Search

ObjectivesTo determine whether hydroxychloroquine when used with personal protective equipment reduces the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among healthcare workers in comparison to the use of personal protective equipment alone.DesignMulticentre, parallel-group, open-label randomised trial. Enrolment started on 29 June 2020 and stopped on 4 February 2021. Participants randomised in HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation were followed for 6 months.Setting9 hospitals across India.ParticipantsHealthcare workers in an environment with exposure to COVID-19 were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to hydroxychloroquine plus use of personal protective equipment or personal protective equipment alone. 886 participants were screened and 416 randomised (213 hydroxychloroquine arm and 203 personal protective equipment).InterventionParticipants in intervention arm received 800 mg of hydroxychloroquine on day of randomisation and then 400 mg once a week for 12 weeks in addition to the use of personal protective equipment. In the control arm, participants continued to use personal protective equipment alone.Main outcomeProportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the 6 months after randomisation.ResultsParticipants were young (mean age 32.1 years, SD 9.1 years) with low-comorbid burden. 47.4% were female. In the 6 months after randomisation (primary analysis population=413), 11 participants assigned to the hydroxychloroquine group and 12 participants assigned to the standard practice group met the primary endpoint (5.2% vs 5.9%; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07, p=0.72). There was no heterogeneity of treatment effect in any prespecified subgroup. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. The adverse event rates were 9.9% and 6.9% in the hydroxychloroquine and standard practice arms, respectively. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions and relevanceHydroxychloroquine along with personal protective equipment was not superior to personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Definitive conclusions are precluded as the trial stopped early for futility, and hence was underpowered.Trial registration numberCTRI/2020/05/025067.

Women with recent gestational diabetes (GDM) have increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes.To investigate whether a resource-appropriate and context-appropriate lifestyle intervention could prevent glycemic deterioration among women with recent GDM in South Asia.This randomized, participant-unblinded controlled trial investigated a 12-month lifestyle intervention vs usual care at 19 urban hospitals in India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. Participants included women with recent diagnosis of GDM who did not have type 2 diabetes at an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) 3 to 18 months postpartum. They were enrolled from November 2017 to January 2020, and follow-up ended in January 2021. Data were analyzed from April to July 2021.A 12-month lifestyle intervention focused on diet and physical activity involving group and individual sessions, as well as remote engagement, adapted to local context and resources. This was compared with usual care.The primary outcome was worsening category of glycemia based on OGTT using American Diabetes Association criteria: (1) normal glucose tolerance to prediabetes (ie, impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance) or type 2 diabetes or (2) prediabetes to type 2 diabetes. The primary analysis consisted of a survival analysis of time to change in glycemic status at or prior to the final patient visit, which occurred at varying times after 12 months for each patient. Secondary outcomes included new-onset type 2 diabetes and change in body weight.A total of 1823 women (baseline mean [SD] age, 30.9 [4.9] years and mean [SD] body mass index, 26.6 [4.6]) underwent OGTT at a median (IQR) 6.5 (4.8-8.2) months postpartum. After excluding 160 women (8.8%) with type 2 diabetes, 2 women (0.1%) who met other exclusion criteria, and 49 women (2.7%) who did not consent or were uncontactable, 1612 women were randomized. Subsequently, 11 randomized participants were identified as ineligible and excluded from the primary analysis, leaving 1601 women randomized (800 women randomized to the intervention group and 801 women randomized to usual care). These included 600 women (37.5%) with prediabetes and 1001 women (62.5%) with normoglycemia. Among participants randomized to the intervention, 644 women (80.5%) received all program content, although COVID-19 lockdowns impacted the delivery model (ie, among 644 participants who engaged in all group sessions, 476 women [73.9%] received some or all content through individual engagement, and 315 women [48.9%] received some or all content remotely). After a median (IQR) 14.1 (11.4-20.1) months of follow-up, 1308 participants (81.2%) had primary outcome data. The intervention, compared with usual care, did not reduce worsening glycemic status (204 women [25.5%] vs 217 women [27.1%]; hazard ratio, 0.92; [95% CI, 0.76-1.12]; P = .42) or improve any secondary outcome.This study found that a large proportion of women in South Asian urban settings developed dysglycemia soon after a GDM-affected pregnancy and that a lifestyle intervention, modified owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, did not prevent subsequent glycemic deterioration. These findings suggest that alternate or additional approaches are needed, especially among high-risk individuals.Clinical Trials Registry of India Identifier: CTRI/2017/06/008744; Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: SLCTR/2017/001; and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03305939.

Purpose: To evaluate the psychological impact of the COVID 19 crisis on ophthalmologists-in-training and practising ophthalmologists during lockdown in India. Methods: An online survey was completed by ophthalmologists and ophthalmology trainees during the lockdown. The information collected included demographics (age, gender), domicile (state, union territory), current professional status (in training or practising), type of practice (solo, group, institutional, governmental, non-governmental), marital status (married, single), impact of COVID-19 on their training or practice, and impact on income and ability to meet living expenses. Psychological distress was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Results: In all, 2,355 ophthalmologists responded. Mean age was 42.5 (range, 25-82 years; SD, 12.05) years. Of these, 1,332 (56.7%) were males; 475 (20.2%) were still not in practice; 366 (15.5%) were single; 1,244 (52.8%) felt that COVID-19 would impact on their training or professional work; and 869 (37%) had difficulty in meeting their living expenses. The mean PHQ-9 score was 3.98 (range, 0-27; SD, 4.65). In terms of psychological impact, 768 (32.6%) had some degree of depression; mild in 504 (21.4%), moderate in 163 (6.9%), and severe in 101 (4.3%). Multivariable analysis showed that depression was significantly higher at younger age. The odds of depression decreased by 3% with 1 year increase in age. It was higher in non-practicing ophthalmologists, especially those who were considerably worried about their training or professional growth, and those with difficulty in meeting living expenses. Conclusion: A strikingly high proportion of ophthalmologists are psychologically affected and may require personalized mental health care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neuropathy is a common complication of kidney disease that lacks proven disease-modifying treatments. Hemodiafiltration improves clearance of uremic toxins and is associated with better nerve function than hemodialysis. We aimed to determine whether hemodiafiltration reduces the progression of neuropathy in people receiving hemodialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The Filtration in the Neuropathy of End-Stage Kidney Disease Symptom Evolution (FINESSE) study was an open-label, blinded end point assessment, controlled trial that randomized maintenance hemodialysis recipients to hemodiafiltration or high-flux hemodialysis for 48 months or until death or cessation of dialysis at four study centers. The primary outcome was the mean change in the yearly modified total neuropathy score from baseline, with time points weighted equally. RESULTS: A total of 124 participants were randomized and followed for a mean of 41 months. At baseline, neuropathy was present in 91 (73%) participants (modified total neuropathy score greater than or equal to two), and 38 (31%) had moderate to severe neuropathy (modified total neuropathy score 9–28). Convection volume in the hemodiafiltration arm was a median of 24.7 (interquartile range, 22.4–26.5) L. The mean modified total neuropathy score (SEM) worsened by 1.7 (0.4)/28 and 1.2 (0.4)/28 in the hemodiafiltration and hemodialysis groups, respectively, with a mean difference of 0.5 (95% confidence interval, −0.7 to 1.7; P=0.37). There was no difference in survival (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.61 to 2.51; log rank P=0.55) or any of the prespecified adverse events. There was no difference between groups in the number of participants who suffered an adverse event adjusted by follow-up time (relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.32; P=0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathy is still a common complication of kidney disease without disease-altering therapy. Hemodiafiltration did not affect neuropathy progression compared with hemodialysis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: Filtration in the Neuropathy of End-Stage Kidney Disease Symptom Evolution (FINESSE), ACTRN12609000615280