RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) emerged early in the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a possible drug with potential therapeutic and prophylactic benefits. It was quickly adopted in China, Europe, and the USA. We systematically reviewed the existing clinical evidence of HCQ use for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We screened for clinical studies describing HCQ administration to treat or prevent COVID-19 in PubMed. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized comparative cohorts, and case series studies that had all undergone peer review. RESULTS: A total of 623 studies were screened; 17 studies evaluating HCQ treatment were included. A total of 13 were observational studies, and 4 were RCTs. In terms of effect on mortality rates, observational studies provided conflicting results. As a whole, RCTs, including one large British RCT that has not yet been published, showed no significant effect of HCQ on mortality rates, clinical cure, and virologic response. The use of HCQ as a post-exposure prophylactic agent was found to be ineffective in one RCT. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence supporting HCQ for prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19. Many observational trials were methodologically flawed. Scientific efforts have been disappointingly fragmented, and well-conducted trials have only recently been completed, more than 7 months and 600,000 deaths into the pandemic.
RESUMO
Immediate and long-term recalls of a pre-travel consultation are suboptimal. We aimed to assess the role of online consultation for travellers.We randomized travellers into two study groups. In the intervention arm, each traveller was given a short pre-travel consultation of 8-12 minutes, combined with the option of smartphone support before and during the trip. In the control arm, each traveller was given a standard length pre-travel consultation of 18-22 minutes. Endpoints included knowledge about potential risks, travellers' satisfaction, time allocated to each traveller and clinical events.We enrolled 75 patients in the intervention group and 74 patients in the control group. Online consultation was used 33 times, by 24 travellers, both before and during the trip. Important health hazards that were addressed included animal and insect bites (8), treatment of diarrhea (4), malaria prophylaxis (2) and altitude sickness prophylaxis (5). Other consultations consisted mainly of reassurances of worried travellers and provision of data. Knowledge about travel-related risks was higher in the control group before travelling (8.86 ± 1.12 vs 8.34 ± 1.32, P = 0.014), and there was a trend towards higher levels of knowledge also during the trip (8.29 ± 1.35 vs 7.89 ± 1.39, P = 0.06). Travellers' satisfaction before and during the trip was similar in both groups: median 10 (10, 10) in both groups before traveling (P = 0.51) and median 9 (8, 10) in both groups during the trip (P = 0.71). In the intervention group, time allocated to each traveller was <12 minutes. There were no differences in the number of clinical events (P > 0.2 for all comparisons).Online WhatsApp support addressed several important travel-related hazards but, when combined with a shortened pre-travel consultation, was associated with a lower level of knowledge about health risks. Therefore, such smartphone support should augment, rather than replace, pre-travel consultation.
