BACKGROUND
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has proved ineffective in treating patients hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but uncertainty remains over its safety and efficacy in chemoprevention. Previous chemoprevention randomised controlled trials (RCTs) did not individually show benefit of HCQ against COVID-19 and, although meta-analysis did suggest clinical benefit, guidelines recommend against its use.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Healthy adult participants from the healthcare setting, and later from the community, were enrolled in 26 centres in 11 countries to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of COVID-19 chemoprevention. HCQ was evaluated in Europe and Africa, and chloroquine (CQ) was evaluated in Asia, (both base equivalent of 155 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was symptomatic COVID-19, confirmed by PCR or seroconversion during the 3-month follow-up period. The secondary and tertiary endpoints were: asymptomatic laboratory-confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; severity of COVID-19 symptoms; all-cause PCR-confirmed symptomatic acute respiratory illness (including SARS-CoV-2 infection); participant reported number of workdays lost; genetic and baseline biochemical markers associated with symptomatic COVID-19, respiratory illness and disease severity (not reported here); and health economic analyses of HCQ and CQ prophylaxis on costs and quality of life measures (not reported here). The primary and safety analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Recruitment of 40,000 (20,000 HCQ arm, 20,000 CQ arm) participants was planned but was not possible because of protracted delays resulting from controversies over efficacy and adverse events with HCQ use, vaccine rollout in some countries, and other factors. Between 29 April 2020 and 10 March 2022, 4,652 participants (46% females) were enrolled (HCQ/CQ n = 2,320; placebo n = 2,332). The median (IQR) age was 29 (23 to 39) years. SARS-CoV-2 infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic) occurred in 1,071 (23%) participants. For the primary endpoint the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was 240/2,320 in the HCQ/CQ versus 284/2,332 in the placebo arms (risk ratio (RR) 0.85 [95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.00; p = 0.05]). For the secondary and tertiary outcomes asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred in 11.5% of HCQ/CQ recipients and 12.0% of placebo recipients: RR: 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.12; p = 0.6). There were no differences in the severity of symptoms between the groups and no severe illnesses. HCQ/CQ chemoprevention was associated with fewer PCR-confirmed all-cause respiratory infections (predominantly SARS-CoV-2): RR 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.88; p = 0.009) and fewer days lost to work because of illness: 104 days per 1,000 participants over 90 days (95% CI, 12 to 199 days; p < 0.001). The prespecified meta-analysis of all published pre-exposure RCTs indicates that HCQ/CQ prophylaxis provided a moderate protective benefit against symptomatic COVID-19: RR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91). Both drugs were well tolerated with no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Study limitations include the smaller than planned study size, the relatively low number of PCR-confirmed infections, and the lower comparative accuracy of serology endpoints (in particular, the adapted dried blood spot method) compared to the PCR endpoint. The COPCOV trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; number NCT04303507.
INTERPRETATION
In this large placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial, HCQ and CQ were safe and well tolerated in COVID-19 chemoprevention, and there was evidence of moderate protective benefit in a meta-analysis including this trial and similar RCTs.
High early mortality in patients with HIV-1 starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) in sub-Saharan Africa, compared to Europe and North America, is well documented. Longer-term comparisons between settings have been limited by poor ascertainment of mortality in high burden African settings. This study aimed to compare mortality up to four years on ART between South Africa, Europe, and North America.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Data from four South African cohorts in which patients lost to follow-up (LTF) could be linked to the national population register to determine vital status were combined with data from Europe and North America. Cumulative mortality, crude and adjusted (for characteristics at ART initiation) mortality rate ratios (relative to South Africa), and predicted mortality rates were described by region at 0–3, 3–6, 6–12, 12–24, and 24–48 months on ART for the period 2001–2010. Of the adults included (30,467 [South Africa], 29,727 [Europe], and 7,160 [North America]), 20,306 (67%), 9,961 (34%), and 824 (12%) were women. Patients began treatment with markedly more advanced disease in South Africa (median CD4 count 102, 213, and 172 cells/µl in South Africa, Europe, and North America, respectively). High early mortality after starting ART in South Africa occurred mainly in patients starting ART with CD4 count <50 cells/µl. Cumulative mortality at 4 years was 16.6%, 4.7%, and 15.3% in South Africa, Europe, and North America, respectively. Mortality was initially much lower in Europe and North America than South Africa, but the differences were reduced or reversed (North America) at longer durations on ART (adjusted rate ratios 0.46, 95% CI 0.37–0.58, and 1.62, 95% CI 1.27–2.05 between 24 and 48 months on ART comparing Europe and North America to South Africa). While bias due to under-ascertainment of mortality was minimised through death registry linkage, residual bias could still be present due to differing approaches to and frequency of linkage.
CONCLUSIONS
After accounting for under-ascertainment of mortality, with increasing duration on ART, the mortality rate on HIV treatment in South Africa declines to levels comparable to or below those described in participating North American cohorts, while substantially narrowing the differential with the European cohorts.
• Humanitarian organisations often have to innovate to deliver health care and aid to populations in complex and volatile contexts.
• Innovation projects can involve ethical risks and have consequences for populations even if human participants are not directly involved. While high-level principles have been developed for humanitarian innovation, there is a lack of guidance for how these should be applied in practice.
• Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) has well-established research ethics frameworks, but application of such frameworks to innovation projects could stifle innovation by introducing regulation disproportionate to the risks involved. In addition, the dynamic processes of innovation do not fit within conventional ethics frameworks.
• MSF developed and is piloting an ethics framework for humanitarian innovation that is intended for self-guided use by innovators or project owners to enable them to identify and weigh the harms and benefits of such work and be attentive towards a plurality of ethical considerations.