Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine prophylaxis among health-care workers: Was it really preventive? - Evidence from a multicentric cross-sectional study

• Published in: Indian journal of community medicine 2022-04, Vol.47 (2), p.202-206
• Main Authors: Yadav, Arun, Kotwal, Atul, Ghosh, Subhadeep
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Antibodies; chemo-prophylaxis; Clinical outcomes; COVID-19; Cross-sectional studies; Disease prevention; Disease transmission; hydroxychloroquine; Hygiene; Medical personnel; Original; Personal protective equipment
• ISSN: 0970-0218; 1998-3581
• DOI: 10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_684_21

Background: Despite the low level of clinical evidence in hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) favor, it was prescribed for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis in India and worldwide. In absence of a large randomized control trial, the evidence needs to be generated through observation study, hence the study was conducted to find the evidence for prophylaxis of HCQ. Materials and Methods: A multi-centric cross-sectional study involving government hospitals was chosen for serosurvey conducted from August 21, 2020, to November 20, 2020. Questionnaire was adopted from WHO. Data about chloroquine (CQ) use among health-care workers (HCWs) were added and the duration of CQ intake was also noted. Results: A total of 2,224 HCWs were recruited. The mean duration of time of taking HCQ was 7.1 weeks (standard deviation ± 6.1 weeks, median = 4 weeks with IQR, 3-10 weeks). Training on personal protective equipment (PPE), knowledge of handwashing, direct care to the patient, availability of alcohol hand rub, close contact with the patient, duration of contact, and usage of PPE were associated with HCQ intake. The antibody formation in group taking HCQ was 16.9% compared to 19.8% not taking it (P = 0.08). The Chi-square for linear trend for weeks of HCQ intake and antibody formation. However, the same was not statistically significant (Chi-square = 3.61, P = 0.06). Conclusion: Our study did not find a statistically significant association in the large multicentric study. The absolute difference of 2.9% in the two groups may not be sufficient to warrant its widespread use for prophylaxis.