4.6 Article

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

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261980

关键词

-

资金

  1. Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias (National Institute of Respiratory Diseases)
  2. CONACYT (National Council of Science and Technology)
  3. SANOFI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 in health care workers. The results showed that hydroxychloroquine had a slightly higher effect size than placebo in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 infection, but this was not statistically significant.
Introduction Health 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. Methods Double-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. Results 127 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. Conclusion The 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据