The outbreak of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic. Drug repurposing may represent a rapid way to fill the urgent need for effective treatment. We evaluated the clinical utility of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. Forty-eight patients with moderate COVID-19 were randomized to oral treatment with chloroquine (1000 mg QD on Day 1, then 500 mg QD for 9 days; n=18), hydroxychloroquine (200 mg BID for 10 days; n=18), or control treatment (n=12). Adverse events were mild, except for one case of Grade 2 ALT elevation. Adverse events were more commonly observed in the chloroquine group (44.44%) and the hydroxychloroquine group (50.00%) than in the control group (16.67%). The chloroquine group achieved shorter time to clinical recovery (TTCR) than the control group (P=0.019). There was a trend toward reduced TTCR in the hydroxychloroquine group (P=0.049). The time to reach viral RNA negativity was significantly faster in the chloroquine group and the hydroxychloroquine group than in the control group (P=0.006 and P=0.010, respectively). The median numbers of days to reach RNA negativity in the chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and control groups was 2.5 (IQR: 2.0-3.8) days, 2.0 (IQR: 2.0-3.5) days, and 7.0 (IQR: 3.0-10.0) days, respectively. The chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine groups also showed trends toward improvement in the duration of hospitalization and findings on lung computerized tomography (CT). This study provides evidence that (hydroxy)chloroquine may be used effectively in treating moderate COVID-19 and supports larger trials.

Highlights Twelve air samples and 355 surface samples from a hospital were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Only one air sample, which was obtained during an intubation procedure, tested positive. A low level of surface contamination was found, and most occurred on high-touch surfaces. No association was found between surface contamination and patient characteristics.

No abstract

Aim Frontline nurses’ willingness to work has significant implications for maintaining workforce stability and quality of care during the COVID‐19 pandemic; however, few studies have investigated their willingness and the corresponding reasons. This study aims to examine frontline nurses’ willingness to work, identify its predictors and explore its corresponding reasons. Design A mixed‐methods design was conducted. Methods Based on a multilevel behavioural‐diagnostic model, a questionnaire survey was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data concurrently from 13 February to 24 February 2020 to explore frontline nurses’ willingness to work and the corresponding reasons in two hospitals in Wuhan, China. One was a designated hospital which only received COVID‐19 patients, and the other was built up temporarily for COVID‐19 patients. Results Of the 2014 participants, most (n = 1950, 96.8%) indicated their willingness to work, and a few (n = 64, 3.2%) expressed their unwillingness. Binary logistic regression analysis identified five predictors of participants’ willingness to work, including monthly family income, average working hours per shift, belief in their colleagues’ preparedness, belief in their hospitals’ preparedness and levels of depression. These indicators explained 27% of the variance (p < .05). Frontline nurses’ willingness to work mainly arose from professional commitment, patriotism and faith, while unwillingness to do so primarily stemmed from safety concerns and family responsibility. Conclusion Most frontline nurses were willing to work and showed great professional commitment. Impact Professional commitment and patriotism were two important individual‐level factors affecting frontline nurses’ willingness to work during a pandemic. Strategies should be implemented, such as appreciating and acknowledging their contribution, rewarding their valuable work, arranging reasonable working hours, enhancing colleagues’ and hospitals’ preparedness, and providing emotional support. Moreover, adequate personal protective equipment, self‐protection training and social support should be ensured to address frontline nurses’ safety concerns and family responsibility.

Clinically indicated PIVC replacement is feasible, and it may reduce nursing staff workload and patient discomfort.