ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Hospital-Based Quasi-Experimental Study on Hydroxychloroquine Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 in Healthcare Providers with Its Potential Side-Effects.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Considering that it has been more than 24 months since SARS-CoV-2 emerged, it is crucial to identify measures that prevent and control pathogen transmission in workplace settings. Our aim was to report results of a hospital-based program that delivered hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) tablets as COVID-19 prophylaxis to the frontline healthcare workers (HCW)s who cared for COVID-19 patients and to evaluate the efficacy of HCQ. Setting and participants: Quasi-experimental, controlled, single-center study. The included participants were doctors, nurses, health workers, cleaning staff, and non-healthcare supportive staff. The main outcome was contracting COVID-19 anytime during the period of taking the prophylaxis, confirmed by RT-PCR. A total of 336 participants, without any clinical evidence of COVID-19 and without any known contact with family members, were included in the trial; 230 were assigned to HCQ and 106 declined to take any drug. Results: Among the participants, 43 (18.7%) in the HCQ group and 11 (10.4%) participants in the control group developed COVID-19. For the evaluation of side effects, we evaluated 12-lead ECGs of both groups at the baseline and after 4 weeks to monitor QTc interval. A total of 91% (198 of 217) participants in the prophylaxis group and 92% (11 of 12) in the control group had a QTc < 45o msec, which is within normal limits. Conclusions: Although the number of symptomatic infections in health personnel was lower in the control group, the difference was not statistically significant. However, in the absence of any effective pre-exposure prophylaxis medicine for COVID-19, practicing proper infection prevention and control (IPC) and vaccination is the only way forward.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.