Hydroxychloroquine plus personal protective equipment versus standard personal protective equipment alone for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among frontline healthcare workers: the HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation(HOPE) trial: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan BK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7456761 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo quantify adequacy of personal protective equipment (PPE) for U.S. healthcare personnel (HCP) at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with infection risk.MethodsMarch-May 2020 survey of the national Nurses' Health Studies and the Growing Up Today study regarding self-reported PPE access, use and reuse. COVID-19 endpoints included SARS-CoV-2 tests and COVID-19 status predicted from symptoms.ResultsNearly 22% of 22,232 frontline HCP interacting with COVID-19 patients reported sometimes or always lacking PPE. Fifty percent of HCP reported not needing respirators, including 13% of those working in COVID-19 units. Lack of PPE was cross-sectionally associated with two-fold or greater odds of COVID-19 among those who interacted with infected patients.ConclusionThese data show the need to improve the U.S. infection prevention culture of safety when confronting a novel pathogen.
| S-EPMC8562916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIn the absence of vaccine, proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is the most important strategy to protect healthcare workers against COVID-19 infection. The recommendations on pharmacological prophylaxis against COVID-19 infection are controversial. The aim of current study was to assess PPE practices during surgery on COVID-19 negative gynecological cancer patients and use of pharmacologic prophylaxis by clinicians practicing gynecologic oncology.MethodsWe disbursed a survey questionnaire through various social media platforms among clinicians practicing gynecologic oncology. The survey consisted of 37 questions divided into five subgroups evaluating demographic details, use of pharmacological prophylaxis against COVID-19, preoperative COVID-19 screening protocol, details on PPE usage and associated discomfort, if any.ResultsTwo hundred twenty oncologists from 13 countries responded to the survey. Pharmacological prophylaxis was being used by 85 (38.6%) respondents; most common agent was hydroxychloroquin (HCQ) by 24.5% respondents. Routine preoperative screening for COVID-19 was performed by 214 (97.3%) respondents. Some degree of discomfort during surgery due to PPE use was reported by 170 (77.3%) respondents, which was moderate to severe in 73 (33.2%) respondents. Most common difficulties associated with face mask/shield were problems in communication (69.5%) and breathing (58.1%). Eye protection was associated with poor visibility, fogging and headache. Unusual fatigue attributed to PPE use was experienced by 143(65%) respondents.ConclusionUse of pharmacological prophylaxis against COVID-19 is controversial and the same is reflected in our survey. Most respondents adhered to PPE use despite experiencing some physical discomfort.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40944-021-00500-4.
| S-EPMC7847240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) can significantly reduce the risk of infection associated with caring for patients. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, awareness, and behaviors related to the PPE usage among frontline nurses in a nationally designated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic.Materials and methodsThe study was performed in two phases: (1) a questionnaire survey to assess the knowledge, awareness, and behaviors related to PPE use, and (2) in-depth personal interviews to elaborate the survey findings. The questionnaires were distributed to all 121 registered nurses in three isolation wards and an intensive care unit which dedicated for patients with COVID-19 and 102 nurses completed survey (84.3% response rate). In-depth interviews were conducted with a total of 7 nurses.ResultsAmong the survey participant, 100% stated that they knew how to protect themselves while providing nursing care and 93.1% stated that they knew the recommended PPE by task. Most survey participant mainly wore gloves, face shield, N95 or equivalent respirator, and a long-sleeved gown, but one-third of the participants sometimes used coveralls instead of long-sleeved gown. In-depth interviews, the importance of timely updated and specific guidelines for selecting the appropriate type of PPE was highlighted. The adequate supply of PPE, convenience at work, and the role of responsible leadership mainly determined behaviors related to the PPE.ConclusionAs new information on COVID-19 continues to emerge, the up-to-date and specific PPE guideline with evidence should be prepared. The spread of accurate information, the role of accountable leadership, and the active communication under positive organizational culture are important for the proper use of PPE.
| S-EPMC8731245 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We analyzed the effectiveness of personal protective equipment and oseltamivir use during the 2003 avian influenza A (H7N7) epidemic in the Netherlands by linking databases containing information about farm visits, human infections, and use of oseltamivir and personal protective equipment. Using a stringent case definition, based on self-reported conjunctivitis combined with a positive hemagglutination-inhibition assay, we found that prophylactic treatment with oseltamivir significantly reduced the risk for infection per farm visit from 0.145 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.078-0.233) to 0.031 (95% CI 0.008-0.073). The protective effect was ≈79% (95% CI 40%-97%). These results are comparable with the reported effect of prophylactic treatment with oseltamivir on human seasonal influenza. No significant protective effect was found for use of respirators or safety glasses, possibly because of limitations of the data.
| S-EPMC3294382 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo report frontline healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs' fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignA rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n=46), media reports (n=39 newspaper articles and 145?000 social media posts) and government PPE policies (n=25).ParticipantsInterview participants were HCWs purposively sampled from critical care, emergency and respiratory departments as well as redeployed HCWs from primary, secondary and tertiary care centres across the UK.ResultsA major concern was running out of PPE, putting HCWs and patients at risk of infection. Following national level guidance was often not feasible when there were shortages, leading to reuse and improvisation of PPE. Frequently changing guidelines generated confusion and distrust. PPE was reserved for high-risk secondary care settings and this translated into HCWs outside these settings feeling inadequately protected. Participants were concerned about differential access to adequate PPE, particularly for women and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic HCWs. Participants continued delivering care despite the physical discomfort, practical problems and communication barriers associated with PPE use.ConclusionThis study found that frontline HCWs persisted in caring for their patients despite multiple challenges including inappropriate provision of PPE, inadequate training and inconsistent guidance. In order to effectively care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline HCWs need appropriate provision of PPE, training in its use as well as comprehensive and consistent guidance. These needs must be addressed in order to protect the health and well-being of the most valuable healthcare resource in the COVID-19 pandemic: our HCWs.
| S-EPMC7818840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE), pathogens can be transferred from the PPE to the bodies of healthcare workers (HCWs), putting HCWs and patients at risk of exposure and infection. PPE doffing practices of HCWs who cared for patients with viral respiratory infections were observed at an acute care hospital from March 2017 to April 2018. A trained observer recorded doffing performance of HCWs inside the patient rooms using a pre-defined checklist based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline. Doffing practices were observed 162 times during care of 52 patients infected with respiratory viral pathogens. Out of the 52 patients, 30 were in droplet and contact isolation, 21 were in droplet isolation, and 1 was in contact isolation. Overall, 90% of observed doffing was incorrect, with respect to the doffing sequence, doffing technique, or use of appropriate PPE. Common errors were doffing gown from the front, removing face shield of the mask, and touching potentially contaminated surfaces and PPE during doffing. Deviations from the recommended PPE doffing protocol are common and can increase potential for contamination of the HCW's clothing or skin after providing care. There is a clear need to change the approach used to training HCWs in PPE doffing practices.
| S-EPMC7157959 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) virus is challenging healthcare providers across the world. Current best practices for personal protective equipment (PPE) during this time are rapidly evolving and fluid due to the novel and acute nature of the pandemic and the dearth of high-level evidence. Routine infection control practices augmented by airborne precautions are paramount when treating the COVID-19-positive patient. Best practices for PPE use in patients who have unknown COVID-19 status are a highly charged and emotional issue. The variables to be considered include protection of patients and healthcare providers, accuracy and availability of testing, and responsible use of PPE resources. This article also explores the concerns of surgeons regarding possible transmission to their own family members as a result of caring for COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7169903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An outbreak of avian influenza (H7N3) among poultry resulted in laboratory-confirmed disease in 1 of 103 exposed persons. Incomplete use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was associated with conjunctivitis and influenza-like symptoms. Rigorous use of PPE by persons managing avian influenza outbreaks may reduce exposure to potentially hazardous infected poultry materials.
| S-EPMC2662632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Confronted with an emerging infectious disease at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the medical community faced concerns regarding the safety of autopsies on those who died of the disease. This attitude has changed, and autopsies are now recognized as indispensable tools for understanding COVID-19, but the true risk of infection to autopsy staff is nevertheless still debated. To clarify the rate of SARS-CoV-2 contamination in personal protective equipment (PPE), swabs were taken at nine points in the PPE of one physician and one assistant after each of 11 full autopsies performed at four centers. Swabs were also obtained from three minimally invasive autopsies (MIAs) conducted at a fifth center. Lung/bronchus swabs of the deceased served as positive controls, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by real-time RT-PCR. In 9 of 11 full autopsies, PPE samples tested RNA positive through PCR, accounting for 41 of the 198 PPE samples taken (21%). The main contaminated items of the PPE were gloves (64% positive), aprons (50% positive), and the tops of shoes (36% positive) while the fronts of safety goggles, for example, were positive in only 4.5% of the samples, and all the face masks were negative. In MIAs, viral RNA was observed in one sample from a glove but not in other swabs. Infectious virus isolation in cell culture was performed on RNA-positive swabs from the full autopsies. Of all the RNA-positive PPE samples, 21% of the glove samples, taken in 3 of 11 full autopsies, tested positive for infectious virus. In conclusion, PPE was contaminated with viral RNA in 82% of autopsies. In 27% of autopsies, PPE was found to be contaminated even with infectious virus, representing a potential risk of infection to autopsy staff. Adequate PPE and hygiene measures, including appropriate waste deposition, are therefore essential to ensure a safe work environment.
| S-EPMC8735722 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7359423 | biostudies-literature