BACKGROUNDCoronavirus disease 2019 occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown. METHODSWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days. RESULTSWe enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −7.0 to 2.2; P = 0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONSAfter high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668.

Background: No effective oral therapy exists for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To investigate whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 severity in adult outpatients. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 22 March through 20 May 2020. (ClinicalTrials .gov: NCT04308668) Setting: Internet-based trial across the United States and Canada (40 states and 3 provinces). Participants: Symptomatic, nonhospitalized adults with laboratoryconfirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure within 4 days of symptom onset. Intervention: Oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or masked placebo. Measures: Symptoms and severity at baseline and then at days 3, 5, 10, and 14 using a 10-point visual analogue scale. The primary end point was change in overall symptom severity over 14 days. Results: Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, Ϫ0.27 points [95% CI, Ϫ0.61 to 0.07 points]; P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non-COVID-19-related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death (P = 0.29). Limitations: Only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages. Conclusion: Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging viral infection causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have garnered unprecedented attention as potential therapeutic agents against COVID-19 following several small clinical trials, uncontrolled case series, and public figure endorsements. While there is a growing body of scientific data, there is also concern for harm, particularly QTc prolongation and cardiac arrhythmias. Here, we perform a rapid narrative review and discuss the strengths and limitations of existing in vitro and clinical studies. We call for additional randomized controlled trial evidence prior to the widespread incorporation of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine into national and international treatment guidelines.

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, Covid-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine 400mg once weekly or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable Covid-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole blood concentrations. Results We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of which 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of Covid-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events per person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events per person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events per person-year with placebo. For once weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was 0.72 (95%CI 0.44 to 1.16; P=0.18), and for twice-weekly was 0.74 (95%CI 0.46 to 1.19; P=0.22) as compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed Covid-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without Covid-19 (133 ng/mL; P=0.08). Conclusions Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or Covid-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers.

Elevating serotonin (5-HT) levels with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is the most widely used treatment for depression. However, current therapies are ineffective, have delayed benefit, or cause side effects in many patients. Here, we define a mechanism downstream of 5-HT1A receptors that mediates antidepressant-like behavior and is profoundly and selectively enhanced by genetic disruption of regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) activity at Gαi2. Animals rendered insensitive to RGS protein regulation through a mutation in Gαi2 (G184S) exhibited spontaneous antidepressant-and anxiolytic-like behaviors. Mice expressing RGS-insensitive Gαi2 also exhibited increased cortical and hippocampal phosphorylation of glycogen synthase kinase-3β, a constitutively active proapoptotic kinase that is inhibited through phosphorylation in response to serotonin, SSRIs, and 5-HT1 receptor agonists. Both behavioral and biochemical phenotypes were blocked by treatment with WAY 100635, a 5-HT1A-selective antagonist. RGS-insensitive mice were also 5-10 times more responsive to the antidepressant-like effects of the SSRI fluvoxamine and 5-HT1A-selective agonist 8-hydroxy-2-dipropylaminotetralin. In contrast, the antidepressant potency of agents acting through nonserotonergic mechanisms was unchanged as was 5-HT1A action on body temperature. The findings point to a critical role for endogenous RGS proteins to suppress the antidepressant-like effects of 5-HT1A receptor activation. By selectively enhancing the beneficial effects of serotonin, inhibition of RGS proteins represents a therapeutic approach for the treatment of mood disorders.5-HT1A receptors | depression | G protein | regulator of G protein signaling proteins | transgenic mouse S elective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants (1). Their use is based on a strategy of augmenting the effects of endogenous serotonin by increasing synaptic concentrations. However, the therapeutic benefit of SSRI administration is delayed by weeks or even months. In addition, these drugs are ineffective in many patients and often cause unpleasant and harmful side effects (2). SSRI therapy causes general increases in synaptic serotonin that activate many types of serotonin (5-HT) receptors with a diverse distribution that couple to a wide array of signaling pathways. Manipulation of 5-HT1 receptor activity is generally thought to underlie the beneficial as well as the unfavorable effects of SSRIs. The 5-HT1 receptors are members of the superfamily of G protein-coupled receptors that activate the adenylyl cyclasecoupled inhibitory class of heterotrimeric G proteins. Although multiple lines of evidence suggest that 5-HT1 receptors preferentially couple to Gαi2 in vitro (3), the relative contribution of different Gαi/o-family proteins to these beneficial and unfavorable effects of 5-HT1A receptor activation is not known.Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins are a family of more than 30 members defined by a characteristic 120-...

Effective antiretroviral (ARV)-based HIV prevention strategies require optimizing drug exposure in mucosal tissues; yet factors influencing mucosal tissue disposition remain unknown. We hypothesized drug transporter expression in vaginal, cervical, and colorectal tissues is a contributing factor and selected three efflux (ABCB1/MDR1, ABCC2/MRP2, ABCC4/MRP4) and three uptake (SLC22A6/OAT1, SLC22A8/OAT3, SLCO1B1/OATP1B1) transporters to further investigate based on their affinity for 2 ARVs central to prevention (tenofovir, maraviroc). Tissue was collected from 98 donors. mRNA and protein expression were quantified using qPCR and immunohistochemistry (IHC). 100% of tissues expressed efflux transporter mRNA. IHC localized them to the epithelium and/or submucosa. Multivariable analysis adjusted for age, smoking, and co-medications revealed significant (p<0.05) differences in efflux transporter mRNA between tissue types (vaginal ABCB1 3.9 fold > colorectal; vaginal ABCC2 2.9 fold>colorectal; colorectal ABCC4 2.0 fold>cervical). In contrast, uptake transporter mRNA was expressed in <25% of tissues. OAT1 protein was detected in 0% of female genital tissues and in 100% of colorectal tissues, but only in rare epithelial cells. These data support clinical findings of higher maraviroc and tenofovir concentrations in rectal tissue compared to vaginal or cervical tissue after oral dosing. Quantifying mucosal transporter expression and localization can facilitate antiretroviral selection to target these tissues.

A new global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in high mortality and morbidity. Currently numerous drugs are under expedited investigations without well-established safety or efficacy data. Pharmacogenomics may allow individualization of these drugs thereby improving efficacy and safety. In this review, we summarized the pharmacogenomic literature available for COVID-19 drug therapies including hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, favipiravir, ribavirin, lopinavir/ritonavir, darunavir/cobicistat, interferon beta-1b, tocilizumab, ruxolitinib, baricitinib, and corticosteroids. We searched PubMed, reviewed the Pharmacogenomics Knowledgebase (PharmGKB ®) website, Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pharmacogenomics information in the product labeling, and the FDA pharmacogenomics association table. We found several drug-gene variant pairs that may alter the pharmacokinetics of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (CYP2C8, CYP2D6, SLCO1A2, and SLCO1B1); azithromycin (ABCB1); ribavirin (SLC29A1, SLC28A2, and SLC28A3); and lopinavir/ritonavir (SLCO1B1, ABCC2, CYP3A). We also identified other variants, that are associated with adverse effects, most notable in hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (G6PD; hemolysis), ribavirin (ITPA; hemolysis), and interferon β-1b (IRF6; liver toxicity). We also describe the complexity of the risk for QT prolongation in this setting because of additive effects of combining more than one QT-prolonging drug (i.e., hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine and azithromycin), increased concentrations of the drugs due to genetic variants, along with the risk of also combining therapy with potent inhibitors. In conclusion, although direct evidence in COVID-19 patients is lacking, we identified potential actionable genetic markers in COVID-19 therapies. Clinical studies in COVID-19 patients are deemed warranted to assess potential roles of these markers.

Background: Identifying new antifungals for cryptococcal meningitis remains a priority given the inadequacy of current therapy. Sertraline has previously demonstrated in vitro and in vivo activity against Cryptococcus. We evaluated the efficacy of adjunctive sertraline for cryptococcal meningitis in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Methods: We assessed 18-week survival among HIV-infected Ugandan adults with cryptococcal meningitis enrolled from 09 March 2015 to 29 May 2017. Participants were randomly assigned to receive standard therapy with 7-14 days of amphotericin (0•7-1•0 mg/kg/day) + fluconazole (starting at 800 mg/day) with either adjunctive sertraline or placebo. Sertraline was administered at a dose of 400 mg/day for 2 weeks, followed by 200 mg/day for 12 weeks, then tapered off over 3 weeks. Randomisation in a 1:1 ratio was performed with variable block sizes of 2 and 4, with stratification by site (Kampala or Mbarara) and antiretroviral status (experienced or naïve). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number .