Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
Life Sci Alliance ; 5(12)2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1994892

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is the most effective strategy to protect individuals with haematologic malignancies against severe COVID-19, while eliciting limited vaccine responses. We characterized the humoral responses following 3 mo after mRNA-based vaccines in individuals at different plasma-cell disease stages: monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), and multiple myeloma on first-line therapy (MM), compared with a healthy population. Plasma samples from uninfected MM patients showed lower SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody levels and neutralization capacity compared with MGUS, SMM, and healthy individuals. Importantly, COVID-19 recovered MM individuals presented significantly higher plasma neutralization capacity compared with their uninfected counterparts, highlighting that hybrid immunity elicit stronger immunity even in this immunocompromised population. No differences in the vaccine-induced humoral responses were observed between uninfected MGUS, SMM and healthy individuals. In conclusion, MGUS and SMM patients could be SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated following the vaccine recommendations for the general population, whereas a tailored monitoring of the vaccine-induced immune responses should be considered in uninfected MM patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance , Paraproteinemias , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance/pathology , Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
2.
Age Ageing ; 51(5)2022 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1860799

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is the most effective strategy to protect older residents of long-term care facilities (LTCF) against severe COVID-19, but primary vaccine responses are less effective in older adults. Here, we characterised the humoral responses of institutionalised seniors 3 months after they had received the mRNA/BNT162b2 vaccine. METHODS: plasma levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific total IgG, IgM and IgA antibodies were measured before and 3 months after vaccination in older residents of LTCF. Neutralisation capacity was assessed in a pseudovirus neutralisation assay against the original WH1 and later B.1.617.2/Delta variants. A group of younger adults was used as a reference group. RESULTS: three months after vaccination, uninfected older adults presented reduced SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels and a significantly lower neutralisation capacity against the WH1 and Delta variants compared with vaccinated uninfected younger individuals. In contrast, COVID-19-recovered older adults showed significantly higher SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels after vaccination than their younger counterparts, whereas showing similar neutralisation activity against the WH1 virus and an increased neutralisation capacity against the Delta variant. Although, similarly to younger individuals, previously infected older adults elicit potent cross-reactive immune responses, higher quantities of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies are required to reach the same neutralisation levels. CONCLUSIONS: although hybrid immunity seems to be active in previously infected older adults 3 months after mRNA/BNT162b2 vaccination, humoral immune responses are diminished in COVID-19 uninfected but vaccinated older residents of LTCF. These results suggest that a vaccine booster dose should be prioritised for this particularly vulnerable population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Antibodies, Viral , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Long-Term Care , RNA, Messenger , Vaccination
3.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-329353

ABSTRACT

Background: Understanding the immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus is critical for efficient monitoring and defence strategies. The ProHEpic-19 cohort provides a fine-grained description of the kinetics of antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection with an exceptional resolution over 17 months.MethodsWe established a cohort of 769 health professionals including healthy and infected with SARS-CoV-2 in northern Barcelona to determine the kinetics of the IgM against the nucleocapsid (N) and the IgG against the N and spike (S) of SARS-CoV-2. We used non-linear mixed models to investigate the kinetics of IgG and IgM measured at nine time points over 17 months from the diagnosis. The model included factors of time, gender, and disease severity (asymptomatic, mild-moderate, severe-critical) to assess their effects and their interactions. Findings: 474 of the 769 participants (61.6%) became infected with SARS-CoV-2. Significant effects of gender and disease severity were found for the levels of all three antibodies. Median IgM(N) levels were already below the positivity threshold in patients with asymptomatic and mild-moderate disease at day 270 after the diagnosis, while IgG(N and S) levels remained positive at least until days 450 and 270, respectively. Kinetic modelling showed a general rise in both IgM(N) and IgG(N) levels up to day 30, followed by a decay with a rate depending on disease severity. IgG(S) levels remained relatively constant from day 15 over time.Interpretation: IgM(N) and IgG(N, S) SARS-CoV-2 antibodies showed a heterogeneous kinetics over the 13 months. Only the IgG(S) showed a stable increase, and the levels and the kinetics of antibodies varied according to disease severity. The kinetics of IgM and IgG observed over a year also varied by clinical spectrum can be very useful for public health policies around vaccination criteria in adult population. Funding Regional Ministry of Health of the Generalitat de Catalunya (Call COVID19-PoC SLT16_04;NCT04885478)

4.
BMC Geriatr ; 22(1): 123, 2022 02 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690964

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Covid-19 pandemic has particularly affected older people living in Long-term Care settings in terms of infection and mortality. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional analysis within a cohort of Long-term care nursing home residents between March first and June thirty, 2020, who were ≥ 65 years old and on whom at least one PCR test was performed. Socio-demographic, comorbidities, and clinical data were recorded. Facility size and community incidence of SARS-CoV-2 were also considered. The outcomes of interest were infection (PCR positive) and death. RESULTS: A total of 8021 residents were included from 168 facilities. Mean age was 86.4 years (SD = 7.4). Women represented 74.1%. SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in 27.7% of participants, and the overall case fatality rate was 11.3% (24.9% among those with a positive PCR test). Epidemiological factors related to risk of infection were larger facility size (pooled aOR 1.73; P < .001), higher community incidence (pooled aOR 1.67, P = .04), leading to a higher risk than the clinical factor of low level of functional dependence (aOR 1.22, P = .03). Epidemiological risk factors associated with mortality were male gender (aOR 1.75; P < .001), age (pooled aOR 1.16; P < .001), and higher community incidence (pooled aOR 1.19, P = < 0.001) whereas clinical factors were low level of functional dependence (aOR 2.42, P < .001), Complex Chronic Condition (aOR 1.29, P < .001) and dementia (aOR 1.33, P <0.001). There was evidence of clustering for facility and health area when considering the risk of infection and mortality (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a complex interplay between structural and individual factors regarding Covid-19 infection and its impact on mortality in nursing-home residents.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Long-Term Care , Male , Nursing Homes , Pandemics , Risk Factors
5.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-321836

ABSTRACT

Background: Covid-19 pandemic has particularly affected older people living in Long-term Care settings. Methods: : We carried out a cross-sectional analysis of a cohort of Long-term care nursing home residents between March first and June thirty, 2020, who were ≥ 65 years old and on whom at last one PCR test was performed. Socio-demographic, comorbidities, and clinical data were recorded. Facility size and community incidence of SARS-CoV-2 were also considered. Results: : A total of 8021 participants were included from 168 facilities. Mean age was 86.4 years (SD = 7.4). Women represented 74.1%. SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in 27.7% of participants, and the overall case fatality rate was 11.3% (24.9% among those with a positive PCR test). Epidemiological factors related to risk of infection were larger facility size (pooled aOR 1.73;P < .001), higher community incidence (pooled aOR 1.67, P = .04), leading to a higher risk than the clinical factor of low level of functional dependence (aOR 1.22, P = 0.03). Epidemiological risk factors associated with mortality were male gender (aOR 1.75;P < .001), age (pooled aOR 1.16;P < .001), and higher community incidence (pooled aOR 1.19, P = < .001). There was evidence of clustering for facility and health area when considering the risk of infection and mortality ( P < .001). Conclusions: : Our results suggest a complex interplay between structural and individual factors regarding Covid-19 infection and its impact on mortality in nursing-home residents.

7.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(3): 278-288, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1671366

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been proposed as an early treatment to interrupt the progression of early COVID-19 to severe disease, but there is little definitive evidence. We aimed to assess whether early treatment with convalescent plasma reduces the risk of hospitalisation and reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load among outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in four health-care centres in Catalonia, Spain. Adult outpatients aged 50 years or older with the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms 7 days or less before randomisation were eligible for enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive one intravenous infusion of either 250-300 mL of ABO-compatible high anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres (EUROIMMUN ratio ≥6) methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma (experimental group) or 250 mL of sterile 0·9% saline solution (control). Randomisation was done with the use of a central web-based system with concealment of the trial group assignment and no stratification. To preserve masking, we used opaque tubular bags that covered the investigational product and the infusion catheter. The coprimary endpoints were the incidence of hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline and the mean change in viral load (in log10 copies per mL) in nasopharyngeal swabs from baseline to day 7. The trial was stopped early following a data safety monitoring board recommendation because more than 85% of the target population had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Primary efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, safety was assessed in all patients who received the investigational product. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04621123. FINDINGS: Between Nov 10, 2020, and July 28, 2021, we assessed 909 patients with confirmed COVID-19 for inclusion in the trial, 376 of whom were eligible and were randomly assigned to treatment (convalescent plasma n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=160]; placebo n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=166]). Median age was 56 years (IQR 52-62) and the mean symptom duration was 4·4 days (SD 1·4) before random assignment. In the intention-to-treat population, hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline occurred in 22 (12%) participants who received convalescent plasma versus 21 (11%) who received placebo (relative risk 1·05 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·41]). The mean change in viral load from baseline to day 7 was -2·41 log10 copies per mL (SD 1·32) with convalescent plasma and -2·32 log10 copies per mL (1·43) with placebo (crude difference -0·10 log10 copies per mL [95% CI -0·35 to 0·15]). One participant with mild COVID-19 developed a thromboembolic event 7 days after convalescent plasma infusion, which was reported as a serious adverse event possibly related to COVID-19 or to the experimental intervention. INTERPRETATION: Methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma did not prevent progression from mild to severe illness and did not reduce viral load in outpatients with COVID-19. Therefore, formal recommendations to support the use of convalescent plasma in outpatients with COVID-19 cannot be concluded. FUNDING: Grifols, Crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Methylene Blue , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Middle Aged , Outpatients , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
8.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(1)2021 Dec 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1614022

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: In epidemiological terms, it has been possible to calculate the savings in health resources and the reduction in the health effects of COVID vaccines. Conducting an economic evaluation, some studies have estimated its cost-effectiveness; the vaccination shows highly favorable results, cost-saving in some cases. (2) Methods: Cost-benefit analysis of the vaccination campaign in the North Metropolitan Health Region (Catalonia). An epidemiological model based on observational data and before and after comparison is used. The information on the doses used and the assigned resources (conventional hospital beds, ICU, number of tests) was extracted from administrative data from the largest primary care provider in the region (Catalan Institute of Health). A distinction was made between the social perspective and the health system. (3) Results: the costs of vaccination are estimated at 137 million euros (€48.05/dose administered). This figure is significantly lower than the positive impacts of the vaccination campaign, which are estimated at 470 million euros (€164/dose administered). Of these, 18% corresponds to the reduction in ICU discharges, 16% to the reduction in conventional hospital discharges, 5% to the reduction in PCR tests and 1% to the reduction in RAT tests. The monetization of deaths and cases that avoid sequelae account for 53% and 5% of total savings, respectively. The benefit/cost ratio is estimated at 3.4 from a social perspective and 1.4 from a health system perspective. The social benefits of vaccination are estimated at €116.67 per vaccine dose (€19.93 from the perspective of the health system). (4) Conclusions: The mass vaccination campaign against COVID is cost-saving. From a social perspective, most of these savings come from the monetization of the reduction in mortality and cases with sequelae, although the intervention is equally widely cost-effective from the health system perspective thanks to the reduction in the use of resources. It is concluded that, from an economic perspective, the vaccination campaign has high social returns.

9.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(11): e4073-e4081, 2021 12 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1560481

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No effective treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exist. We aimed to determine whether early treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would be efficacious for outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: Multicenter open-label, randomized, controlled trial conducted in Catalonia, Spain, between 17 March and 26 May 2020. Patients recently diagnosed with <5-day of symptom onset were assigned to receive HCQ (800 mg on day 1 followed by 400 mg once daily for 6 days) or usual care. Outcomes were reduction of viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs up to 7 days after treatment start, disease progression up to 28 days, and time to complete resolution of symptoms. Adverse events were assessed up to 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 293 patients were eligible for intention-to-treat analysis: 157 in the control arm and 136 in the intervention arm. The mean age was 41.6 years (SD, 12.6), mean viral load at baseline was 7.90 log10 copies/mL (SD, 1.82), and median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3 days. No differences were found in the mean reduction of viral load at day 3 (-1.41 vs -1.41 log10 copies/mL in the control and intervention arm, respectively) or at day 7 (-3.37 vs -3.44). Treatment did not reduce risk of hospitalization (7.1% control vs 5.9% intervention) nor shorten the time to complete resolution of symptoms (12 days, control vs 10 days, intervention). No relevant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild COVID-19, no benefit was observed with HCQ beyond the usual care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hydroxychloroquine , Adult , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
10.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-295343

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: in epidemiological terms, it has been possible to calculate the savings in health resources and the reduction in health effects of COVID vaccines. From the point of view of economic evaluation, some studies have estimated its cost-effectiveness with the vaccination showing highly favorable results, which in some cases is cost-saving;(2) Methods: a cost-benefit analysis of the vaccination campaign in the North Metropolitan Health Region (Catalonia). An epidemiological model based on observational data and before and after comparison is used. The information on the doses used and the resources assigned (conventional hospital beds, ICU, number of tests) has been extracted from administrative data from the largest Primary Care provider in the region (Catalan Institute of Health). A distinction is made between the social perspective and the health system;(3) Results: the costs of vaccination are estimated at 137 million euros (€48.05/dose administered). This figure is significantly lower than the positive impacts of the vaccination campaign, which are estimated at 470 million euros (€164/dose administered). Of these, 18% corresponds to the reduction of ICU discharges, 16% to the reduction in conventional hospital discharges, 5% to the reduction in PCR tests and 1% to the reduction of RAT tests. Monetization of deaths and cases with sequelae avoided account for 53% and 5% of total savings, respectively. The benefit/cost ratio is estimated at 3.4 from a social perspective and 1.41 from a health system perspective. The social benefits of vaccination are estimated at €116.67 per dose of vaccine given (€19.93 from the point of view of the health system);(4) Conclusions: the mass vaccination campaign against COVID is cost-saving. From a social perspective, most of these savings come from the monetization of the reduction in mortality and cases with sequelae, although the intervention is equally widely cost-effective from the point of view of the health system thanks to the reduction in the use of resources. It is concluded that, from an economic perspective, the vaccination campaign has high social returns.

11.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-293143

ABSTRACT

Background: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is the most effective strategy to protect elders living in long-term care facilities (LTCF) against severe COVID-19, but primary vaccine responses are less effective in older adults. Here, we characterized the humoral responses following 3 months after mRNA/BNT162b2 vaccine in institutionalized elders. Methods: Plasma levels of specific SARS-CoV-2 total IgG, IgM and IgA antibodies were measured before and 3 months after vaccination in elders living in LTCF. Neutralization capacity was assessed in a pseudovirus neutralization assay against WH1 (original) and B.1.617.2/Delta variants. A group of younger adults was used as reference group. Results: Three months after vaccination, uninfected-elders presented reduced specific SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels and significantly lower neutralization capacity against the WH1 and Delta virus compared to vaccinated uninfected younger individuals. In contrast, COVID-19 recovered elders showed significantly higher specific SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels after vaccination than younger counterparts, while showing similar neutralization capacity against WH1 virus and increased neutralization capacity against Delta variant. Despite previously infected elders elicit potent cross-reactive immune responses similarly to younger individuals, higher quantities of specific SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies are required to reach the same levels of neutralization. Conclusions: While hybrid immunity seems to be active in previously infected elders after three months from mRNA/BNT162b2 vaccination, humoral immune responses are diminished in COVID-19 uninfected vaccinated residents living in LTCF. These results suggests that a vaccine booster dose should be prioritized for this particularly vulnerable population.

12.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(5): 629-636, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1510471

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Scarce data are available on what variables affect the risk of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the development of symptomatic COVID-19, and, particularly, the relationship with viral load. We aimed to analyse data from linked index cases of COVID-19 and their contacts to explore factors associated with transmission of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: In this cohort study, patients were recruited as part of a randomised controlled trial done between March 17 and April 28, 2020, that aimed to assess if hydroxychloroquine reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Patients with COVID-19 and their contacts were identified by use of the electronic registry of the Epidemiological Surveillance Emergency Service of Catalonia (Spain). Patients with COVID-19 included in our analysis were aged 18 years or older, not hospitalised, had quantitative PCR results available at baseline, had mild symptom onset within 5 days before enrolment, and had no reported symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infections in their accommodation or workplace within the 14 days before enrolment. Contacts included were adults with a recent history of exposure and absence of COVID-19-like symptoms within the 7 days preceding enrolment. Viral load of contacts, measured by quantitative PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab, was assessed at enrolment, at day 14, and whenever the participant reported COVID-19-like symptoms. We assessed risk of transmission and developing symptomatic disease and incubation dynamics using regression analysis. We assessed the relationship of viral load and characteristics of cases (age, sex, number of days from reported symptom onset, and presence or absence of fever, cough, dyspnoea, rhinitis, and anosmia) and associations between risk of transmission and characteristics of the index case and contacts. FINDINGS: We identified 314 patients with COVID-19, with 282 (90%) having at least one contact (753 contacts in total), resulting in 282 clusters. 90 (32%) of 282 clusters had at least one transmission event. The secondary attack rate was 17% (125 of 753 contacts), with a variation from 12% when the index case had a viral load lower than 1 × 106 copies per mL to 24% when the index case had a viral load of 1 × 1010 copies per mL or higher (adjusted odds ratio per log10 increase in viral load 1·3, 95% CI 1·1-1·5). Increased risk of transmission was also associated with household contact (3·0, 1·59-5·65) and age of the contact (per year: 1·02, 1·01-1·04). 449 contacts had a positive PCR result at baseline. 28 (6%) of 449 contacts had symptoms at the first visit. Of 421 contacts who were asymptomatic at the first visit, 181 (43%) developed symptomatic COVID-19, with a variation from approximately 38% in contacts with an initial viral load lower than 1 × 107 copies per mL to greater than 66% for those with an initial viral load of 1 × 1010 copies per mL or higher (hazard ratio per log10 increase in viral load 1·12, 95% CI 1·05-1·20; p=0·0006). Time to onset of symptomatic disease decreased from a median of 7 days (IQR 5-10) for individuals with an initial viral load lower than 1 × 107 copies per mL to 6 days (4-8) for those with an initial viral load between 1 × 107 and 1 × 109 copies per mL, and 5 days (3-8) for those with an initial viral load higher than 1 × 109 copies per mL. INTERPRETATION: In our study, the viral load of index cases was a leading driver of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The risk of symptomatic COVID-19 was strongly associated with the viral load of contacts at baseline and shortened the incubation time of COVID-19 in a dose-dependent manner. FUNDING: YoMeCorono, Generalitat de Catalunya. TRANSLATIONS: For the Catalan translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Spain/epidemiology , Viral Load
15.
J Infect ; 82(6): 269-275, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1188792

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mass testing for early identification and isolation of infectious COVID-19 individuals is efficacious for reducing disease spread. Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) may be suitable for testing strategies; however, benchmark comparisons are scarce. METHODS: We used 286 nasopharyngeal specimens from unexposed asymptomatic individuals collected between December 2020 and January 2021 to assess five Ag-RDTs marketed by Abbott, Siemens, Roche Diagnostics, Lepu Medical, and Surescreen. RESULTS: For the overall sample, the performance parameters of Ag-RDTs were as follows: Abbott assay, sensitivity 38.6% (95%CI 29.1-48.8) and specificity 99.5% (97-100%); Siemens, sensitivity 51.5% (41.3-61.6) and specificity 98.4% (95.3-99.6); Roche, sensitivity 43.6% (33.7-53.8) and specificity 96.2% (92.4-98.5); Lepu, sensitivity 45.5% (35.6-55.8) and specificity 89.2% (83.8-93.3%); Surescreen, sensitivity 28.8% (20.2-38.6) and specificity 97.8% (94.5-99.4%). For specimens with cycle threshold (Ct) <30 in RT-qPCR, all Ag-RDT achieved a sensitivity ≥70%. The modelled negative- and positive-predictive value for 1% prevalence were >99% and <50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When screening unexposed asymptomatic individuals, two Ag-RDTs achieved sensitivity ≥80% for specimens with Ct<30 and specificity ≥96%. The estimated negative predictive value suggests the suitability of Ag-RDTs for mass screenings of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antigens, Viral , Asymptomatic Infections , Benchmarking , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Humans , Sensitivity and Specificity , Silver
16.
N Engl J Med ; 384(5): 417-427, 2021 02 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-963653

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Current strategies for preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are limited to nonpharmacologic interventions. Hydroxychloroquine has been proposed as a postexposure therapy to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but definitive evidence is lacking. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving asymptomatic contacts of patients with polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR)-confirmed Covid-19 in Catalonia, Spain. We randomly assigned clusters of contacts to the hydroxychloroquine group (which received the drug at a dose of 800 mg once, followed by 400 mg daily for 6 days) or to the usual-care group (which received no specific therapy). The primary outcome was PCR-confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 within 14 days. The secondary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined by symptoms compatible with Covid-19 or a positive PCR test regardless of symptoms. Adverse events were assessed for up to 28 days. RESULTS: The analysis included 2314 healthy contacts of 672 index case patients with Covid-19 who were identified between March 17 and April 28, 2020. A total of 1116 contacts were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine and 1198 to receive usual care. Results were similar in the hydroxychloroquine and usual-care groups with respect to the incidence of PCR-confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 (5.7% and 6.2%, respectively; risk ratio, 0.86 [95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.42]). In addition, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission than usual care (18.7% and 17.8%, respectively). The incidence of adverse events was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group than in the usual-care group (56.1% vs. 5.9%), but no treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Postexposure therapy with hydroxychloroquine did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or symptomatic Covid-19 in healthy persons exposed to a PCR-positive case patient. (Funded by the crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono and others; BCN-PEP-CoV2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04304053.).


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Anti-Infective Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Compliance , Treatment Failure , Viral Load
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL