Hospital-Based Quasi-Experimental Study on Hydroxychloroquine Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 in Healthcare Providers with Its Potential Side-Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering that it has been more than 24 months since SARS-CoV-2 emerged, it is crucial to identify measures that prevent and control pathogen transmission in workplace settings. Our aim was to report results of a hospital-based program that delivered hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) tablets as COVID-19 prophylaxis to the frontline healthcare workers (HCW)s who cared for COVID-19 patients and to evaluate the efficacy of HCQ. Setting and participants: Quasi-experimental, controlled, single-center study. The included participants were doctors, nurses, health workers, cleaning staff, and non-healthcare supportive staff. The main outcome was contracting COVID-19 anytime during the period of taking the prophylaxis, confirmed by RT-PCR. A total of 336 participants, without any clinical evidence of COVID-19 and without any known contact with family members, were included in the trial; 230 were assigned to HCQ and 106 declined to take any drug. Results: Among the participants, 43 (18.7%) in the HCQ group and 11 (10.4%) participants in the control group developed COVID-19. For the evaluation of side effects, we evaluated 12-lead ECGs of both groups at the baseline and after 4 weeks to monitor QTc interval. A total of 91% (198 of 217) participants in the prophylaxis group and 92% (11 of 12) in the control group had a QTc < 45o msec, which is within normal limits. Conclusions: Although the number of symptomatic infections in health personnel was lower in the control group, the difference was not statistically significant. However, in the absence of any effective pre-exposure prophylaxis medicine for COVID-19, practicing proper infection prevention and control (IPC) and vaccination is the only way forward.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".