4.7 Review

Prophylaxis for COVID-19: a systematic review

Journal

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 532-537

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.01.013

Keywords

COVID-19; Prophylaxis; Randomized control trials; SARS-CoV-2; Systematic review

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study systematically reviewed prophylactic candidates for COVID-19 and found that HCQ seems to have no prophylactic effect, while the effectiveness of other candidates remains unclear, with many ongoing RCTs.
Background: While the landscape of vaccine and treatment candidates against the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reviewed systematically, prophylactic candidates remain unexplored. Objectives: To map pre-and postexposure prophylactic (PrEP and PEP) candidate for COVID-19. Data sources: PubMed/Medline, Embase, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform clinical trial registries and medRxiv. Study eligibility criteria and participants: All studies in humans or animals and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans reporting primary data on prophylactic candidates against COVID-19, excluding studies focused on key populations. Interventions: PrEP and PEP candidate for COVID-19. Methods: Systematic review and qualitative synthesis of COVID-19 PrEP and PEP studies and RCTs complemented by search of medRxiv and PubMed and Embase for studies reporting RCT outcomes since systematic review search completion. & nbsp; Results: We identified 13 studies (from 2119 database records) and 117 RCTs (from 5565 RCTs listed in the registries) that met the inclusion criteria. Non-RCT studies reported on cross-sectional studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in humans (n = 2) or reported on animal studies (n = 7), most of which used antibodies. All five completed RCTs focused on the use of HCQ as either PrEP or PEP, and these and the cross-sectional studies reported no prophylactic effect. The majority of ongoing RCTs evaluated HCQ or other existing candidates including non-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, anti(retro)virals or use of vitamins and supplements. Conclusions: The key message from completed studies and RCTs seems to be that HCQ does not work. There is little evidence regarding other compounds, with all RCTs using candidates other than HCQ still ongoing. It remains to be seen if the portfolio of existing molecules being evaluated in RCTs will identify successful prophylaxis against COVID-19 or if there is a need for the development of new candidates. Mil epsilon aela Smit, Clin Microbiol Infect 2021;27:532 (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available