Abstract
BACKGROUND A recent trial (NCT04308668) found that post-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was associated with a reduced incidence of Covid-19 by 17% overall; 36% in younger subjects, 31% in household contacts and 49% given within one day. To understand these trends, we re-analyzed the released dataset.
METHODS Our protocol conformed to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT). We compared the incidence of Covid-19 after HCQ or placebo, stratifying by intervention lag, age, and gender.
RESULTS Requesting additional data, we found that 52% of subjects received medication 1-2 days after the intended overnight delivery; 19% of them outside the intended four-day intervention lag. After re-analysis, there was a reduced incidence of Covid-19 associated with HCQ compared with placebo (9.6% vs. 16.5%) when received Early (up to 3 days) after exposure (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.35 - 0.97; p=0.044; NNT 14.5) but not Late (RR 1.22, 95%CI 0.72 - 2.04).
We found a significant HCQ-associated Covid-19 reduction in subjects 18 to 45 years old with Early (RR 0.54, 95%CI 0.29-0.97; p=0.0448, NNT 11.5) but not Late (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.55-1.89) prophylaxis, attenuated in older subjects (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0-27-2.05) and by co-morbidities. There were reductions associated with Early prophylaxis in household contacts (RR 0.35, 95%CI 0.13-0.89; p=0.025, NNT 5.7) and Health Care Workers (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.4-1.38). We did not detect effects of gender, folate, zinc, or ascorbic acid.
CONCLUSIONS Using novel data with a prospective post hoc re-analysis, hydroxychloroquine, in an age-dependent manner, was associated with reduced illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when supplied for post-exposure prophylaxis between 1 and 3 days after high-risk or moderate-risk exposure, at higher loading and maintenance doses than in similar studies. This finding warrants prospective confirmation.
Registered with the Open Science Framework (last revised September 27, 2020, osf.io/fqtnw).
Short Summary A prospective re-analysis of a public dataset integrated with novel data found an HCQ-associated reduction of illness compatible with Covid-19 when received between 1 and 3 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.97, p=0.044, NNT14.5).
Plain Language Summary A recent clinical trial examined the ability of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to prevent Covid-19 just after an exposure to a person confirmed to have Covid-19. There was an HCQ-associated reduction of Covid-19 by an overall 17%; 36% in younger subjects, and 49% in subjects given HCQ within one day of being exposed. Likely because the study had too few patients to find what may have been a medically and economically meaningful, reduction, this effect was not statistically significant.
Studying the trial data, we discovered an unintended and variable delay in the delivery of study drug which may have masked any drug effect. The investigators provided further information at our request that confirmed our theory. About half of the participants received drugs one or two days later than intended, about a fifth beyond the four days the investigators thought the drug might work.
When we factored in this new information, we found that if HCQ was given early (up to three days after exposure), it was associated with a statistically significant 42% reduction of Covid-19. Giving HCQ later had no effect. There was a greater effect in younger (less than 45 years) rather than older subjects (47% vs. 25%). Gender did not seem to affect the results, but there was a greater HCQ-associated reduction (65%) when it was given early to people exposed to Covid-19 in a household environment rather than to health care workers (26%). The effects associated with HCQ were better in people without co-existing conditions.
These re-calculations are important because the study, as originally analyzed, was the only randomized study that dealt with preventing Covid-19 cited by FDA to support a key public health decision made in June 2020 regarding HCQ. Although other studies have shown that the drug is not effective to treat established cases of Covid-19, our research suggests that that it is effective for prevention. Other prevention studies have failed to show a benefit of HCQ, possibly because they have used lower doses or have estimated the timing of dosing differently. Our research paves the way for our result to be confirmed under clinical trial conditions and for a re-examination of public health policy regarding this drug. Even with the introduction of vaccination, there remains a need for approaches like this to prevent Covid-19 while individual and community immunity develops, especially in subjects given a lower priority for vaccination.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT04308668
Clinical Protocols
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.19.20178376v2
Funding Statement
There is no external support for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No IRB approval was required for this work. This is a re-analysis of a de-identified, publicly released dataset obtained from an IRB-supervised study. Additional requested data were de-identified data and provided after we had been advised that the Privacy Officer of the University of Minnesota would be consulted to ensure regulatory compliance.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The following revisions have been made since version 1 of this manuscript28 was pre-printed December 2, 2020. i)Additional comments related to just published full paper version of Barnabas et al.,29 previously cited as abstract version. Discussion of dose and loading dose effects between comparable studies, with added Table 5. ii)Revision of discussion to reflect age strata revision in PrEP study from pre-print to published versions We had noted in our pre-printed protocol22 that the age strata used in the pre-printed companion PrEP study24 differed from those used in the companion PEP27 and PET30 studies. These strata have been revised in the published version25 to match the other two studies. The pre-printed Version 1 of this manuscript also reflected the earlier age strata, which we now revise and add a comparison (Table S 6) between the PEP and PrEP studies. iii)Table (Table S 5) added for effect of HCQ by risk level and contact type. Differences in the baseline incidence of Covid-19 and the relationship between contact type, risk level and changes in risk definitions are further discussed in main body and Supplement. iv)Discussion revised concerning statistical limitations. v)Comments added regarding remaining need for non-vaccine approaches. vi)Citation of Mitja31 study: Some RR values changed to aRR to reflect adjustment noted in Mitja Table 2 and apparent discrepancy with values in Mitja Figure 1. vii)Table 4: non-stratified totals added viii)Additional discussion in limitations. ix)Use of the term intervention lag to denote the time between highest risk exposure and receipt of study medication. x)Updated citations from pre-print to published versions. xi)Various typos, minor grammatical errors, reduction of word count. xii)Typo in Luco analysis, p value corrected to 0.0293 from 0.293. xiii)Verification calculations: minor differences likely due to rounding noted (Supplement) xiv)Description of selection of strata boundaries for age - expanded and moved form man text. (Supplement)
Data Availability
Microsoft Excel files will be made available on reasonable request to other investigators up to one year after publication. The original dataset is available from the authors of the original study via their study web site: covidpep.umn.edu/data
