HomeAboutusEditorial BoardCurrent issuearchivesSearch articlesInstructions for authorsSubscription detailsAdvertise

  Login  | Users online: 15439

   Ahead of print articles    Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size  


 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 47  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 202-206
Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine prophylaxis among health-care workers: Was it really preventive? – Evidence from a multicentric cross-sectional study


1 Department of Community Medicine, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
2 Executive Director, NHSRC, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Community Medicine, ACMS, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav
Professor, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune - 411040
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_684_21

Rights and Permissions

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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article  Email this article
    

  Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
   Citation Manager
  Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed308    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded54    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

  Sitemap | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer | Privacy Notice
  2007 - Indian Journal of Community Medicine | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
  Online since 15th September, 2007