Published online Oct 28, 2020. doi: 10.5495/wjcid.v10.i4.55
Peer-review started: June 11, 2020
First decision: July 4, 2020
Revised: August 2, 2020
Accepted: September 18, 2020
Article in press: September 18, 2020
Published online: October 28, 2020
Processing time: 138 Days and 18.7 Hours
The current corona-2 pandemic has stimulated wide research for hydroxychloroquine (Quine) therapy and lately, prophylaxis. To optimize prophylaxis proper methods of use are explained. The focus is on tools of assessment and robust comparison; defining infection objectively; loading and maintenance dose designing based on pharmaco-viro-kinetics; confirming Quine threshold-levels and its sufficiency; and Quine side-effects vigilance/ amelioration. Attention to statistics to study valid endpoints of goals in appropriately-sized population is essential. Mass interactive quine dose auto designer software is built to simplify, optimize and help collaboration of complex Quine dosing system. A similar chloroquine software can be built.
Core Tip: Quine's role in corona-2 pandemic prophylaxis can be assured via designing correct loading doses (LD)/ maintenance doses (MD), therapy duration, and volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS) concentrations, assuring human IC50 and Liver and Heart safety thresholds of TCL10 and TCH10. Surely, good care will translate VeroE6 Viro-kinetics into human Viro-kinetics and help human-tailored dosing; not misguided by improper models, malaria, or rheumatology doses. Mass interactive quine dose auto designer (MIQDAD), viral count, and VAMS test help initial Quine LD/MD designing and human-tailored LD/MD dosing.
- Citation: Abul-Ainine A, Sadek AA. Top ten tips for perfect corona-2 prophylaxis. World J Clin Infect Dis 2020; 10(4): 55-57
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3176/full/v10/i4/55.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5495/wjcid.v10.i4.55
A good effort to study post-exposure hydroxychloroquine (Quine) prophylaxis was recently published[1]. Despite that it has decent statistical design, it has salient issues that need to be addressed to perfect the outcome of further Quine prophylaxis: (1) The primary outcome should involve viro-conversion from positive at entry to negative on exit (little testing in this study); (2) Primary outcome involves clinical symptoms reported by patients (was its percent reliability factored in sample-size calculations?) and was rated by 4 Infectious Disease doctors (without mention of inter-rater training or kappa of agreement reliability)[2]; (3) No data on further exposure to corona-2; other flu virus or having nasal allergy during the 2-wk study; (4) Using primary outcome as clinical symptoms is subjective, neither sensitive (as 80% are asymptomatic) nor specific to COVID19, (is it another flu virus or hay-fever?); (5) The Quine antimalarial dose is smaller than its antiviral loading doses (LD) calculated from the pharmaco-kinetics data held by FDA[3] (Table 1). Low LD will produce sub-inhibitory levels, so that patients are not protected for 1-4 d pre-enrollment and 4-5 d post-enrollment (treatment start 1 d after enrollment and might take 4 d to reach the level required for protection-threshold); (6) although measuring drug levels by using finger-prick to self-collect 10 μm blood samples (VAMS) is well-known, in-vivo Quine IC50 (= 50% Inhibitory Concentration) is never assured; pharmacokinetics from one study proposed VeroE6 cell IC50 of 4.5 μmol/L in 48 h of post-infection (mcM/hpi)[4,5], and another 6.3-5.9 in 24-48 mcM/hpi[6] requiring higher LD (15 and 20 tablets x 200 mg each, respectively); plus 2-3-wk maintenance doses (MD) or until patients develop their own immuno-protection; (7) Finding of safety-thresholds (10% Toxic Concentration = TC10) for liver enzymes elevation (= TCLiver10), for heart QT-prolongation (= TCHeart10), clinical hepatitis and dysrhythmia issues; (8) Since Quine is virostatic, its prophylactic-level must be maintained for at least 2-3 wk to build immunity that can clear virion particles (not possible in VeroE6 cell-kinetic cultures). So, dosing for 5 of 14 d is inadequate; (9) the folate-placebo helps one-carbon atom transfer to thymine to produce uracil, the rate-limiting substrate for RNA synthesis –undesired confounder; and (10) Although using sophisticated statistics to end the study early at a priori statistical power outcome is good, extending Quine prophylaxis (following correct LD) to achieve and define human IC50, is a missed historical landmark in the human/corona-2 contest. Sadly, statistical passion forced ending at only 2.4% incidence reduction rather than a 7% reduction –glorifying statistical-significance sacrificed nearby finding/measuring the more clinically important IC50 –cf. McNamara fallacy.
Body weight (kg) | 60 | Loading dose | Loading days if | Maintenance | Post-protect | Durations | Load/Maint | Protective nadir (mcM) | 5 | |
C rise/tab (mcM) | 0.386 | Target levels | Computed | 6 | 7 | 5.0 | Give to stay on peak doses for | 6 | ||
Half-life: T ½ | 22.4 | Level in mcM | Tablets to load | Tablets used/d | Tablets/wk | Post-last-dose | Doses Ratio | Maintenance interval (d) | 1 | |
Well indications | 1 Tab = 200 mg = 155 × 0.74 | 2 tablets /6 h | ||||||||
Protection | 5.0 | 14 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 0 | Until becomes immuno-protected or the pandemic ends | 5.5 | Protective peak (mcM) | 5.2 | |
Community helper | 6.0 | 17 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 6 | 5.5 | ||||
Exposed but well | 7.0 | 20 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 11 | 2 wk | 5.6 | First dose (200 mg tablets) | 13.4 | |
Unwell indications | ||||||||||
Low Infection | 8.0 | 23 | 4 | 4 | 15 | 2 wk | 5.7 | Maintain dose (tablets) | 0.4 | |
Medium infection | 10.4 | 30 | 5 | 5 | 24 | 2 wk | 5.8 | |||
High infection | 13.3 | 40 | 7 | 7 | 32 | 2 wk | 6.0 | PostCourse protected days | 1.0 |
Quine's role in corona-2 pandemic prophylaxis can be assured via designing correct LD/MD, therapy duration, and VAMS concentrations, assuring human IC50 and Liver and Heart safety thresholds of TCLiver10 and TCHeart10. Surly, good care will translate VeroE6 Viro-kinetics into human Viro-kinetics and help human-tailored dosing; not misguided by improper models, malaria, or rheumatology doses.
Mass interactive quine dose auto designer, viral count and VAMS test help initial Quine LD/MD designing and human-tailored LD/MD dosing.
Dr. Osman Akhtar, Pharmacist in Thuwal Clinic for reviewing and testing the dosing software mass interactive quine dose auto designer.
Manuscript source: Unsolicited manuscript
Corresponding Author's Membership in Professional Societies: GMC, 4644640.
Specialty type: Virology
Country/Territory of origin: United Kingdom
Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification
Grade A (Excellent): A
Grade B (Very good): B
Grade C (Good): 0
Grade D (Fair): 0
Grade E (Poor): 0
P-Reviewer: Song G, Xiao C S-Editor: Ma YJ L-Editor: A P-Editor: Wu YXJ
1. | Boulware DR, Pullen MF, Bangdiwala AS, Pastick KA, Lofgren SM, Okafor EC, Skipper CP, Nascene AA, Nicol MR, Abassi M, Engen NW, Cheng MP, LaBar D, Lother SA, MacKenzie LJ, Drobot G, Marten N, Zarychanski R, Kelly LE, Schwartz IS, McDonald EG, Rajasingham R, Lee TC, Hullsiek KH. A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:517-525. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 994] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 909] [Article Influence: 227.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
2. | McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22:276-282. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
3. | Drug Name: SYMPROIC. FDA-Approved Drugs. [Approved 23 March 2017]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&varApplNo=208854. [Cited in This Article: ] |
4. | Qu Y, Brady K, Apilado R, O'Malley T, Reddy S, Chitkara P, Ibarra C, Alexander RV, Dervieux T. Capillary blood collected on volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS) device for monitoring hydroxychloroquine in rheumatoid arthritis patients. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2017;140:334-341. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 46] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 60] [Article Influence: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
5. | Liu J, Cao R, Xu M, Wang X, Zhang H, Hu H, Li Y, Hu Z, Zhong W, Wang M. Hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine, is effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro. Cell Discov. 2020;6:16. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1336] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1314] [Article Influence: 328.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (1)] |
6. | Yao X, Ye F, Zhang M, Cui C, Huang B, Niu P, Liu X, Zhao L, Dong E, Song C, Zhan S, Lu R, Li H, Tan W, Liu D. In Vitro Antiviral Activity and Projection of Optimized Dosing Design of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71:732-739. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1644] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1729] [Article Influence: 432.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |