Hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis when treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 – Perception of frontline health care workers in South India

INTRODUCTION

India is second in the list of countries with most severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 aka coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) at the time of this writing.^[1] Health care workers treating patients with COVID-19 are at higher risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 infection. In March 2020, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) published a bulletin in which it recommended the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) (400 mg twice a day on day 1 and 400 mg once weekly for 7 weeks thereafter for health workers and 400 mg twice a day on day 1 and 400 mg once weekly for 3 weeks for household contacts) as a chemoprophylaxis for asymptomatic health care workers exposed to patients with COVID-19 and asymptomatic household contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases.^[2] However, stakeholders raised concerns about the efficacy of chloroquine and HCQ in preventing COVID-19, as most of the available evidence is inconclusive.

A recent randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in the United States and Canada revealed that HCQ did not prevent COVID-19 in health care workers exposed to COVID-19.^[3] However, Cohen questioned the findings of this study by critically reviewing it and stated that the results of the trial were more provocative than definitive and the efficacy of HCQ as a chemoprophylaxis against COVID-19 is yet to be determined.^[4] An early terminated randomized controlled trial (RCT) revealed that the use of HCQ did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers.^[5] Similar findings were also reported by Rajasingham et al. through a randomized trial involving health care workers in emergency departments, intensive care unit (ICU), COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders.^[6]

Literature is also equivocal on the efficacy of HCQ in reducing viral load and mortality in patients with COVID-19. In a large sample observational study conducted in Belgium, the authors found that the low dose (400 mg twice on day 1, followed by 200 mg twice a day from days 2 to 5) HCQ therapy reduced the in-hospital mortality rate by almost 30% when compared to patients treated with supportive care.^[7] A retrospective cohort study conducted in New York also revealed that the HCQ use was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.^[8] A multicenter study conducted in Michigan also supported the use of HCQ alone or in combination with Azithromycin to reduce COVID-19-associated mortality.^[9] Through a retrospective study in France, Lagier et al. found that early diagnosis, early isolation, and early treatment of COVID-19 patients with HCQ-azithromycin (200 mg of oral HCQ, 3 times daily for 10 days and 500 mg of oral AZ on day 1 followed by 250 mg daily for the next 4 days) therapy for at least 3 days lead to significantly better clinical outcome and reduced viral loads.^[10]

Contrary to the above findings, the Recovery Collaborative Group, through an open-label RCT, reported that there was no difference in 28-day in-hospital mortality rate among patients with COVID-19 due to the use of HCQ.^[11] In July 2020, the World Health Organization, based on the recommendation from its Solidarity Trail International Steering Committee, announced that it discontinues the HCQ arm of the interim trial as HCQ produced little or no reduction in in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19.^[12] Cavalcanti et al., based on a multicenter study in Brazil, reported that the use of HCQ in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 did not improve clinical status at 15 days when compared to standard care.^[13]

Campbell argued that the negative findings must be approached with caution as the dosage of HCQ provided to study participants was high, relative to the recommended dosage for adults per British National Formula, in those studies that reported no or limited benefit of HCQ for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.^[14]

These mixed findings and opinions of public health experts and other stakeholders created a sense of ambiguity among health-care professionals in India. This may have affected their compliance with the ICMRs recommendation. The aim of this study was to explore the perception of frontline health care workers (physicians, nurses, and physician assistants) in South India about ICMRs recommendation and related compliance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was conducted adhering to the principles of Declaration of Helsinki guidelines. The guidelines were reviewed before the survey being sent to the participants. In addition, the survey invitation that was sent to the participants clearly identified that participation in the survey was “strictly voluntary and the responses will be kept anonymous”.

The authors developed the survey by reviewing the literature and following survey writing guidelines. The survey tool consisted of 10 items. The first few items gathered information on participants’ demographics (gender, state, practice setting, unit/ward, and specialty). Subsequent items asked whether they were treating/anticipate treating patients with COVID-19, whether they were complaint with ICMRs recommendation on HCQ chemoprophylaxis, reason for non-compliance with the prophylaxis, and their view on safety of HCQ prophylaxis. The final open-ended item asked participants to express any other related thoughts.

The survey tool was reviewed by a few health-care practitioners in Tamil Nadu for face validity. All reviewers agreed that the survey tool was easy to understand. No changes were made to the original survey tool.

RESULTS

By the response deadline, 132 responses were received. Of 132 respondents, 52% (n = 68) were male and 48% (n = 564) were female; 80% (n = 105) of respondents identified their geographical location (practice) as Tamil Nadu, 17% (n = 23) as Karnataka, and 2% (n = 2) as Telangana, 1% (n = 1) as Andhra Pradesh, and 1% (n = 1) as Kerala. The survey failed to generate responses from Puducherry. Seventy-seven percent (n = 102) of respondents work in private hospitals, 18% (n = 24) in government hospitals, 3% (n = 4) in non-government organizations, and 2% (n = 2) in clinics. Thirty-three (n = 44) percent identified their unit of work as ICU, 22% (n = 29) as emergency room, 27% (n = 35) as in-patient wards, and 27% (n = 36) as outpatient units. Thirty-two respondents reported working in more than 1 unit. Thirty-three respondents chose the other option and identified “operation theatre,” “clinical laboratory,” “community,” “palliative care,” “urology,” “radiology,” “labor room,” “nephrology,” and “obstetrics and gynecology” as their units.

Respondents belonged to various specialties of medicine. Notably, 28% (n = 37) identified their specialty as general medicine, 13% (n = 17) as anesthesiology, 9% (n = 12) as intensive care, 6% (n = 8) as cardiology, 6% (n = 8) as obstetrics and gynecology, 6% (n = 8) as pediatrics, and 6% (n = 8) as general surgery. Respondents belong to other specialties (neurology, orthopedics, and nephrology) were five or less.

Of 132 respondents, 61% (n = 81) stated that they were either treating or anticipate treating patients with COVID-19 and 39% (n = 51) reported that they did not foresee treating patients with COVID-19. A significant association was found between “compliance with the ICMR recommendation” and “treating or anticipate treating patients with COVID-19” (χ² P = 0.003). Nearly 36% (n = 29) of respondents who treat/ anticipate treating COVID patients took HCQ prophylaxis, while only 14% (n = 7) complied with the recommendation in the other group (do not anticipate treating patients with COVID-19).

As 39% of the respondents reported that they did not treat or anticipate treating patients with COVID, understandably, their views may not provide an accurate reflection of the perception of health care workers view on ICMRs prophylaxis recommendation. Hence, their responses were removed from further analysis. Further, one respondent who selected the other option identified that he/she did not follow the recommendation because he/she has diabetes-related retinopathy. Hence, his/her response was also removed. Of the remaining 80 respondents, Figure 1 shows the number of respondents who took the HCQ prophylaxis. Figure 2 identifies the reasons for not taking the HCQ prophylaxis as reported by the respondents. Respondents were permitted to select more than 1 response and identify additional reasons through the “other” option for this item. Twenty respondents chose the “other” option. Their responses indicated concerns about side effects and lack of evidence.

Close

Figure 1:

Compliance of respondents with chemoprophylaxis.

Export to PPT

Close

Figure 2:

Reasons for non-compliance with chemoprophylaxis.

Export to PPT

Figure 3 presents respondents level of agreement to the statement of “taking HCQS prophylaxis will help a health-care professional feel safe when providing care to patients with COVID-19.” Interestingly, despite the agreement, only 15 of the 32 respondents who expressed agreement reported compliance with the prophylaxis. Two respondents who expressed disagreement and one respondent who expressed strong disagreement reported compliance with the recommendation.

Close

Figure 3:

Respondents level of agreement to the statement of HCQ being safe and effective.

Export to PPT

Fifty-six respondents responded to the final open-ended item. The following themes emerged from the analysis of their responses: “Lack of evidence to support the efficacy of HCQS,” “side effects,” “lack of clarity,” and “must be taken if treating patients with COVID-19.” These themes were elaborated in the subsequent section.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that nearly half of frontline health care workers in South India, regardless of gender, geographical region (state), practice setting, and specialty did not comply with the HCQ chemoprophylaxis as recommended by the ICMR. Forty-seven percent (n = 38) of respondents reported taking the HCQ, of which, nine respondents did not follow the dosage recommendation made by the ICMR. This finding aligns with what has been reported in the literature. In a Delhi-based study, the authors found that doctors showed least acceptance of HCQ chemoprophylaxis.^[17]

The test of association performed between “compliance with the recommendation” and “gender” (χ² P = 0.68), “geographical region” (χ² P = 0.21), “practice setting” (χ² P = 0.24), and “specialty” (χ² P = 0.78) yielded non-significant probability values.

Forty-three percent (n = 15) of respondents who work in the ICU stated that they took the chemoprophylaxis as per ICMRs recommendation. However, this percentage declined to 37 (n = 7) in outpatient clinics, 30 (n = 6) among respondents who work in emergency rooms, and 28 (n = 5) in inpatient wards. This suggests that practitioners were more compliant with the recommendation when the exposure risk is high.

CONCLUSION

Slightly more than half of frontline health-care professionals in South India did not adhere to the ICMRs recommendation on the HCQ chemoprophylaxis due to concerns about side effects, lack of evidence on the efficacy of HCQ in preventing COVID-19, and lack of clarity. Evidence-based recommendations, publication of detailed guidelines by state and central health authorities, and stakeholder consultation may increase the compliance with prophylaxis recommendations.