Search

Background: Metformin has antiviral activity against RNA viruses including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The mechanism appears to be suppression of protein translation via targeting the host mechanistic target of rapamycin pathway. In the COVID-OUT randomized trial for outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), metformin reduced the odds of hospitalizations/death through 28 days by 58%, of emergency department visits/hospitalizations/death through 14 days by 42%, and of long COVID through 10 months by 42%., Methods: COVID-OUT was a 2 × 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that assessed metformin, fluvoxamine, and ivermectin; 999 participants self-collected anterior nasal swabs on day 1 (n = 945), day 5 (n = 871), and day 10 (n = 775). Viral load was quantified using reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction., Results: The mean SARS-CoV-2 viral load was reduced 3.6-fold with metformin relative to placebo (-0.56 log10 copies/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.05 to -.06; P = .027). Those who received metformin were less likely to have a detectable viral load than placebo at day 5 or day 10 (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% CI, .55 to .94). Viral rebound, defined as a higher viral load at day 10 than day 5, was less frequent with metformin (3.28%) than placebo (5.95%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, .36 to 1.29). The metformin effect was consistent across subgroups and increased over time. Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed effect over placebo., Conclusions: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial of outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2, metformin significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 viral load, which may explain the clinical benefits in this trial. Metformin is pleiotropic with other actions that are relevant to COVID-19 pathophysiology., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04510194., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. B. B. reports contracted fees and travel support for contracted activities for consulting work paid to the University of North Carolina by Novo Nordisk; grant support by NIH, PCORI, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Carmot, Corcept, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Insulet, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, and vTv Therapeutics; personal compensation for consultation from Alkahest, Altimmune, Anji, Aqua Medical Inc, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CeQur, Corcept Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, embecta, GentiBio, Glyscend, Insulet, Mellitus Health, Metsera, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, Pendulum Therapeutics, Praetego, Stability Health, Tandem, Terns Inc, and Vertex.; personal compensation for expert testimony from Medtronic MiniMed; participation on advisory boards for Altimmune, AstraZeneca, and Insulet; a leadership role for the Association of Clinical and Translational Science; and stock/options in Glyscend, Mellitus Health, Pendulum Therapeutics, Praetego, and Stability Health. M. A. P. receives consulting fees from Opticyte and Cytovale. A. B. K. has served as an external consultant for Roche Diagnostics; received speaker honoraria from Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, the American Kidney Fund, the National Kidney Foundation, the American Society of Nephrology, and Yale University Department of Laboratory Medicine; research support unrelated to this work from Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Development, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and the NIH; support for travel from College of American Pathologists Point-Of-Care Testing Committee; participation on an advisory board for the Minnesota Newborn Screening Advisory Committee; grants from NIH and JDRF for multiple unrelated clinical research projects and Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Development and Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics for unrelated clinical research studies; and leadership roles for the American Board of Clinical Chemistry, Association for Diagnostics and Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Subcommittee, and ADLM Academy Test Utilization Committee. M. R. R. reports consulting fees from 20/20 Gene Systems for coronavirus disease 2019 testing. D. B. R. reports grants from the NIH NCATS ACTIV-6 Steering Committee Chair. K. C. reports stock or stock options for United Health Group. C. T. B. reports consulting fees from NCATS/DCRI and the ACTIV-6 Executive Committee and support for travel from Academic Medical Education. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

This study describes decentralized recruitment and enrollment for a COVID-19 treatment trial, while comparing 5 primary recruitment methods: search engine ads, paid advertising within a national testing company, paid advertising within a regional testing company, electronic health record messages, and word of mouth. These are compared across patient demographics, efficiency, and cost., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04510194., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Objective: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are disproportionately affected by severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To characterize factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity among LTCF HCWs, we performed a retrospective cohort study among HCWs in 32 LTCFs in the Minneapolis-St Paul region., Methods: We analyzed the outcome of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity among LTCF HCWs during weeks 34-52 of 2020. LTCF and HCW-level characteristics, including facility size, facility risk score for resident-HCW contact, and resident-facing job role, were modeled in univariable and multivariable generalized linear regressions to determine their association with SARS-CoV-2 positivity., Results: Between weeks 34 and 52, 440 (20.7%) of 2,130 unique HCWs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least once. In the univariable model, non-resident-facing HCWs had lower odds of infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.70). In the multivariable model, the odds remained lower for non-resident-facing HCW (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71), and those in medium- versus low-risk facilities experienced higher odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08-2.02)., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that COVID-19 cases are related to contact between HCW and residents in LTCFs. This association should be considered when formulating infection prevention and control policies to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in LTCFs.

Background: Prior randomized clinical trials have reported benefit of fluvoxamine ≥200 mg/d vs placebo for patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)., Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully remote multisite clinical trial evaluated whether fluvoxamine prevents clinical deterioration in higher-risk outpatients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Between December 2020 and May 2021, nonhospitalized US and Canadian participants with confirmed symptomatic infection received fluvoxamine (50 mg on day 1, 100 mg twice daily thereafter) or placebo for 15 days. The primary modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population included participants who started the intervention within 7 days of symptom onset with a baseline oxygen saturation ≥92%. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization, defined as having both (1) shortness of breath (severity ≥4 on a 0-10 scale or requiring hospitalization) and (2) oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen., Results: A total of 547 participants were randomized and met mITT criteria (n = 272 fluvoxamine, n = 275 placebo). The Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping early for futility related to lower-than-predicted event rates and declining accrual concurrent with vaccine availability in the United States and Canada. Clinical deterioration occurred in 13 (4.8%) participants in the fluvoxamine group and 15 (5.5%) participants in the placebo group (absolute difference at day 15, 0.68%; 95% CI, -3.0% to 4.4%; log-rank P = .91)., Conclusions: This trial did not find fluvoxamine efficacious in preventing clinical deterioration in unvaccinated outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. It was stopped early and underpowered due to low primary outcome rates., Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04668950., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. A.M.R. and E.J.L. are listed on a patent application that includes use of sigma-1 receptor agonists for treatment of COVID-19. C.F.Z. is on the Scientific Advisory Board of Sage Therapeutics and has stock in the company. Sage was not involved in any of this work. R.B.I. consulted for SeaGen, AbbVie, and Resverlogix and received research support through her institution from Novartis and Ascentage unrelated to this research. R.H. serves on a data safety and monitoring board for Astellas Pharmaceuticals unrelated to the current work. E.J.L. consulted for Prodeo, Merck, IngenioRx, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Pritikin ICR and received research support through his institution from Janssen and PCORI. T.R.G. consulted for Pritikin ICR. J.T.R. has received funding for schizophrenia trials unrelated to this work. M.W.R. receives support from the NIH, but none of these grants are relevant to the current study. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination has decreasing protection from acquiring any infection with emergence of new variants; however, vaccination continues to protect against progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The impact of vaccination status on symptoms over time is less clear., Methods: Within a randomized trial on early outpatient COVID-19 therapy testing metformin, ivermectin, and/or fluvoxamine, participants recorded symptoms daily for 14 days. Participants were given a paper symptom diary allowing them to circle the severity of 14 symptoms as none (0), mild (1), moderate (2), or severe (3). This is a secondary analysis of clinical trial data on symptom severity over time using generalized estimating equations comparing those unvaccinated, SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated with primary vaccine series only, or vaccine-boosted., Results: The parent clinical trial prospectively enrolled 1323 participants, of whom 1062 (80%) prospectively recorded some daily symptom data. Of these, 480 (45%) were unvaccinated, 530 (50%) were vaccinated with primary series only, and 52 (5%) vaccine-boosted. Overall symptom severity was least for the vaccine-boosted group and most severe for unvaccinated at baseline and over the 14 days (P < .001). Individual symptoms were least severe in the vaccine-boosted group including cough, chills, fever, nausea, fatigue, myalgia, headache, and diarrhea, as well as smell and taste abnormalities. Results were consistent over Delta and Omicron variant time periods., Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-boosted participants had the least severe symptoms during COVID-19, which abated the quickest over time. Clinical Trial Registration. NCT04510194., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. The authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Early treatment to prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is an important component of the comprehensive response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic., Methods: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we used a 2-by-3 factorial design to test the effectiveness of three repurposed drugs - metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine - in preventing serious SARS-CoV-2 infection in nonhospitalized adults who had been enrolled within 3 days after a confirmed diagnosis of infection and less than 7 days after the onset of symptoms. The patients were between the ages of 30 and 85 years, and all had either overweight or obesity. The primary composite end point was hypoxemia (≤93% oxygen saturation on home oximetry), emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death. All analyses used controls who had undergone concurrent randomization and were adjusted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and receipt of other trial medications., Results: A total of 1431 patients underwent randomization; of these patients, 1323 were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years; 56% were female (6% of whom were pregnant), and 52% had been vaccinated. The adjusted odds ratio for a primary event was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.09; P = 0.19) with metformin, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.45; P = 0.78) with ivermectin, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.36; P = 0.75) with fluvoxamine. In prespecified secondary analyses, the adjusted odds ratio for emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94) with metformin, 1.39 (95% CI, 0.72 to 2.69) with ivermectin, and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.57 to 2.40) with fluvoxamine. The adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization or death was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.20 to 1.11) with metformin, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.19 to 2.77) with ivermectin, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.33 to 3.76) with fluvoxamine., Conclusions: None of the three medications that were evaluated prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19. (Funded by the Parsemus Foundation and others; COVID-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04510194.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Blastomycosis, caused by Blastomyces spp., is an endemic mycosis capable of causing significant disease throughout the body. Higher rates of infection are seen in the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys, the Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada, much of Africa, and, to a lesser extent, in India and the Middle East. Limited reporting inhibits our true understanding of the geographic distribution of blastomycosis. An estimated 50% of those infected remain asymptomatic. Of those who present with symptomatic disease, pulmonary involvement is most common, while the most common extrapulmonary sites are the skin, bones, genitourinary system, and central nervous system. Itraconazole is the standard therapy for mild-moderate disease. Data for other azoles are limited. Amphotericin is used for severe disease, and corticosteroids are occasionally used in severe disease, but evidence for this practice is limited. Despite increasing incidence and geographic reach in recent years, there are still significant knowledge gaps in our understanding of blastomycosis. Here, we provide an updated review of the epidemiology, clinical presentations, and diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for this infection. We also discuss areas needing further research.

Background: The World Health Organization recommends GeneXpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra), a fully automated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, as the initial tuberculous meningitis (TBM) diagnostic test. The assay's PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values represent the number of PCR cycles required for probe signal to be detected (low Ct value = high bacillary load) and may approximate tuberculosis (TB) bacillary load. We measured the relationship between cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) TB bacillary load with mortality., Methods: We prospectively enrolled 102 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive Ugandans with probable or definite TBM from April 2015 to August 2019. Xpert Ultra Ct tertiles and semi-quantitative categories were separately analyzed as predictors of 2-week mortality. We investigated associations between Ct and baseline clinical and CSF parameters., Results: Subjects with Ct values in the low tertile (ie, high bacillary load) had 57% 2-week mortality-worse than the intermediate (17%) and high (25%) Ct tertiles and Xpert Ultra-negative (30%) probable TBM cases (P = .01). In contrast, the reported semi-quantitative Xpert Ultra categorization was less precise; with the medium to low category trending toward worse 2-week survival (42%) compared with very low (28%), trace (26%), and negative (30%) categories (P = .48). Ct tertile was significantly associated with baseline CSF lactate (P = .03)., Conclusions: High CSF TB bacillary load, as measured by Xpert Ultra Ct tertile, is associated with an almost 2-fold higher 2-week mortality in HIV-associated TBM and is a better predictor than the reported Xpert Ultra semi-quantitative category. Xpert Ultra Ct values could identify TBM patients at increased risk of death who may benefit from enhanced supportive care., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical trials necessitated rapid testing to be performed remotely. Dried blood spot (DBS) techniques have enabled remote HIV virologic testing globally, and more recently, antibody testing as well. We evaluated DBS testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody testing in outpatients to assess seropositivity., Methods: In 2020, we conducted 3 internet-based randomized clinical trials and offered serologic testing via self-collected DBS as a voluntary substudy. COVID-19 diagnosis was based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definition with epidemiological link to cases. A minority reported polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing at an outside facility. We tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin via antibody detection by agglutination-PCR (ADAP) and compared the results with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)., Results: Of 2727 participants in the primary studies, 60% (1648/2727) consented for serology testing; 56% (931/1648) returned a usable DBS sample. Of those who were asymptomatic, 5% (33/707) had positive ADAP serology. Of participants with a positive PCR, 67% (36/54) had positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. None of those who were PCR-positive and asymptomatic were seropositive (0/7). Of 77 specimens tested for concordance via ELISA, 83% (64/77) were concordant. The challenges of completing a remote testing program during a pandemic included sourcing and assembling collection kits, delivery and return of the kits, and troubleshooting testing. Self-collection was successful for >95% of participants. Delays in US mail with possible sample degradation and timing of DBS collection complicated the analysis., Conclusions: We found remote antibody testing during a global pandemic feasible although challenging. We identified an association between symptomatic COVID-19 and positive antibody results at a similar prevalence as other outpatient cohorts., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure., Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations., Results: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08)., Conclusions: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers., Clinical Trials Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

As the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic evolved, it was apparent that well designed and rapidly conducted randomized clinical trials were urgently needed. However, traditional clinical trial design presented several challenges. Notably, disease prevalence initially varied by time and region, and the pockets of outbreaks evolved geographically over time. Coupled with an occupational hazard from in-person study visits, timely recruitment would prove difficult in a traditional in-person clinical trial. Thus, our team opted to launch nationwide internet-based clinical trials using patient-reported outcome measures. In total, 2795 participants were recruited using traditional and social media, with screening and enrollment performed via an online data capture system. Follow-up surveys and survey reminders were similarly managed through this online system with manual participant outreach in the event of missing data. In this report, we present a narrative of our experience running internet-based clinical trials and provide recommendations for the design of future clinical trials during a world pandemic., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: In cryptococcal meningitis phase 2 clinical trials, early fungicidal activity (EFA) of Cryptococcus clearance from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is used as a surrogate endpoint for all-cause mortality. The Food and Drug Administration allows for using surrogate endpoints for accelerated regulatory approval, but EFA as a surrogate endpoint requires further validation. We examined the relationship between rate of CSF Cryptococcus clearance (EFA) and mortality through 18 weeks., Methods: We pooled individual-level CSF data from 3 sequential cryptococcal meningitis clinical trials conducted during 2010-2017. All 738 subjects received amphotericin + fluconazole induction therapy and had serial quantitative CSF cultures. The log10-transformed colony-forming units (CFUs) per mL CSF were analyzed by general linear regression versus day of culture over the first 10 days., Results: Mortality through 18 weeks was 37% for EFA > = 0.60 (n = 170), 36% for 0.40-0.59 (n = 182), 39% for 0.30-0.39 (n = 112), 35% for 0.20-0.29 (n = 87), and 50% for those with EFA < 0.20 CFU/mL/day (n = 187). The hazard ratio for 18-week mortality, comparing those with EFA < 0.20 to those with EFA > = 0.20, was 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.25, 2.04; P = .002). The lowest EFA group had lower median CD4 T-cell counts (P < .01) and lower proportion of patients with CSF pleocytosis (P < .001)., Conclusions: EFA is associated with all-cause mortality in cryptococcal meningitis. An EFA threshold of > = 0.20 log10 CFU/mL/day was associated with similar 18-week mortality (37%) compared to 50% mortality with EFA < 0.20. This EFA threshold may be considered a target for a surrogate endpoint. This builds upon existing studies to validate EFA as a surrogate endpoint., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: No effective oral therapy exists for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Objective: To investigate whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 severity in adult outpatients., Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 22 March through 20 May 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04308668)., Setting: Internet-based trial across the United States and Canada (40 states and 3 provinces)., Participants: Symptomatic, nonhospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure within 4 days of symptom onset., Intervention: Oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or masked placebo., Measurements: Symptoms and severity at baseline and then at days 3, 5, 10, and 14 using a 10-point visual analogue scale. The primary end point was change in overall symptom severity over 14 days., Results: Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, -0.27 point [95% CI, -0.61 to 0.07 point]; P  = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo ( P  = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo ( P  < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non-COVID-19-related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death ( P  = 0.29)., Limitation: Only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages., Conclusion: Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19., Primary Funding Source: Private donors.

Background: Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from 3 outpatient randomized clinical trials., Methods: We conducted 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis, postexposure prophylaxis, and early treatment for COVID-19 using an internet-based design. We excluded individuals with contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. We collected side effects and serious adverse events. We report descriptive analyses of our findings., Results: We enrolled 2795 participants. The median age of research participants (interquartile range) was 40 (34-49) years, and 59% (1633/2767) reported no chronic medical conditions. Overall 2544 (91%) participants reported side effect data, and 748 (29%) reported at least 1 medication side effect. Side effects were reported in 40% with once-daily, 36% with twice-weekly, 31% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, compared with 19% with placebo. The most common side effects were upset stomach or nausea (25% with once-daily, 19% with twice-weekly, and 18% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 11% for placebo), followed by diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal pain (23% for once-daily, 17% twice-weekly, and 13% once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 7% for placebo). Two individuals were hospitalized for atrial arrhythmias, 1 on placebo and 1 on twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine. No sudden deaths occurred., Conclusions: Data from 3 outpatient COVID-19 trials demonstrated that gastrointestinal side effects were common but mild with the use of hydroxychloroquine, while serious side effects were rare. No deaths occurred related to hydroxychloroquine. Randomized clinical trials, in cohorts of healthy outpatients, can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19., Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT04308668 for postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment trials; NCT04328467 for pre-exposure prophylaxis trial., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high-risk of exposure., Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with Covid-19, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, Covid-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine 400mg once weekly or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable Covid-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole blood concentrations., Results: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of which 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of Covid-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events per person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events per person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events per person-year with placebo. For once weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was 0.72 (95%CI 0.44 to 1.16; P=0.18) and for twice weekly was 0.74 (95%CI 0.46 to 1.19; P=0.22) as compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed Covid-19 (154 ng/mL) versus participants without Covid-19 (133 ng/mL; P=0.08)., Conclusions: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or Covid-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 causing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based therapies to prevent COVID-19 following exposure to the virus, or to prevent worsening of symptoms following confirmed infection. We describe the design of a clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and pre-emptive therapy (PET) for COVID-19., Methods: We will conduct two nested multicentre international double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for: 1) PEP of asymptomatic household contacts or healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 within the past four days, and 2) PET for symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 showing symptoms for less than four days. We will recruit 1,500 patients each for the PEP and PET trials. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive five days of hydroxychloroquine or placebo. The primary PEP trial outcome will be the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19. The primary PET trial outcome will be an ordinal scale of disease severity (not hospitalized, hospitalized without intensive care, hospitalization with intensive care, or death). Participant screening, informed consent, and follow-up will be exclusively internet-based with appropriate regulatory and research ethics board approvals in Canada and the United States., Discussion: These complementary randomized-controlled trials are innovatively designed and adequately powered to rapidly answer urgent questions regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine to reduce virus transmission and disease severity of COVID-19 during a pandemic. In-person participant follow-up will not be conducted to facilitate social distancing strategies and reduce risks of exposure to study personnel. Innovative trial approaches are needed to urgently assess therapeutic options to mitigate the global impact of this pandemic., Trials Registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04308668); registered 16 March, 2020.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown., Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days., Results: We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was -2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -7.0 to 2.2; P = 0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported., Conclusions: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel pathogen causing the current worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Due to insufficient diagnostic testing in the United States, there is a need for clinical decision-making algorithms to guide testing prioritization., Methods: We recruited participants nationwide for a randomized clinical trial. We categorized participants into 3 groups: (1) those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, (2) those with probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (pending test or not tested but with a confirmed COVID-19 contact), and (3) those with possible SARS-CoV-2 infection (pending test or not tested and with a contact for whom testing was pending or not performed). We compared the frequency of self-reported symptoms in each group and categorized those reporting symptoms in early infection (0-2 days), midinfection (3-5 days), and late infection (>5 days)., Results: Among 1252 symptomatic persons screened, 316 had confirmed, 393 had probable, and 543 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection. In early infection, those with confirmed and probable SARS-CoV-2 infection shared similar symptom profiles, with fever most likely in confirmed cases ( P  = .002). Confirmed cases did not show any statistically significant differences compared with unconfirmed cases in symptom frequency at any time point. The most commonly reported symptoms in those with confirmed infection were cough (82%), fever (67%), fatigue (62%), and headache (60%), with only 52% reporting both fever and cough., Conclusions: Symptomatic persons with probable SARS-CoV-2 infection present similarly to those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was no pattern of symptom frequency over time., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Introduction: Mycobacterial diseases are a significant source of disease burden, with Mycobacterium tuberculosis being the most common infectious cause of death worldwide. Given this, the emergence of antibiotic resistance in these species is of particular interest. By examining the epidemiology of mycobacteria in humans and cattle in an area of intense human-animal contact (the Ugandan cattle corridor [UCC]) and using a novel whole-genome sequencing technique to analyse organism diversity, this study will explore the role bidirectional transmission of mycobacteria plays in the local ecology, as well the significance of zoonotic Mycobacterium bovis in the human population., Methods and Analysis: This ongoing study includes both a cross-sectional analysis of the UCC mycobacteria - positive population and novel laboratory-based research focused on differentiating the species causing M. tuberculosis complex-linked disease. We will use a third-generation sequencing platform (the MinION sequencer from Oxford Nanopore Technology), comparing data from a sample subset to the Illumina platform as a means of measuring viability of the MinION platform in this specific setting. Our full sample set will be sequenced on Illumina and the data will be used to perform epidemiological and phylogenetic analyses., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from both the University of Minnesota IRB committee and the Ugandan National Council for Science and Technology-Research Ethics Committee. Samples were obtained after patients signed an informed consent indicating samples could be retained and used for research purposes. All samples are deidentified, with only basic demographic and geographic information being retained per national tuberculosis (TB) recording guidelines. Significant drug resistance results will be referred back to the local TB control officer to inform patient care. Final results of the study will be submitted to infectious disease-specific journals and will be submitted to the annual Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) meeting., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)