No abstract

BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) of the gastrointestinal tract and any other organ within the abdominal cavity is abdominal TB, and most guidelines recommend the same six-month regimen used for pulmonary TB for people with this diagnosis. However, some physicians are concerned whether a six-month treatment regimen is long enough to prevent relapse of the disease, particularly in people with gastrointestinal TB, which may sometimes cause antituberculous drugs to be poorly absorbed. On the other hand, longer regimens are associated with poor adherence, which could increase relapse, contribute to drug resistance developing, and increase costs to patients and health providers.ObjectivesTo compare six-month versus longer drug regimens to treat people that have abdominal TB.Search methodsWe searched the following electronic databases up to 2 September 2016: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase (accessed via OvidSP), LILACS, INDMED, and the South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We also checked article reference lists.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared six-month regimens versus longer regimens that consisted of isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol to treat adults and children that had abdominal TB. The primary outcomes were relapse, with a minimum of six-month follow-up after completion of antituberculous treatment (ATT), and clinical cure at the end of ATT.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. For analysis of dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, we pooled data from the included trials in meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included three RCTs, with 328 participants, that compared six-month regimens with nine-month regimens to treat adults with intestinal and peritoneal TB. All trials were conducted in Asia, and excluded people with HIV, those with co-morbidities and those who had received ATT in the previous five years. Antituberculous regimens were based on isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol, and these drugs were administered daily or thrice weekly under a directly observed therapy programme. The median duration of follow-up after completion of treatment was between 12 and 39 months.Relapse was uncommon, with two cases among 140 participants treated for six months, and no events among 129 participants treated for nine months. The small number of participants means we do not know whether or not there is a difference in risk of relapse between the two regimens (very low quality evidence). At the end of therapy, there was probably no difference in the proportion o...

BackgroundPre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising strategy to break COVID-19 transmission. Although hydroxychloroquine was evaluated for treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis, it is not evaluated for COVID-19 PrEP yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of PrEP with hydroxychloroquine against placebo in healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during an epidemic period.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial in three hospitals in Barcelona, Spain. From 350 adult healthcare workers screened, we included 269 participants with no active or past SARS-CoV-2 infection (determined by a negative nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR and a negative serology against SARS-CoV-2). Participants allocated in the intervention arm (PrEP) received 400mg of hydroxychloroquine daily the first four consecutive days and subsequently, 400mg weekly during the study period. Participants in the control group followed the same treatment schedule with placebo tablets. Results52.8% of participants were in the hydroxychloroquine arm and 47.2% in the placebo arm. Both groups showed similar proportion of participants experiencing at least one adverse event (AE) (p=0.548). No serious AE were reported. Almost all AE (96.4%) were mild. Only mild gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly higher in the hydroxychloroquine arm compared to the placebo arm (28.3% vs 16.9%, p=0.044). Given the national epidemic incidence decay, only one participant in each group was COVID-19 diagnosed. Consequently, our study design deemed underpowered to evaluate any benefit regarding PrEP efficacy.ConclusionsFirst month follow-up analysis displayed that PrEP with hydroxychloroquine at low doses is safe.Trial registrationThis trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04331834) on April 2nd 2020.

No abstract