RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo determine whether hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 infections among health care workers (HCW). DesignMulticenter, 1:1 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial. Setting34 clinical centers in the United States. Participants1360 HCW at risk for COVID-19 infection enrolled between April and November 2020. InterventionsA loading dose of HCQ 600 mg twice on Day 1 followed by 400 mg daily for 29 days or matching placebo taken orally. Main Outcome MeasureComposite of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 clinical infection by Day 30 defined as new onset fever, cough, or dyspnea and either a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test (confirmed) or a lack of confirmatory testing due to local restrictions (suspected). ResultsEnrollment for the study was closed before full accrual due to difficulties recruiting additional participants. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 41 (6.0%) participants receiving HCQ and 53 (7.8%) participants receiving placebo. No statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing clinical infection (estimated difference of -1.8%, 95% confidence interval -4.6% to 0.9%, p=0.20). We identified no significant safety issues. ConclusionOral HCQ taken as prescribed appeared to be safe in a group of HCW. No significant clinical benefits were observed. The study was underpowered to rule out a small but potentially important reduction in COVID-19 infections. Trial RegistrationNCT04334148
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Bedside consultation by cardiologists may facilitate safe discharge of selected patients from the emergency department (ED) even when admission is recommended by the History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) pathway. If bedside evaluation is unavailable, phone consultation between emergency physicians and cardiologists would be most impactful if the resultant disposition is discordant with the HEART pathway. We therefore evaluate discordance between actual disposition and that suggested by the HEART pathway in patients presenting to the ED with chest pain for whom cardiology consultation occurred exclusively by phone and to assess the impact of phone-consultation on disposition.METHODS: We performed a single-center, retrospective study of adults presenting to the ED with chest pain whose emergency physician had a phone consultation with a cardiologist. Actual disposition was abstracted from the medical record. HEART pathway category (low-risk, discharge; high-risk, admit) was derived from ED documentation. For discharged patients, major adverse cardiac events were assessed at 30 days by chart review and phone follow-up.RESULTS: For the 170 patients that had cardiologist phone consultation, discordance between actual disposition and the HEART pathway was 17%. The HEART pathway recommended admission for nearly 80% of discharged patients. Following cardiologist phone-consultation, 10% of high-risk patients were discharged, with the majority having undergone a functional study recommended by the cardiologist. At 30 days, discharged patients had experienced no episodes of major adverse cardiac events or rehospitalization for cardiac reasons.CONCLUSION: For patients presenting to the ED with chest pain, cardiology phone-consultation has the potential to safely impact disposition, primarily by facilitating functional testing in high-risk individuals.
