Dataset Information

HyPE study: hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis-related adverse events' analysis among healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic: a rising public health concern.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The rising burden of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to the mass use of hydroxychloroquine by healthcare workers (HCWs). Adverse event profile of this drug when used as prophylaxis is not well known in the literature.

Methods

A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted across the country using semi-structured web-based questionnaire among COVID-19 negative and asymptomatic healthcare workers, taking hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis. Descriptive and multivariate logistic-regression models were applied for analysis.

Results

Of the 166 participants, at least one adverse event was experienced by 37.9% participants, gastrointestinal being the most common (30.7%). Risk was higher in participants <40 years age (odd's ratio (OR): 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18-5.05) and after first dose of hydroxychloroquine (51.2%, OR: 2.38, 95%CI: 1.17-4.84). Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis was initiated without electrocardiography by 80.1% of HCWs. Only 21.6% of those with cardiovascular disease could get prior ECG.

Conclusions

A higher incidence of adverse events was observed when results were compared with studies involving patients on long-term hydroxychloroquine therapy. Younger age and first dose were associated with greater incidence of adverse events though all were self-limiting. Monitoring prior and during prophylaxis was inadequate even among those with cardiovascular disease and risk-factors. However, no serious cardiovascular events were reported.

SUBMITTER: Nagaraja BS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7313915 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations.ResultsWe enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08).ConclusionsPre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers.Clinical trials registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.

Project description:ImportanceThe benefits of antimicrobial prophylaxis are limited to the first 24 hours postoperatively. Little is known about the harms associated with continuing antimicrobial prophylaxis after skin closure.ObjectiveTo characterize the association of type and duration of prophylaxis with surgical site infection (SSI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and Clostridium difficile infection.Design, setting, and participantsIn this multicenter, national retrospective cohort study, all patients within the national Veterans Affairs health care system who underwent cardiac, orthopedic total joint replacement, colorectal, and vascular procedures and who received planned manual review by a trained nurse reviewer for type and duration of surgical prophylaxis and for SSI from October 1, 2008, to September 30, 2013, were included. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression, with adjustments for covariates determined a priori to be associated with the outcomes of interest. Data were analyzed from December 2016 to December 2018.ExposuresDuration of postoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis (<24 hours, 24-<48 hours, 48-<72 hours, and ≥72 hours).Main outcomes and measuresSurgical site infection, AKI, and C difficile infection.ResultsOf the 79 058 included patients, 76 109 (96.3%) were men, and the mean (SD) age was 64.8 (9.4) years. Among 79 058 surgical procedures in the cohort, all had SSI and C difficile outcome data available; 71 344 (90.2%) had AKI outcome data. After stratification by type of surgery and adjustment for age, sex, race, diabetes, smoking, American Society of Anesthesiologists score greater than 2, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization, mupirocin, type of prophylaxis, and facility factors, SSI was not associated with duration of prophylaxis. Adjusted odds of AKI increased with each additional day of prophylaxis (cardiac procedure: 24-<48 hours: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.12; 48-<72 hours: aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.39; ≥72 hours: aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.54-2.16; noncardiac procedure: 24-<48 hours: aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.21-1.42; 48-<72 hours: aOR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.47-2.01; ≥72 hours: aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.27-2.53). The risk of postoperative C difficile infection demonstrated a similar duration-dependent association (24-<48 hours: aOR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.31; 48-<72 hours: aOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.80-3.27; ≥72 hours: aOR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.40-5.53). The unadjusted numbers needed to harm for AKI after 24 to less than 48 hours, 48 to less than 72 hours, and 72 hours or more of postoperative prophylaxis were 9, 6, and 4, respectively; and 2000, 90, and 50 for C difficile infection, respectively. Vancomycin receipt was also a significant risk factor for AKI (cardiac procedure: aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25; noncardiac procedure: aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.13-1.30).Conclusions and relevanceIncreasing duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis was associated with higher odds of AKI and C difficile infection in a duration-dependent fashion; extended duration did not lead to additional SSI reduction. These findings highlight the notion that every day matters and suggest that stewardship efforts to limit duration of prophylaxis have the potential to reduce adverse events without increasing SSI.

Project description:BackgroundPandemics and natural disasters are immensely stressful events for frontline healthcare workers, as they provide patient care to a population undergoing the impacts of the disaster while experiencing such impacts to their personal lives themselves. With increased stressors to an already demanding job, frontline healthcare workers are at a higher risk of adverse effects to their mental health. The current COVID-19 pandemic has already shown to have had significant impact on the mental health of healthcare workers with increased rates of burnout, anxiety and depression. There is already literature showing the utility of individual programs at improving mental health, however, interventions at the organizational level are not well explored. This scoping review aims to provide an overview and determine the utility of a systematic review of the current body of literature assessing the effectiveness of mental health interventions at the organizational level for healthcare workers during or after a public health emergency.MethodsElectronic databases such as Medline on OVID, CENTRAL, PsycINFO on OVID and Embase on OVID were searched. A targeted search of the grey literature was conducted to identify any non-indexed studies. The population, concept and context approach was used to develop the eligibility criteria. Articles were included if (1) they assessed the impact of interventions to improve wellbeing or reduce the distress on healthcare personnel, first responders or military actively providing medical care; (2) provided quantitative or qualitative data with clearly defined outcomes that focused on established mental health indicators or qualitative descriptions on distress and wellbeing, validated scales and workplace indicators; (3) focused on organizational level interventions that occurred in a public health crisis.ResultsThe literature search resulted in 4007 citations and 115 potentially relevant full-text papers. All except 5 were excluded. There were four review articles and one experimental study. There were no other unpublished reports that warranted inclusion.ConclusionsThere is a distinct lack of research examining organizational interventions addressing mental resilience and well-being in healthcare workers in disaster settings. A systematic review in this area would be low yield. There is a clear need for further research in this area.