1-24), with a wide distribution of responses. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with higher professional fulfillment included age >45 years ( P =.004), ≤15 weeks full-time ICU coverage in 2020 ( P =.02), role as medical director ( P =.01), and nighttime home call with supervision of in-house ICU fellows ( P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: Professional fulfillment and work exhaustion in this cross-sectional survey were associated with several demographic and practice characteristics but not COVID-19-related workload, suggesting that COVID-19 workload may not have either positive or negative perceptions on professional fulfillment.

Quantifying the Relationship between SARS-CoV-2 Wastewater Concentrations and Building-Level COVID-19 Prevalence at an Isolation Residence: A Passive Sampling Approach.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads can be detected in the excreta of individuals with COVID-19 and have demonstrated positive correlations with clinical infection trends. Consequently, wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) approaches have been implemented globally as a public health surveillance tool to monitor community-level prevalence of infections. The majority of wastewater specimens are gathered as either composite samples via automatic samplers (autosamplers) or grab samples. However, autosamplers are expensive and can be challenging to maintain in cold weather, while grab samples are particularly susceptible to temporal variation when sampling sewage directly from complex matrices outside residential buildings. Passive sampling can provide an affordable, practical, and scalable sampling system while maintaining a reproducible SARS-CoV-2 signal. In this regard, we deployed tampons as passive samplers outside of a COVID-19 isolation unit (a segregated residence hall) at a university campus from 1 February 2021-21 May 2021. Samples (n = 64) were collected 3-5 times weekly and remained within the sewer for a median duration of 24 h. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was quantified using reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) targeting the N1 and N2 gene fragments. We quantified the mean viral load captured per individual and the association between the daily viral load and total persons, adjusting for covariates using multivariable models to provide a baseline estimate of viral shedding. Samples were processed through two distinct laboratory pipelines on campus, yielding highly correlated N2 concentrations. Data obtained here highlight the success of passive sampling utilizing tampons to capture SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater coming from a COVID-19 isolation residence, indicating that this method can help inform building-level public health responses.

Perceived Stress, Resilience, and Wellbeing in Seasoned Isha Yoga Practitioners Compared to Matched Controls During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Yoga practices, including breathing, meditation, and posture protocols (asanas), have been shown to facilitate physical and mental wellbeing. Methods: Seasoned yoga practitioners were recruited from the Isha Foundation. Recruitment of the comparison group was achieved using snowball sampling and were not yoga practitioners. Participants in the non-yoga group were randomized to a 3-min Isha practice or a comparator group asked to perform 15-min of daily reading. Participants completed a series of web-based surveys (REDCap) at baseline, 6, and 12 weeks. These surveys include validated scales and objective questions on COVID-19 infection and medical history. The validated questionnaires assess for: perceived stress (PSS), mood states [anxiety and depression (PHQ-4), joy (DPES-Joy subscale)], mindfulness attention and awareness (MAAS), resilience (BRS), mental wellbeing (WEMWBS) and recovery from traumatic event (PTGI). Weekly activity diaries were employed as a tool for collecting compliance information from study participants. Perceived stress scale scores were identified as primary outcome for this study. Findings: The median Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) score for the yoga practitioners compared to the active and placebo comparators was significantly lower at all time-points: baseline: 11 [IQR 7-15] vs. 16 [IQR 12-21] in both the active and placebo comparators (p < 0.0001); 6 weeks: 9 [IQR 6-13] vs. 12 [IQR 8-17] in the active comparator and 14 [IQR 9-18] in the placebo comparator (p < 0.0001); and 12 weeks: 9 [IQR 5-13] vs. 11.5 [IQR 8-16] in the active comparators and 13 [IQR 8-17] in the placebo comparator (p < 0.0001). Among the randomized participants that were compliant for the full 12 weeks, the active comparators had significantly lower median PSS scores than the placebo comparators 12 weeks [10 (IQR 5-14) vs. 13 (IQR 8-17), p = 0.017]. Further, yoga practitioners had significantly lower anxiety at all three-time points (p < 0.0001), lower depression at baseline and 6 weeks (p < 0.0003), and significantly higher wellbeing (p < 0.0001) and joy (p < 0.0001) at all three-time points, compared to the active and placebo comparator groups. Interpretation: The lower levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and higher level of wellbeing and joy seen in the yoga practitioners compared to the active and placebo comparators illustrate the impact of regular yoga practices on mental health even during the pandemic. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04498442.

Impacts and Student Experiences of a Piloted Course-Based Peer Mentoring Program During a Global Pandemic

Date Presented 04/01/2022 This poster explores the impact of virtual and in-person peer mentoring during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on entry-level OT graduate students. The poster presentation will discuss the results of qualitative data analysis, reflect on student experiences and the usefulness and effectiveness of course-based peer mentoring as a pedagogical tool in entry-level curricula, and consider ways to use this knowledge to enhance education and professional development of OT students. Primary Author and Speaker: Lauren Stone Kelly

Peer Mentoring in an Entry-Level Occupational Therapy Program: Student Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had significant impacts on education. During this time, educators were tasked to develop creative and new ways to engage and teach students. Mentoring has been shown to positively impact academic and psychosocial outcomes and can enhance clinical skills in both in-person and e-learning environments. However, there is need for further research on peer mentoring programs in occupational therapy curriculum. Method: This retrospective qualitative study investigates the effects of peer mentoring on student perceptions of learning and professional development. Experiences were tracked for three semesters during the pandemic at an accredited entry-level occupational therapy program in the US. The students answered two to three questions at the end of each semester;qualitative analysis followed. Results: Twenty-six to 28 students consented each semester. Positive experiences, improved communication, and professional skills were reported. Most of the students felt peer mentoring enhanced learning, reduced stress, and fostered comradery. Collaborative partnership was preferred, and the students often asked for more structured faculty support. Discussion: The results are consistent with current evidence and confirm use of mentoring in entry-level occupational therapy programs may be beneficial even in adapted learning environments. This study gives insight to learning during a global pandemic and provides guidance for post pandemic pedagogical design.

Sedative polypharmacy mediates the effect of mechanical ventilation on delirium in critically ill COVID-19 patients: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy of sedatives (PP) is a potentially modifiable, iatrogenic risk factor for ICU delirium. The extent to which sedative PP influenced development of high rates of delirium among critically ill COVID-19 patients is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that PP, defined as the use of four or more classes of intravenous agents, is a mediator in the causal pathway of mechanical ventilation and delirium. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adults admitted with a primary diagnosis of RT-PCR+ for SARS-CoV2 to ICUs of a tertiary-level academic medical center between February 2020 and April 2021. Mediation analysis was conducted with bootstrap estimation to assess whether an association between mechanical ventilation and delirium was mediated by PP. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders related to mechanical ventilation, mediator, and outcome, including age, gender, vasopressor use, median RASS scores, SOFA score within 24 h of admission, and maximum CRP levels. RESULTS: A total of 212 patients were included in the analysis. Of total patients, 72.6%(154/212) of patients had delirium (CAM-ICU+) during ICU stay. 54.7%(116/212) patients received PP. Mechanical ventilation (OR 3.81 [1.16-12.52]) and PP (OR 7.38 [2.4-22.68]) were identified as risk factors for development of ICU delirium after adjusting for prespecified confounders. PP acts as a mediator in the causal pathway between mechanical ventilation and delirium. 39% (95% CI: 17%-94%) of the effect of mechanical ventilation on delirium was mediated through PP. CONCLUSION: PP mediates approximately 39% of the effect of mechanical ventilation on delirium, which is clinically and statistically significant. Studies should assess whether mitigating PP could lead to reduction in ICU delirium. IMPLICATION STATEMENT: PP of sedatives (defined as use of four or more intravenous agents) mediates approximately 39% of the effect of mechanical ventilation on development of ICU delirium. Avoidance of sedative PP may represent a viable strategy for reduction of ICU delirium.

Short Term Effects of Inner Engineering Completion Online Program on Stress and Well-Being Measures.

Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic has been a major disruptor of routine life, resulting in increased stress and predisposing people to negative outcomes, such as insomnia, anxiety and hopelessness. Mind-body interventions have improved concentration, emotional balance, and positive emotions, with an enhanced sense of productivity, and self-confidence. We therefore hypothesized that exposure to an online mind-body intervention, "Inner Engineering Completion Online (IECO)," would reduce stress and promote well-being. Methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled participants registered for the IECO courses, which for the first time were delivered remotely, online. Participants learned a 21-min meditation practice called Shambhavi Mahamudra Kriya during the course, which incorporates controlled breathing and mediation techniques. Each enrolled participant was asked to complete self-reported electronic surveys at three key time points: at the time of consent, immediately after completing IECO, and 6 weeks after IECO completion. Effects of IECO practice were assessed using four well-validated neuropsychological scales: Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Positive Emotion/Relationship/Engagement Scale (PERMA) Profiler, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS). A Signed Rank test was used to analyze the survey data and P-values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Of the 375 participants interested in participation, 164 participants were eligible. Sixty-eight participants completed surveys at all time points and were identified as compliant participants. The baseline median score for PSS in compliant participants (n = 95) was 13.5 (IQR 9, 18); immediate post-IECO median PSS score was 12 (IQR 8, 16) demonstrating a 1.5 unit decrease in PSS scores (p-value = 0.0023). Similarly, comparing PSS scores in compliant participants (n = 68) for immediate Post IECO [11.5 (IQR 8, 15.5)] to PSS scores at six weeks [8 (IQR 4.5, 12.5)] showed a statistically significant 3.5-unit decrease, indicating a reduction in stress upon routine practice of the intervention (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Incorporating the remotely delivered mind-body intervention Shambhavi Mahamudra Kriya into daily life via the IECO program over as few as 6 weeks produced a significant stress reduction, improvement in sleep quality and mindfulness. Clinical Trial Registration: [ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT04189146].

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems. METHODS: We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation. RESULTS: Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

DISCHARGE OUTCOMES OF PATIENTS WITH COVID-19 ADMITTED TO THE ICU: THE VIRUS REGISTRY

B Conclusion: b Deep sedation adversely affected discharge outcomes of Coronavirus disease 2019 patients who were admitted to the ICU. B Introduction: b To describe the discharge outcomes of patients admitted to the ICU in a multicentre, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19 : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: No effective oral therapy exists for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 severity in adult outpatients. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 22 March through 20 May 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04308668). SETTING: Internet-based trial across the United States and Canada (40 states and 3 provinces). PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic, nonhospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure within 4 days of symptom onset. INTERVENTION: Oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or masked placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Symptoms and severity at baseline and then at days 3, 5, 10, and 14 using a 10-point visual analogue scale. The primary end point was change in overall symptom severity over 14 days. RESULTS: Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, -0.27 point [95% CI, -0.61 to 0.07 point]; P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non-COVID-19-related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death (P = 0.29). LIMITATION: Only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages. CONCLUSION: Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Private donors.

Safety of Hydroxychloroquine Among Outpatient Clinical Trial Participants for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from 3 outpatient randomized clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis, postexposure prophylaxis, and early treatment for COVID-19 using an internet-based design. We excluded individuals with contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. We collected side effects and serious adverse events. We report descriptive analyses of our findings. RESULTS: We enrolled 2795 participants. The median age of research participants (interquartile range) was 40 (34-49) years, and 59% (1633/2767) reported no chronic medical conditions. Overall 2544 (91%) participants reported side effect data, and 748 (29%) reported at least 1 medication side effect. Side effects were reported in 40% with once-daily, 36% with twice-weekly, 31% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, compared with 19% with placebo. The most common side effects were upset stomach or nausea (25% with once-daily, 19% with twice-weekly, and 18% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 11% for placebo), followed by diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal pain (23% for once-daily, 17% twice-weekly, and 13% once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 7% for placebo). Two individuals were hospitalized for atrial arrhythmias, 1 on placebo and 1 on twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine. No sudden deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Data from 3 outpatient COVID-19 trials demonstrated that gastrointestinal side effects were common but mild with the use of hydroxychloroquine, while serious side effects were rare. No deaths occurred related to hydroxychloroquine. Randomized clinical trials, in cohorts of healthy outpatients, can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04308668 for postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment trials; NCT04328467 for pre-exposure prophylaxis trial.

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was -2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -7.0 to 2.2; P = 0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668.).

Post-exposure prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): study protocol for a pragmatic randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 causing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based therapies to prevent COVID-19 following exposure to the virus, or to prevent worsening of symptoms following confirmed infection. We describe the design of a clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and pre-emptive therapy (PET) for COVID-19. METHODS: We will conduct two nested multicentre international double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for: 1) PEP of asymptomatic household contacts or healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 within the past four days, and 2) PET for symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 showing symptoms for less than four days. We will recruit 1,500 patients each for the PEP and PET trials. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive five days of hydroxychloroquine or placebo. The primary PEP trial outcome will be the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19. The primary PET trial outcome will be an ordinal scale of disease severity (not hospitalized, hospitalized without intensive care, hospitalization with intensive care, or death). Participant screening, informed consent, and follow-up will be exclusively internet-based with appropriate regulatory and research ethics board approvals in Canada and the United States. DISCUSSION: These complementary randomized-controlled trials are innovatively designed and adequately powered to rapidly answer urgent questions regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine to reduce virus transmission and disease severity of COVID-19 during a pandemic. In-person participant follow-up will not be conducted to facilitate social distancing strategies and reduce risks of exposure to study personnel. Innovative trial approaches are needed to urgently assess therapeutic options to mitigate the global impact of this pandemic. TRIALS REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04308668); registered 16 March, 2020.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Le syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère du coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) est apparu en décembre 2019, provoquant la pandémie de la COVID-19. À l'heure actuelle, il n'existe aucun traitement fondé sur des données probantes permettant de prévenir la COVID-19 suite à une exposition au virus ou de prévenir l'aggravation des symptômes suite à une infection confirmée. Nous décrivons la conception d'une étude clinique examinant l'utilisation d'hydroxychloroquine en tant que prophylaxie post-exposition (PPE) et de traitement préventif (TP) pour la COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous réaliserons deux études cliniques imbriquées contrôlées par placebo, randomisées, à double insu, internationales et multicentriques examinant l'utilisation d'hydroxychloroquine pour : 1) la prophylaxie post-exposition des contacts asymptomatiques dans un même foyer ou les travailleurs de la santé exposés à la COVID-19 au cours des quatre derniers jours, et 2) le traitement préventif des patients symptomatiques en ambulatoire atteints de COVID-19 et présentant des symptômes pour une durée totale de moins de quatre jours. Nous recruterons 1500 patients pour chaque bras de l'étude (PPE et TP). Les participants seront randomisés à un ratio de 1 : 1 pour recevoir cinq jours d'hydroxychloroquine ou de placebo. Le critère d'évaluation principal de l'étude PPE sera l'incidence de COVID-19 symptomatique. Le critère d'évaluation principal de l'étude TP consistera en une échelle ordinale de la gravité de la maladie (pas d'hospitalisation, hospitalisation sans soins intensifs, hospitalisation avec soins intensifs, ou décès). La sélection des participants, le consentement éclairé et le suivi se feront exclusivement en ligne après avoir obtenu les consentements réglementaires et des comités d'éthique de la recherche appropriés au Canada et aux États-Unis. DISCUSSION: Ces études randomisées contrôlées complémentaires sont conçues de façon innovatrice et disposent de la puissance nécessaire pour répondre rapidement aux questions urgentes quant à l'efficacité de l'hydroxychloroquine pour réduire la transmission et la gravité de la maladie de la COVID-19 pendant une pandémie. Le suivi des participants ne sera pas réalisé en personne afin de faciliter les stratégies de distanciation sociale et de réduire le risque d'exposition du personnel de l'étude. Des approches innovatrices d'études sont nécessaires afin d'évaluer rapidement les options thérapeutiques pour mitiger l'impact global de cette pandémie. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04308668); enregistrées le 16 mars 2020.

Review: Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine for Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging viral infection causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have garnered unprecedented attention as potential therapeutic agents against COVID-19 following several small clinical trials, uncontrolled case series, and public figure endorsements. While there is a growing body of scientific data, there is also concern for harm, particularly QTc prolongation and cardiac arrhythmias. Here, we perform a rapid narrative review and discuss the strengths and limitations of existing in vitro and clinical studies. We call for additional randomized controlled trial evidence prior to the widespread incorporation of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine into national and international treatment guidelines.