MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283795613 · doi:10.1101/2022.07.01.22277058

Hydroxychloroquine pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers at risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure: A nonrandomized controlled trial

2022· preprint· en· W4283795613 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vanessa Raabe, Andrew Fleming, Marie I. Samanovic, Lilin Lai, Hayley M. Belli, Mark J. Mulligan, H. Michael Belmont

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of ScienceNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesYork University
KeywordsHydroxychloroquineMedicineSeroconversionAdverse effectCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pre-exposure prophylaxisSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Internal medicineDiseaseImmunologyVirusInfectious disease (medical specialty)Men who have sex with men

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Aerosol-generating procedures increase the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among health care workers (HCWs). An effective pre-exposure prophylaxis would mitigate this risk. Objective To determine the efficacy of pre-exposure prophylactic hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic coronavirus 19 disease (COVID-19) among HCWs at high occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Methods 130 HCWs in the New York University Langone Health System (NYULHS) who performed aerosol-generating procedures on patients with COVID-19 or provided bedside care for inpatients with COVID-19 or persons with suspected COVID-19 in an emergency department, for at least three shifts in a 7-day period, during the first 2020 COVID-19 wave in New York City were enrolled. Participants elected to take oral hydroxychloroquine, 600 mg on day 1 followed by 200 mg daily, or not take hydroxychloroquine for up to 90 days. Participants self-collected dried blood spots and completed digital questionnaires regarding COVID-19 symptoms, adverse events, and other COVID-19 medication use. Results Six participants (7.5%) seroconverted during the trial: four who took hydroxychloroquine (6.8%) and two who declined hydroxychloroquine (9.5%). All participants not taking hydroxychloroquine reported COVID-19 symptoms at seroconversion compared to one of four participants (25%) who took hydroxychloroquine. Adverse events occurred in eight participants (9.6%) on hydroxychloroquine and were mostly mild. Conclusions This study ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04354870 ) did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion associated with hydroxychloroquine pre-exposure prophylaxis among HCWs at high risk of occupational SARS-CoV-2 exposure, although was underpowered and a high rate of hydroxychloroquine discontinuation was observed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies→French-language works237,207→