Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35139097›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2022

Hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 in health workers: A randomized clinical trial.

Jorge Rojas-Serrano, Angelica Margarita Portillo-Vásquez, Ireri Thirion-Romero, Joel Vázquez-Pérez, Fidencio Mejía-Nepomuceno, Alejandra Ramírez-Venegas, Karla Midori Pérez-Kawabe, Rogelio Pérez-Padilla

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 98% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jorge Rojas-SerranoInterstitial Lung Disease and Rheumatology Unit, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias "Ismael Cosío Villegas", Mexico City, Mexico.
Angelica Margarita Portillo-VásquezOtolaryngology Department, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias "Ismael Cosío Villegas", Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-5032-4076
Ireri Thirion-RomeroDepartment of Investigation on Tobacco and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias "Ismael Cosío Villegas", Mexico City, Mexico.
Joel Vázquez-PérezDepartment of Investigation on Tobacco and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias "Ismael Cosío Villegas", Mexico City, Mexico.
Fidencio Mejía-NepomucenoDepartment of Investigation on Tobacco and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias "Ismael Cosío Villegas", Mexico City, Mexico.
Alejandra Ramírez-VenegasDepartment of Investigation on Tobacco and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias "Ismael Cosío Villegas", Mexico City, Mexico.
Karla Midori Pérez-KawabeDepartment of Investigation on Tobacco and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias "Ismael Cosío Villegas", Mexico City, Mexico.
Rogelio Pérez-PadillaDepartment of Investigation on Tobacco and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias "Ismael Cosío Villegas", Mexico City, Mexico.
Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealth care workers are at high risk of being infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Our aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) in health personnel exposed to patients infected by SARS-CoV-2.

methodsDouble-blind randomized, placebo-controlled single center clinical trial. Included subjects were health care workers caring for severe COVID-19 patients. Main outcome was time to symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

results127 subjects with a confirmed baseline negative RT-PCR SARS-CoV2 test were included in the trial. 62 assigned to HCQ and 65 to placebo. One subject (1.6%) in the HCQ group and 6 (9.2%) subjects in the placebo group developed COVID-19 (Log-Rank test p = 0.07). No severe COVID-19 cases were observed. The study was suspended because of a refusal to participate and losses to follow up after several trials reported lack of effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

conclusionThe effect size of hydroxychloroquine was higher than placebo for COVID-19 symptomatic infection in health personnel, although this was not statistically significant. The trial is underpowered due to the failure to complete the estimated sample size.

Indexed as

AdultAntimalarialsAntiviral AgentsCOVID-19Double-Blind MethodFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansHydroxychloroquineMalePlacebo EffectSARS-CoV-2Treatment OutcomeAntimalarialsAntiviral AgentsHydroxychloroquine

Identifiers

PMID35139097
PMCPMC8827445
OpenAlexW4213402479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.