ABSTRACT
BACKGROUNDA key trial (NCT04308668) of post-exposure prophylaxis found hydroxychloroquine-associated (HCQ) reductions of Covid-19 by 17% overall and 31% to 49% in subgroups. To understand these trends, we re-analyzed the dataset. METHODSOur protocol conformed to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT). We compared the incidence of Covid-19 after HCQ or placebo, stratifying by intervention lag, age, and gender. RESULTSNewly requested data missing from the dataset revealed that 52% and 19% of subjects received medication 1-2 days after intended and assumed overnight delivery or four-day intervention lag respectively. After re-analysis, we found reduced HCQ-associated incidence of Covid-19 with Early (up to 3 days post-exposure) (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.35 - 0.97; p=0.044; NNT 14.5) but not Late (RR 1.22, 95%CI 0.72 - 2.04) prophylaxis. We found a significant HCQ-associated Covid-19 reduction in subjects 18 to 45 years old with Early (RR 0.54, 95%CI 0.29-0.97; p=0.0448, NNT 11.5) but not Late (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.55-1.89) prophylaxis, attenuated in older subjects (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0-27-2.05) and by co-morbidities. Although, we did not detect effects of gender, folate, zinc, or ascorbate, confounding effects cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONSUsing novel data and prospective re-analysis, hydroxychloroquine, in an age-dependent manner, was associated with reduced Covid-19 compatible illness when supplied for post-exposure prophylaxis between 1 and 3 days after high- or moderate-risk exposure, at higher loading and maintenance doses than in similar studies. The original study conclusions are controverted, and our finding warrants prospective confirmation. Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: osf.io/fqtnw (last revised September 27, 2020, HighlightsO_LIMissing data integrated with dataset re-analysis reversed findings of original study C_LIO_LIHydroxychloroquine associated reduction (42%) of Covid-19 compatible illness found C_LIO_LIEffect in Post-exposure Prophylaxis when received 1-3 days after exposure C_LIO_LIRisk Ratio 0.58 (95% CI 0.35-0.97, p=0.044, NNT14.5) C_LIO_LIFindings controvert the conclusions of original study C_LI
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUNDA recently published randomized trial (Boulware et al., 2020, NCT04308668) of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for post-exposure prophylaxis found a reduction in Covid-19 of 17%. In the context of ambitious powering to detect a 50% reduction, this non-statistically significant finding could translate to a reduction of 22,000/130,828 cases (CDC 8/12/20) among US health care workers (HCW), impacting trajectory and resource utilization models that drive decisions on lockdowns and social distancing. Data found only in the appendix of Boulware et al. suggested greater differences in the effect HCQ among sub-groups. There were reductions (36%) in younger (<35 years) and increases (110%) in older (>50 years) subjects. Our preliminary analysis revealed a significant negative correlation (slope -0.211, CI -0.328-0.094, p=0.016) between treatment lag and disease reduction, reaching 49% when initiated within one day (RR 0.51, CI 0.176-1.46, p=0.249). There were also differences in disease reduction by HCQ by type of exposure (HCW - 8% vs. household contacts - 31%; RR 0.691, CI 0.398-1.2). The definitions of exposure severity did not discriminate between the numbers or duration (> 10 minutes) of exposures. Differences between exposure types may result from younger HCW and higher risks in less trained household contacts with little access to advanced PPE. The ex-protocol use of zinc and ascorbic acid were likely confounders, as was the possibly active folate placebo. Exploratory reanalysis of the raw dataset may inform an age- and stage- nuanced approach to COVID-19 using HCQ testable by prospective studies and may provide insight into the various proposed mechanisms of HCQ. OBJECTIVESTo conduct an exploratory re-analysis of the de-identified raw dataset from a randomized study of the use of HCQ for post-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 with view to further defining: a) The time dependent effect of HCQ, b) The age dependent effect of HCQ; c) The sub-stratification of time- and age-dependent effects by exposure type and risk level, as well as by the use of zinc and ascorbic acid. d) The design of future clinical trials to test the hypotheses generated by this study. METHODSShould granularity of data (by age, time-lag, level and type of exposure) be greater than that originally reported, Fisher Exact test will be used to compare the incidence of COVID-19 in HCQ- and control groups, for each sub-group stratification. Since the degree of loss of data granularity due to de-identification is yet unknown, exploratory analyses involving other demographic characteristics cannot be planned. Where sufficient data granularity exists, univariate regression analyses will be conducted to examine the effect of age- and time lag on any effect of HCQ. The possibility will be explored of conducting multivariate Cox regression analyses with propensity score matching to examine observational data relating to the use of zinc and ascorbic acid. This analysis will be expanded should a dataset from a similarly designed study (Mitja et al., 2020, NCT04304053), with directionally similar results, become available. This protocol was devised using the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) incorporating the WHO Trial Registration Data Set. Study StatusProtocol version 1.1 (August 19 2020) Protocol registered at: OSF Registries August 19 2020 Registration doi: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9RPYT
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUNDThe spread of COVID-19 from Wuhan China, has been alarmingly rapid. Epidemiologic techniques succeeded in containing the disease in China, but efforts have not been as successful in the rest of the World, with a total of 29,155,581 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 926,544 deaths worldwide as of September 15, 2020. Projections are for continued new infections and deaths if no effective therapeutic interventions can be initiated over the next several months. We performed a systematic review to determine the potential time course for development of treatments and vaccines, focusing on availability now and continuing in the last half of 2020. METHODS Clinical TrialsWe reviewed up-to-date information from several sources to identify potential treatments for COVID-19: The Reagan-Udall Expanded Access Navigator COVID-19 Treatment Hub was used to track the efforts of companies to develop agents. We focused on trials completed as of September 1, 2020 on identified agents We used several different sources: (A) covid-trials.org, then validated results on (B) clinicaltrials.gov and the (C) World Health Organizations International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We excluded studies which were clearly observational, with no randomization, control, or comparison group. We further set a cutoff of 100 for numbers of subjects, since smaller trial size could lack statistical power to establish superiority of the intervention over the control. PublicationsWe searched for published trial results on pubmed.gov and on medRxiv, the preprint server, and used a targeted Google search to find announcements of unpublished trial results RESULTS Clinical Trials in RecruitmentAs of our cutoff date of April 1, 2020, we found 409 trials meeting our minimum requirement of 100 subjects. The WHO Solidarity megatrial for hospitalized patients was launched in over 100 countries, actively comparing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), lopanovir/ritonavir (LPV/r) alone and in combination with interferon beta-1, and remdesivir. The LPV/r alone and HCQ arms have already been discontinued. Of these, only 9 were conducted on outpatients. A few vaccine trials are hoping to complete Phase 3 enrollment by the end of the third quarter 2020, but a prolonged follow-up of patients will likely be required. Clinical trials CompletedAs of September 1, 2020, there were 231 trials reporting completion, Of these, only 59 studies enrolled 100 or more subjects. There were 34 trials in hospitalized patients, 9 directed at outpatients, and 8 prevention studies, Published DataAs of September 1, 2020 we found 70 publications reporting findings in human studies on 13 classes of drugs and on 6 vaccines. There were 33 randomized placebo or active control studies; the rest were retrospective observational. Only seven publications dealt with outpatient care, the rest all in hospitalized patients. Available TreatmentsAt this time, remdesivir and convalescent plasma have been granted emergency use authorization in the U.S.A., solely for hospitalized patients. There is also support for glucocorticoid treatment of the COVID-19 respiratory distress syndrome. No treatments or prophylaxis are offered for outpatients. CONCLUSIONCOVID-19 is propagated primarily by infected ambulatory individuals. There have been no options brought forward for prevention and non-hospital treatment with only a few randomized, controlled outpatient studies expected to yield results in time to impact on the continuing pandemic by the end of 2020. It will be necessary for public health authorities to make hard decisions, with limited data, to prevent the continued spread of the disease. The choices will be hardest when dealing with possible early release of safe and effective vaccines which would, of course, be of greatest benefit to the Worlds population.
