Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(7): e1772-e1774, 2021 10 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1584986
2.
Drugs ; 81(18): 2081-2089, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544607

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 infection causes COVID-19, which frequently leads to clinical deterioration and/or long-lasting morbidity. Academic and governmental experts throughout the USA met in 2021 to discuss the potential for use of fluvoxamine as early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that is a strong sigma-1 receptor agonist, and this may effectively reduce cytokine production, preventing clinical deterioration. This repurposed psychiatric medication has a well-known safety record, is inexpensive, easy to use, and widely available, all of which are advantages during this global COVID-19 pandemic. At the meeting, experts reviewed the existing published literature on the use of fluvoxamine as experimental COVID-19 treatment, as well as prior research on the potential mechanisms for anti-inflammatory effects of fluvoxamine, including for other conditions including sepsis. Investigators shared current trials underway and existing gaps in knowledge. Two randomized controlled trials and one observational study examining the effect of fluvoxamine in COVID-19 treatment have found high efficacy. Four larger randomized clinical trials are currently underway, including three in the USA and Canada. More data are needed on dosing and mechanisms of effect; however, fluvoxamine appears to have substantial potential as a safe and widely available medication that could be repurposed to ameliorate serious COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. As of April 2021, fluvoxamine was mentioned in the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines, although no recommendation is made for or against use. Available data may warrant clinician discussion of fluvoxamine as a treatment option for COVID-19, using shared decision making. Video Abstract.

4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(11): e835-e843, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249296

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , COVID-19/drug therapy , Canada , Health Personnel , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 11(3)2021 Mar 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1143463

ABSTRACT

Influenza poses a serious health threat and creates an economic burden for people around the world. The accurate diagnosis of influenza is critical to the timely clinical treatment of patients and the control of outbreaks to protect public health. Commercially available rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) that are operated by visual readout are widely used in clinics to screen influenza infections, but RIDTs suffer from imperfect analytical sensitivity, especially when the virus concentration in the sample is low. Fortunately, the sensitivity can be simply improved through an add-on signal amplification step, i.e., thermal contrast amplification (TCA). To demonstrate the advantage of TCA for influenza diagnosis, we conducted a prospective cohort study on 345 clinical specimens collected for influenza A and B testing during the 2017-2018 influenza season. All samples were tested using the Quidel QuickVue Influenza A + B test, followed by a TCA readout, and then confirmatory polymerase chain reaction testing. Through the TCA detecting sub-visual weak positives, TCA reading improved the overall influenza sensitivity by 53% for influenza A and 33% for influenza B over the visual RIDTs readings. Even though the specificity was compromised slightly by the TCA protocol (relative decrease of 0.09% for influenza A and 0.01% for influenza B), the overall performance was still better than that achieved by visual readout based on comparison of their plots in receiver operating characteristic space and F1 scores (relative increase of 14.5% for influenza A and 12.5% for influenza B). Performing a TCA readout on wet RIDTs also improved the overall TCA performance (relative increase in F1 score of 48%). Overall, the TCA method is a simple and promising way to improve the diagnostic performance of commercial RIDTs for infectious diseases, especially in the case of specimens with low target analytes.

6.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(2): ofab050, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1099625

ABSTRACT

We report a real-world experience using fluvoxamine for coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) in a prospective cohort in the setting of a mass outbreak. Overall, 65 persons opted to receive fluvoxamine (50 mg twice daily) and 48 declined. Incidence of hospitalization was 0% (0 of 65) with fluvoxamine and 12.5% (6 of 48) with observation alone. At 14 days, residual symptoms persisted in 0% (0 of 65) with fluvoxamine and 60% (29 of 48) with observation.

7.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(2): ofaa602, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069290

ABSTRACT

As the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic evolved, it was apparent that well designed and rapidly conducted randomized clinical trials were urgently needed. However, traditional clinical trial design presented several challenges. Notably, disease prevalence initially varied by time and region, and the pockets of outbreaks evolved geographically over time. Coupled with an occupational hazard from in-person study visits, timely recruitment would prove difficult in a traditional in-person clinical trial. Thus, our team opted to launch nationwide internet-based clinical trials using patient-reported outcome measures. In total, 2795 participants were recruited using traditional and social media, with screening and enrollment performed via an online data capture system. Follow-up surveys and survey reminders were similarly managed through this online system with manual participant outreach in the event of missing data. In this report, we present a narrative of our experience running internet-based clinical trials and provide recommendations for the design of future clinical trials during a world pandemic.

8.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(3): 334-342, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1063129

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of point-of-care lung ultrasound has not been evaluated in a large cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to general medicine ward in the United States. The aim of this study was to describe lung ultrasound findings and their prognostic value in patients with COVID-19 admitted to internal medicine ward. METHOD: This prospective observational study consecutively enrolled 105 hospitalized participants with COVID-19 at 2 tertiary care centers. Ultrasound was performed in 12 lung zones within 24 hours of admission. Findings were assessed relative to 4 outcomes: intensive care unit (ICU) need, need for intensive respiratory support, length of stay, and death. RESULTS: We detected abnormalities in 92% (97/105) of participants. The common findings were confluent B-lines (92%), non-homogenous pleural lines (78%), and consolidations (54%). Large confluent B-lines, consolidations, bilateral involvement, and any abnormality in ≥ 6 areas were associated with a longer hospitalization and need for intensive respiratory support. Large confluent B-lines and bilateral involvement were also associated with ICU stay. A total lung ultrasound score <5 had a negative predictive value of 100% for the need of intensive respiratory support. A higher total lung ultrasound score was associated with ICU need (median total 18 in the ICU group vs. 11 non-ICU, p = 0.004), a hospitalization ≥ 9d (15 vs 10, p = 0.016) and need for intensive respiratory support (18 vs. 8.5, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 had lung ultrasound abnormalities on admission and a higher lung ultrasound score was associated with worse clinical outcomes except death. A low total lung ultrasound score (<5) had a negative predictive value of 100% for the need of intensive respiratory support. Point-of-care ultrasound can aid in the risk stratification for patients with COVID-19 admitted to general wards.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Hospital Mortality , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Point-of-Care Systems , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Ultrasonography
9.
Ann Intern Med ; 173(8): 623-631, 2020 10 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-981646

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Outpatients , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adult , Antimalarials/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
10.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(11): e835-e843, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-977365

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , COVID-19/drug therapy , Canada , Health Personnel , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 7(11): ofaa500, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-873054

ABSTRACT

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.

12.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 7(9): ofaa350, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-714017

ABSTRACT

Background: Data pertaining to COVID-19 in pregnancy are limited; to better inform clinicians, we collated data from COVID-19 cases during pregnancy and summarized clinical trials enrolling this population. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review of PubMed/MEDLINE to identify cases of COVID-19 in pregnancy or the postpartum period and associated outcomes. We then evaluated the proportion of COVID-19 clinical trials (from ClinicalTrials.gov) excluding pregnant or breastfeeding persons (both through June 29, 2020). Results: We identified 11 308 published cases of COVID-19 during pregnancy. Of those reporting disease severity, 21% (416/1999) were severe/critical. Maternal and neonatal survival were reassuring (98% [10 437/10 597] and 99% [1155/1163], respectively). Neonatal disease was rare, with only 41 possible cases of infection reported in the literature. Of 2351 ongoing COVID-19 therapeutic clinical trials, 1282 were enrolling persons of reproductive age and 65% (829/1282) excluded pregnant persons. Pregnancy was an exclusion criterion for 69% (75/109) of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, 80% (28/35) of lopinavir/ritonavir, and 48% (44/91) of convalescent plasma studies. We identified 48 actively recruiting or completed drug trials reporting inclusion of this population. Conclusions: There are limited published reports of COVID-19 in pregnancy despite more than 14 million cases worldwide. To date, clinical outcomes appear reassuring, but data related to important long-term outcomes are missing or not yet reported. The large number of clinical trials excluding pregnant persons, despite interventions with safety data in pregnancy, is concerning. In addition to observational cohort studies, pregnancy-specific adaptive clinical trials could be designed to identify safe and effective treatments.

13.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 7(7): ofaa271, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-632358

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel pathogen causing the current worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Due to insufficient diagnostic testing in the United States, there is a need for clinical decision-making algorithms to guide testing prioritization. Methods: We recruited participants nationwide for a randomized clinical trial. We categorized participants into 3 groups: (1) those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, (2) those with probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (pending test or not tested but with a confirmed COVID-19 contact), and (3) those with possible SARS-CoV-2 infection (pending test or not tested and with a contact for whom testing was pending or not performed). We compared the frequency of self-reported symptoms in each group and categorized those reporting symptoms in early infection (0-2 days), midinfection (3-5 days), and late infection (>5 days). Results: Among 1252 symptomatic persons screened, 316 had confirmed, 393 had probable, and 543 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection. In early infection, those with confirmed and probable SARS-CoV-2 infection shared similar symptom profiles, with fever most likely in confirmed cases (P = .002). Confirmed cases did not show any statistically significant differences compared with unconfirmed cases in symptom frequency at any time point. The most commonly reported symptoms in those with confirmed infection were cough (82%), fever (67%), fatigue (62%), and headache (60%), with only 52% reporting both fever and cough. Conclusions: Symptomatic persons with probable SARS-CoV-2 infection present similarly to those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was no pattern of symptom frequency over time.

14.
N Engl J Med ; 383(6): 517-525, 2020 08 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-505858

ABSTRACT

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.).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis , Adult , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Canada , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Inhalation Exposure , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Exposure , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure , United States
15.
Can J Anaesth ; 67(9): 1201-1211, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-275845

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis/methods , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
16.
Clin Pharmacol Ther ; 108(4): 766-769, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-133605

ABSTRACT

Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial drug being tested as a potential treatment for the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Although the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 remains uncertain, it may serve as a potential prophylactic agent especially in those at high risk, such as healthcare workers, household contacts of infected patients, and the immunocompromised. Our aim was to identify possible hydroxychloroquine dosing regimens through simulation in those at high risk of infections by optimizing exposures above the in vitro generated half maximal effective concentration (EC50 ) and to help guide researchers in dose-selection for COVID-19 prophylactic studies. To maintain weekly troughs above EC50 in > 50% of subjects at steady-state in a pre-exposure prophylaxis setting, an 800 mg loading dose followed by 400 mg twice or 3 times weekly is required. In an exposure driven, post-exposure prophylaxis setting, 800 mg loading dose followed in 6 hours by 600 mg, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days achieved daily troughs above EC50 in > 50% subjects. These doses are higher than recommended for malaria chemoprophylaxis, and clinical trials are needed to establish safety and efficacy.


Subject(s)
Antimalarials/administration & dosage , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Malaria/drug therapy , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis/methods , Antimalarials/blood , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/blood , Malaria/blood , Models, Biological , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
17.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 7(4): ofaa130, 2020 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-60353

ABSTRACT

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.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...