Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 in Japan and Thailand

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug administered to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Fundamental research suggests that ivermectin is effective against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment option.

METHODS

This multi-regional (Japan and Thailand), multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 (IVERMILCO Study). The participants took a specified number of the investigational product (ivermectin or placebo) tablets of, adjusted to a dose of 0.3-0.4 mg/kg, orally on an empty stomach once daily for three days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time at which clinical symptoms first showed an improving trend by 168 h after investigational product administration.

RESULTS

A total of 1030 eligible participants were assigned to receive the investigational product; 502 participants received ivermectin and 527 participants received a placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was approximately 96 h (approximately four days) for both ivermectin and placebo groups, which did not show statistically significant difference (stratified log-rank test, p = 0.61). The incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions did not show statistically significant differences between the ivermectin and placebo groups (chi-square test, p = 0.97, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that ivermectin (0.3-0.4 mg/kg), as a treatment for patients with mild COVID-19, is ineffective; however, its safety has been confirmed for participants, including minor participants of 12 years or older (IVERMILCO Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05056883.).

Framework of the Strengths and Challenges of Clinically Integrated Trials: An Expert Panel Report

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

A randomized trial to assess the acceleration of viral clearance by the combination Favipiravir/Ivermectin/Niclosamide in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 adult patients (FINCOV)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of the viral clearance and clinical outcomes of favipiravir (FPV) in outpatients being treated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Ivermectin (IVM), niclosamide (NCL), and FPV demonstrated synergistic effects in vitro for exceed 78% inhibiting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication.

METHODS

A phase 2, open-label, 1:1, randomized, controlled trial was conducted on Thai patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who received either combination FPV/IVM/NCL therapy or FPV alone to assess the rate of viral clearance among individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

RESULTS

Sixty non-high-risk comorbid patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were randomized; 30 received FPV/IVM/NCL, and 30 received FPV alone. Mixed-effects multiple linear regression analysis of the cycle threshold value from SARS-CoV-2 PCR demonstrated no statistically significant differences in viral clearance rates between the combined FPV/IVM/NCL therapy group and the FPV-alone group. World Health Organization Clinical Progression scores and symptomatic improvement did not differ between arms on days 3, 6, and 10, and no adverse events were reported. No patients required hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or supplemental oxygen or died within 28 days. C-reactive protein on day 3 was lower in the FPV/IVM/NCL group.

CONCLUSION

Viral clearance rates did not differ significantly between the FPV/IVM/NCL combination therapy and FPV-alone groups of individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, although the combined regimen demonstrated a synergistic effect in vitro. No discernible clinical benefit was observed. Further research is required to explore the potential benefits of FVP beyond its antiviral effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TCTR20230403007, Registered 3 April 2023 - Retrospectively registered,https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=TCTR20230403007.

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 μg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN86534580.

FINDINGS

The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months.

INTERPRETATION

Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted.

FUNDING

UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of ivermectin (IVM) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still controversial, yet the drug has been widely used in the world. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes of IVM in patients with COVID-19. From inception to June 22, 2023, the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science (WOS), and scopus databases were searched for relevant observational studies on the risk of RA in migraineurs. We searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv to collect all relevant publications from inception to June 22, 2023. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, mechanical ventilation (MV) requirement, PCR negative conversion, and adverse events (AEs). Revman 5.4 was used to assess the risk of bias (RoB) and quality of evidence. Thirty-three RCTs (n = 10,489) were included. No significant difference in all-cause mortality rates or PCR negative conversion between IVM and controls. There were significant differences in MV requirement (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.96) and AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95) between the two groups. Ivermectin could reduce the risk of MV requirement and AEs in patients with COVID-19, without increasing other risks. In the absence of a better alternative, clinicians could use it with caution.

New clinical trial design in precision medicine: discovery, development and direction

In the era of precision medicine, it has been increasingly recognized that individuals with a certain disease are complex and different from each other. Due to the underestimation of the significant heterogeneity across participants in traditional "one-size-fits-all" trials, patient-centered trials that could provide optimal therapy customization to individuals with specific biomarkers were developed including the basket, umbrella, and platform trial designs under the master protocol framework. In recent years, the successive FDA approval of indications based on biomarker-guided master protocol designs has demonstrated that these new clinical trials are ushering in tremendous opportunities. Despite the rapid increase in the number of basket, umbrella, and platform trials, the current clinical and research understanding of these new trial designs, as compared with traditional trial designs, remains limited. The majority of the research focuses on methodologies, and there is a lack of in-depth insight concerning the underlying biological logic of these new clinical trial designs. Therefore, we provide this comprehensive review of the discovery and development of basket, umbrella, and platform trials and their underlying logic from the perspective of precision medicine. Meanwhile, we discuss future directions on the potential development of these new clinical design in view of the "Precision Pro", "Dynamic Precision", and "Intelligent Precision". This review would assist trial-related researchers to enhance the innovation and feasibility of clinical trial designs by expounding the underlying logic, which be essential to accelerate the progression of precision medicine.

Simnotrelvir as a potential treatment for COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Simnotrelvir is a selective 3-chymotrypsin-like oral protease inhibitor with activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

AREAS COVERED

On 18 January 2024, results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of simnotrelvir as a treatment for mild-to moderate COVID-19-were published, indicating the drug, when given in combination with ritonavir, shortened the time to resolution of symptoms.

EXPERT OPINION

Treatment options for most outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 are limited. The protease inhibitor nirmatrelvir in combination with ritonavir has proven effective in patients who are high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, but there are no approved therapies for standard-risk patients, who now comprise the majority of the population. Simnotrelvir appears to be effective in standard-risk patients, including those who have completed primary vaccination against COVID-19 and have received a booster dose. This manuscript examines the rationale for the development of simnotrelvir and explores how this drug may be used in the future to treat COVID-19.

Higher-Dose Fluvoxamine and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 remains uncertain.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, a total of 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for 7 days or less.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine, 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days (n = 601), or placebo (n = 607).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. Follow-up occurred through day 28.

Results

Among 1208 participants who were randomized and received the study drug, the median (IQR) age was 50 (40-60) years, 65.8% were women, 45.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 76.8% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo included in the primary analysis, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy = .40]). Additionally, unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 (95% CI, 10-11) days in both the intervention and placebo groups. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported health care use events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, or emergency department/urgent care visit): 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.27-1.21]; P for efficacy = .86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo) but no deaths.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

An Update on SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Trial Results-What We Can Learn for the Next Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed over 7 million lives worldwide, providing a stark reminder of the importance of pandemic preparedness. Due to the lack of approved antiviral drugs effective against coronaviruses at the start of the pandemic, the world largely relied on repurposed efforts. Here, we summarise results from randomised controlled trials to date, as well as selected in vitro data of directly acting antivirals, host-targeting antivirals, and immunomodulatory drugs. Overall, repurposing efforts evaluating directly acting antivirals targeting other viral families were largely unsuccessful, whereas several immunomodulatory drugs led to clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with severe disease. In addition, accelerated drug discovery efforts during the pandemic progressed to multiple novel directly acting antivirals with clinical efficacy, including small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. We argue that large-scale investment is required to prepare for future pandemics; both to develop an arsenal of broad-spectrum antivirals beyond coronaviruses and build worldwide clinical trial networks that can be rapidly utilised.

Clinical development of antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants

The unceasing global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) calls for the development of novel therapeutics. Although many newly developed antivirals and repurposed antivirals have been applied to the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), antivirals showing satisfactory clinical efficacy are few in number. In addition, the loss of sensitivity to variants of concern (VOCs) and lack of oral bioavailability have also limited the clinical application of some antivirals. These facts remind us to develop more potent and broad-spectrum antivirals with better pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties to fight against infections from SARS-CoV-2, its variants, and other human coronaviruses (HCoVs). In this review, we summarize the latest advancements in the clinical development of antivirals against infections by SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

Innovative approaches to COVID-19 medical countermeasure development

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic, while unfortunately notable for immense strain and death throughout the world, has also shown great promise in the development of medical countermeasures. As the global scientific community shifted almost entirely towards vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics, new trial designs most significantly adaptive platform trials, began to be used with greater speed and broader reach. These designs allowed for deploying and investigating new therapeutics, repurposing currently existing therapeutics and flexibly removing or adding additional medications as data appeared in real-time. Moreover, public-private sector partnering occurred at a level not seen before, contributing greatly to the rapid development and deployment of vaccines.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a brief overview of the advances in preventative and therapeutic medical countermeasure development for COVID-19.

METHODS

A narrative review of relevant major medical countermeasure trials was conducted using the date range February 2020-December 2022, representing the period of greatest productivity in research to investigate COVID-19.

RESULTS

Among the most influential trial designs are the adaptive platform designs, which have been applied to the development of initial COVID-19 antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, repurposing of existing immunomodulatory therapy and assisted in the disproof of ineffective medical therapies. Some of the most prominent examples include the REMAP-CAP, RECOVERY and TOGETHER trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Adaptive platform trial designs hold great promise for utility in future pandemics and mass casualty events. Additionally, public-private sectoring is essential for rapid medical countermeasure development and should be further enhanced for future biopreparedness.

The ACTIV-6 Stakeholder Advisory Committee: a model for virtual engagement in decentralized clinical trials

Introduction

Engaging patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders to help guide the research process is a cornerstone of patient-centered research. Lived expertise may help ensure the relevance of research questions, promote practices that are satisfactory to research participants, improve transparency, and assist with disseminating findings.

Methods

Traditionally engagement has been conducted face-to-face in the local communities in which research operates. Decentralized platform trials pose new challenges for the practice of engagement. We used a remote model for stakeholder engagement, relying on Zoom meetings and blog communications.

Results

Here we describe the approach used for research partnership with patients, caregivers, and clinicians in the planning and oversight of the ACTIV-6 trial and the impact of this work. We also present suggestions for future remote engagement.

Conclusions

The ACTIV-6 experience may inform proposed strategies for future engagement in decentralized trials.

ACTIV-6: Operationalizing a decentralized, outpatient randomized platform trial to evaluate efficacy of repurposed medicines for COVID-19

Despite the availability of vaccinations, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to cause Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection with a spectrum of disease in the acute setting. Transmission, infection, and severe disease remain common. There is a critical need to establish treatment regimens in the ambulatory setting that can reduce symptom burden and potentially prevent progression to severe disease and death. Many existing medicines previously approved for other uses may have benefit but remain unproven in informative clinical trials. Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-6 is a decentralized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, platform trial that has now enrolled more than 7500 participants and has reported on the effectiveness of ivermectin at two doses, fluticasone, and fluvoxamine for helping people with COVID-19. With additional repurposed therapies added to the platform, ACTIV-6 continues to enroll symptomatic outpatients aged ≥ 30 years with a confirmed positive PCR or antigen test for SARS-CoV-2. Potential participants are screened and enrolled online, through a call center, or facilitated by local study sites. Participants consent electronically and are randomized to placebo or to one of the open study drugs for which they are eligible at the time of enrollment. A shared, contemporary placebo approach is used. Participants receive study drug in the mail and remain on study for up to 180 days. While enrolled, electronic patient-reported outcome assessments are used to monitor symptoms, healthcare utilization, and mortality. The primary endpoint is time to recovery or a composite of hospitalization and mortality within 28 days. Symptoms, acute healthcare utilization, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 are collected for up to 180 days. Using a decentralized trial approach allowed the ACTIV-6 platform to increase both reach and rate of enrollment. The decentralized approach did not simplify regulatory oversight, and we found unanticipated challenges in patient behavior and the study drug delivery process. Despite challenges, ACTIV-6 has enrolled thousands of participants from across the USA and continues to test the effectiveness of repurposed medicines for treating COVID-19. Our lessons learned contribute to the emerging understanding of how to optimize decentralized trials.

The purinergic receptor P2X7 and the NLRP3 inflammasome are druggable host factors required for SARS-CoV-2 infection

Purinergic receptors and NOD-like receptor protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome regulate inflammation and viral infection, but their effects on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remain poorly understood. Here, we report that the purinergic receptor P2X7 and NLRP3 inflammasome are cellular host factors required for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lung autopsies from patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reveal that NLRP3 expression is increased in host cellular targets of SARS-CoV-2 including alveolar macrophages, type II pneumocytes and syncytia arising from the fusion of infected macrophages, thus suggesting a potential role of NLRP3 and associated signaling pathways to both inflammation and viral replication. In vitro studies demonstrate that NLRP3-dependent inflammasome activation is detected upon macrophage abortive infection. More importantly, a weak activation of NLRP3 inflammasome is also detected during the early steps of SARS-CoV-2 infection of epithelial cells and promotes the viral replication in these cells. Interestingly, the purinergic receptor P2X7, which is known to control NLRP3 inflammasome activation, also favors the replication of D614G and alpha SARS-CoV-2 variants. Altogether, our results reveal an unexpected relationship between the purinergic receptor P2X7, the NLRP3 inflammasome and the permissiveness to SARS-CoV-2 infection that offers novel opportunities for COVID-19 treatment.

The importance of patient-partnered research in addressing long COVID: Takeaways for biomedical research study design from the RECOVER Initiative's Mechanistic Pathways taskforce

The NIH-funded RECOVER study is collecting clinical data on patients who experience a SARS-CoV-2 infection. As patient representatives of the RECOVER Initiative's Mechanistic Pathways task force, we offer our perspectives on patient motivations for partnering with researchers to obtain results from mechanistic studies. We emphasize the challenges of balancing urgency with scientific rigor. We recognize the importance of such partnerships in addressing post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), which includes 'long COVID,' through contrasting objective and subjective narratives. Long COVID's prevalence served as a call to action for patients like us to become actively involved in efforts to understand our condition. Patient-centered and patient-partnered research informs the balance between urgency and robust mechanistic research. Results from collaborating on protocol design, diverse patient inclusion, and awareness of community concerns establish a new precedent in biomedical research study design. With a public health matter as pressing as the long-term complications that can emerge after SARS-CoV-2 infection, considerate and equitable stakeholder involvement is essential to guiding seminal research. Discussions in the RECOVER Mechanistic Pathways task force gave rise to this commentary as well as other review articles on the current scientific understanding of PASC mechanisms.

Effect of Higher-Dose Fluvoxamine vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

The impact of fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains uncertain. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19.

Methods

The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were age ≥30 years with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for ≤7 days. Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days or to placebo. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID clinical progression scale; and difference in mean time unwell.

Results

Among participants who were randomized and received study drug, the median age was 50 years (IQR 40-60), 66% were female, 45% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 77% reported ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09; P(efficacy) = 0.4]). Additionally, unadjusted, median time to sustained recovery was 10 days (95% CI 10-11) in both the intervention and placebo group. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported healthcare utilization events ( a priori defined as death, hospitalization, emergency department/urgent care visit); 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR 0.69; 95% CrI 0.27-1.21; P(efficacy)=0.86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo).

Conclusions

Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04885530 ).

Paxlovid as a potential treatment for long COVID

INTRODUCTION

On 31 July 2023, the United States Department of Health and Human Services announced the formation of the Office of Long COVID Research and Practice and the United States National Institutes of Health opened enrollment for RECOVER-Vital, a randomized study to evaluate new treatment options for long Coronavirus (long COVID).

AREAS COVERED

The RECOVER Initiative is a $1.15 billion research platform intended to describe, categorize, treat, and prevent long-term symptoms following infection by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2), the virus that causes Coronavirus (COVID-19). More than 200 symptoms have been associated with long COVID, potentially affecting nearly all body systems, and current estimates suggest that between 7 million and 23 million Americans have developed long COVID. However, there are no approved treatments for this condition.

EXPERT OPINION

The first prospective, randomized study of the RECOVER research initiative, RECOVER-Vital, will evaluate the SARS-CoV-2 antiviral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) as a potential treatment for long COVID. This manuscript explores what is known about Paxlovid to treat and prevent long COVID and examines the rationale for addressing this condition with an antiviral agent.

COVID-19: An Update on Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment, September-2023

After a downward trend for more than 12 months, the incidence of COVID-19 has increased in the last months. Although COVID-19 is not as frequent as in the first years of the pandemic, case numbers are still very high, and it causes a significant number of deaths. COVID-19 is not seen with a predictable frequency, at least two times more deadly than the flu, continues as an epidemic, and has not reached the endemic level yet. Currently, the Omicron strains EG.5 and XBB.1.16 are dominant worldwide. Although BA.2.86 and FLip variants, including FL.1.5.1 are not widespread at the moment, both were shown to be highly immune-evasive and require close monitoring. Prevention of COVID-19 relies on vaccinations, surveillance, proper ventilation of enclosed spaces, isolation of patients, and mask usage. Currently, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, including XBB.1.5 Omicron SARS-CoV-2, are recommended for both primary and booster vaccinations against COVID-19. Monovalent vaccines, including only original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and bivalent vaccines, including original virus plus BA4/5 variant, are no longer recommended against COVID-19. Booster vaccination with XBB.1.5 containing vaccine should be prioritized for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination does not seem to be effective in preventing COVID-19. At the current phase of the pandemic, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab (for patients from XBB.1.5 variant dominant settings), and convalescent plasma can be considered for the treatment of high-risk early-stage outpatients with COVID-19, while hospitalized patients with more severe disease can be treated with dexamethasone, anti cytokines including tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, and tofacitinib and antithrombotic agents including enoxaparin. Remdesivir oral analogues and ensitrelvir fumarate are promising agents for treating acute COVID-19, which are in phase trials now; however, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and metformin were shown to be ineffective.

Treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: recent progress and a look to the future

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a severe but treatable form of pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension caused by pulmonary vascular remodelling. As a result of basic science discoveries, randomised controlled trials, studies of real-world data, and the development of clinical practice guidelines, considerable progress has been made in the treatment options and outcomes for patients with PAH, underscoring the importance of seamless translation of information from bench to bedside and, ultimately, to patients. However, PAH still carries a high mortality rate, which emphasises the urgent need for transformative innovations in the field. In this Series paper, written by a group of clinicians, researchers, and a patient with PAH, we review therapeutic approaches and treatment options for PAH. We summarise current knowledge of the cellular and molecular mechanisms of PAH, with an emphasis on emerging treatable pathways and optimisation of current management strategies. In considering future directions for the field, our ambition is to identify therapies with the potential to stall or reverse pulmonary vascular remodelling. We highlight novel therapeutic approaches, the important role of patients as partners in research, and innovative approaches to PAH clinical trials.

Validity and Characterization of Time to Symptom Resolution Outcome Measures in the ACTIV-2/A5401 Outpatient COVID-19 Treatment Trial

BACKGROUND

Time to symptom resolution measures were used in outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment trials without prior validation.

METHODS

ACTIV-2/A5401 trial participants completed a COVID-19 diary assessing 13 targeted symptoms and global experience (overall COVID-19 symptoms, return to pre-COVID-19 health) daily for 29 days. We evaluated concordance of time to sustained (2 days) resolution of all targeted symptoms (TSR) with resolution of overall symptoms and return to health in participants receiving placebo.

RESULTS

The analysis included 77 high-risk and 81 standard-risk participants with overall median 6 days of symptoms at entry and median age 47 years, 50% female, 82% white, and 31% Hispanic/Latino. Correlation between TSR and resolution of overall symptoms was 0.80 and 0.68, and TSR and return to health, 0.66 and 0.57 for high- and standard-risk groups, respectively. Of the high- and standard-risk participants, 61% and 79%, respectively, achieved targeted symptom resolution, of which 47% and 43%, respectively, reported symptom recurrence. Requiring >2 days to define sustained resolution reduced the frequency of recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

There was good internal consistency between TSR and COVID-19-specific global outcomes, supporting TSR as a trial end point. Requiring >2 days of symptom resolution better addresses natural symptom fluctuations but must be balanced against the potential influence of non-COVID-19 symptoms.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04518410.

COVID-19: An Overview of SARS-CoV-2 Variants-The Current Vaccines and Drug Development

The world is presently in crisis facing an outbreak of a health-threatening microorganism known as COVID-19, responsible for causing uncommon viral pneumonia in humans. The virus was first reported in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019, and it quickly became a global concern due to the pandemic. Challenges in this regard have been compounded by the emergence of several variants such as B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P1, and B.1.617, which show an increase in transmission power and resistance to therapies and vaccines. Ongoing researches are focused on developing and manufacturing standard treatment strategies and effective vaccines to control the pandemic. Despite developing several vaccines such as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other vaccines in phase 4 clinical trials, preventive measures are mandatory to control the COVID-19 pandemic. In this review, based on the latest findings, we will discuss different types of drugs as therapeutic options and confirmed or developing vaccine candidates against SARS-CoV-2. We also discuss in detail the challenges posed by the variants and their effect on therapeutic and preventive interventions.

The Management of COVID-19-Related Coagulopathy: A Focus on the Challenges of Metabolic and Vascular Diseases

The course of COVID-19 is highly dependent on the associated cardiometabolic comorbidities of the patient, which worsen the prognosis of coronavirus infection, mainly due to systemic inflammation, endothelium dysfunction, and thrombosis. A search on the recent medical literature was performed in five languages, using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases, for the review of data regarding the management of patients with a high risk for severe COVID-19, focusing on the associated coagulopathy. Special features of COVID-19 management are presented, based on the underlying conditions (obesity, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular diseases), emphasizing the necessity of a modern, holistic approach to thromboembolic states. The latest findings regarding the most efficient therapeutic approaches are included in the article, offering guidance for medical professionals in severe, complicated cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We can conclude that severe COVID-19 is closely related to vascular inflammation and intense cytokine release leading to hemostasis disorders. Overweight, hyperglycemia, cardiovascular diseases, and old age are important risk factors for severe outcomes of coronavirus infection, involving a hypercoagulable state. Early diagnosis and proper therapy in complicated SARS-CoV-2-infected cases could reduce mortality and the need for intensive care during hospitalization in patients with cardiometabolic comorbidities.

Pan-American Guidelines for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a joint evidence-based guideline of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API)

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations. Considering the particular impact of COVID-19 in the Americas, this document aims to present recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 specific to this population.

METHODS

Fifteen experts, members of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) make up the panel responsible for developing this guideline. Questions were formulated regarding prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. The outcomes considered in decision-making were mortality, hospitalisation, need for mechanical ventilation, symptomatic COVID-19 episodes, and adverse events. In addition, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. The quality of evidence assessment and guideline development process followed the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Nine technologies were evaluated, and ten recommendations were made, including the use of tixagevimab + cilgavimab in the prophylaxis of COVID-19, tixagevimab + cilgavimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, and remdesivir in the treatment of outpatients, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and ivermectin was discouraged.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides recommendations for treating patients in the Americas following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The recommendations present a set of drugs that have proven effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, emphasising the strong recommendation for the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in outpatients as the lack of benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of early studies on ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 infection

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been repurposed for COVID-19 treatment during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Although its antiviral efficacy was confirmed early in vitro and in preclinical studies, its clinical efficacy remained ambiguous. Our purpose was to assess the efficacy of ivermectin in terms of time to viral clearance based on the meta-analysis of available clinical trials at the closing date of the data search period, one year after the start of the pandemic. This meta-analysis was reported by following the PRISMA guidelines and by using the PICO format for formulating the question. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Embase, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), bioRvix, and medRvix were searched for human studies of patients receiving ivermectin therapy with control groups. No language or publication status restrictions were applied. The search ended on 1/31/2021 exactly one year after WHO declared the public health emergency on novel coronavirus. The meta-analysis of three trials involving 382 patients revealed that the mean time to viral clearance was 5.74 days shorter in case of ivermectin treatment compared to the control groups [WMD = -5.74, 95% CI (-11.1, -0.39), p = 0.036]. Ivermectin has significantly reduced the time to viral clearance in mild to moderate COVID-19 diseases compared to control groups. However, more eligible studies are needed for analysis to increase the quality of evidence of ivermectin use in COVID-19.

COVID-19 Excess Deaths in Peru's 25 States in 2020: Nationwide Trends, Confounding Factors, and Correlations With the Extent of Ivermectin Treatment by State

Introduction In 2020, nations hastened to contain an emerging COVID-19 pandemic by deploying diverse public health approaches, but conclusive appraisals of the efficacy of these approaches are elusive in most cases. One of the medicines deployed, ivermectin (IVM), a macrocyclic lactone having biochemical activity against SARS-CoV-2 through competitive binding to its spike protein, has yielded mixed results in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for COVID-19 treatments. In Peru, an opportunity to track the efficacy of IVM with a close consideration of confounding factors was provided through data for excess deaths as correlated with IVM use in 2020, under semi-autonomous policies in its 25 states. Methods To evaluate possible IVM treatment effects, excess deaths as determined from Peruvian national health data were analyzed by state for ages ≥60 in Peru's 25 states. These data were compared with monthly summary data for excess deaths in Peru for the period 2020-2021 as published by the WHO in 2022. To identify potential confounding factors, Google mobility data, population densities, SARS-CoV-2 genetic variations, and seropositivity rates were also examined. Results Reductions in excess deaths over a period of 30 days after peak deaths averaged 74% in the 10 states with the most intensive IVM use. As determined across all 25 states, these reductions in excess deaths correlated closely with the extent of IVM use (p<0.002). During four months of IVM use in 2020, before a new president of Peru restricted its use, there was a 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths and then a 13-fold increase in the two months following the restriction of IVM use. Notably, these trends in nationwide excess deaths align with WHO summary data for the same period in Peru. Conclusions The natural experiment that was put into motion with the authorization of IVM use for COVID-19 in Peru in May 2020, as analyzed using data on excess deaths by locality and by state from Peruvian national health sources, resulted in strong evidence for the drug's effectiveness. Several potential confounding factors, including effects of a social isolation mandate imposed in May 2020, variations in the genetic makeup of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and differences in seropositivity rates and population densities across the 25 states, were considered but did not appear to have significantly influenced these outcomes.

The Penn Medicine COVID-19 Therapeutics Committee-Reflections on a Model for Rapid Evidence Review and Dynamic Practice Recommendations During a Public Health Emergency

The Penn Medicine COVID-19 Therapeutics Committee-an interspecialty, clinician-pharmacist, and specialist-front line primary care collaboration-has served as a forum for rapid evidence review and the production of dynamic practice recommendations during the 3-year coronavirus disease 2019 public health emergency. We describe the process by which the committee went about its work and how it navigated specific challenging scenarios. Our target audiences are clinicians, hospital leaders, public health officials, and researchers invested in preparedness for inevitable future threats. Our objectives are to discuss the logistics and challenges of forming an effective committee, undertaking a rapid evidence review process, aligning evidence-based guidelines with operational realities, and iteratively revising recommendations in response to changing pandemic data. We specifically discuss the arc of evidence for corticosteroids; the noble beginnings and dangerous misinformation end of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; monoclonal antibodies and emerging viral variants; and patient screening and safety processes for tocilizumab, baricitinib, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Decentralized clinical trials in the trial innovation network: Value, strategies, and lessons learned

New technologies and disruptions related to Coronavirus disease-2019 have led to expansion of decentralized approaches to clinical trials. Remote tools and methods hold promise for increasing trial efficiency and reducing burdens and barriers by facilitating participation outside of traditional clinical settings and taking studies directly to participants. The Trial Innovation Network, established in 2016 by the National Center for Advancing Clinical and Translational Science to address critical roadblocks in clinical research and accelerate the translational research process, has consulted on over 400 research study proposals to date. Its recommendations for decentralized approaches have included eConsent, participant-informed study design, remote intervention, study task reminders, social media recruitment, and return of results for participants. Some clinical trial elements have worked well when decentralized, while others, including remote recruitment and patient monitoring, need further refinement and assessment to determine their value. Partially decentralized, or "hybrid" trials, offer a first step to optimizing remote methods. Decentralized processes demonstrate potential to improve urban-rural diversity, but their impact on inclusion of racially and ethnically marginalized populations requires further study. To optimize inclusive participation in decentralized clinical trials, efforts must be made to build trust among marginalized communities, and to ensure access to remote technology.

Remote and semi-automated methods to conduct a decentralized randomized clinical trial

Introduction

Designing and conducting clinical trials is challenging for some institutions and researchers due to associated time and personnel requirements. We conducted recruitment, screening, informed consent, study product distribution, and data collection remotely. Our objective is to describe how to conduct a randomized clinical trial using remote and automated methods.

Methods

A randomized clinical trial in healthcare workers is used as a model. A random group of workers were invited to participate in the study through email. Following an automated process, interested individuals scheduled consent/screening interviews. Enrollees received study product by mail and surveys via email. Adherence to study product and safety were monitored with survey data review and via real-time safety alerts to study staff.

Results

A staff of 10 remotely screened 406 subjects and enrolled 299 over a 3-month period. Adherence to study product was 87%, and survey data completeness was 98.5% over 9 months. Participants and study staff scored the System Usability Scale 93.8% and 90%, respectively. The automated and remote methods allowed the study maintenance period to be managed by a small study team of two members, while safety monitoring was conducted by three to four team members. Conception of the trial to study completion was 21 months.

Conclusions

The remote and automated methods produced efficient subject recruitment with excellent study product adherence and data completeness. These methods can improve efficiency without sacrificing safety or quality. We share our XML file for researchers to use as a template for learning purposes or designing their own clinical trials.

When Characteristics of Clinical Trials Require Per-Protocol as Well as Intention-to-Treat Outcomes to Draw Reliable Conclusions: Three Examples

Under exceptional circumstances, including high rates of protocol non-compliance, per-protocol (PP) analysis can better indicate the real-world benefits of a medical intervention than intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Exemplifying this, the first randomized clinical trial (RCT) considered found that colonoscopy screenings were marginally beneficial, based upon ITT analysis, with only 42% of the intervention group actually undergoing the procedure. However, the study authors themselves concluded that the medical efficacy of that screening was a 50% reduction in colorectal cancer deaths among that 42% PP group. The second RCT found a ten-fold reduction in mortality for a COVID-19 treatment drug vs. placebo by PP analysis, but only a minor benefit by ITT analysis. The third RCT, conducted as an arm of the same platform trial as the second RCT, tested another COVID-19 treatment drug and reported no significant benefit by ITT analysis. Inconsistencies and irregularities in the reporting of protocol compliance for this study required consideration of PP outcomes for deaths and hospitalizations, yet the study coauthors refused to disclose them, instead directing inquiring scientists to a data repository which never held the study's data. These three RCTs illustrate conditions under which PP outcomes may differ significantly from ITT outcomes and the need for data transparency when these reported or indicated discrepancies arise.

Ivermectin Effect on In-Hospital Mortality and Need for Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Pneumonia: Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

There is negligible evidence on the efficacy of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 pneumonia. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of ivermectin for pre-emptively treating Strongyloides stercoralis hyperinfection syndrome in order to reduce mortality and the need for respiratory support in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

METHODS

This single-center, observational, retrospective study included patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia at Hospital Vega Baja from 23 February 2020 to 14 March 2021. Because strongyloidiasis is endemic to our area, medical criteria support empiric administration of a single, 200 μg/kg dose of ivermectin to prevent Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome. The outcome was a composite of all-cause in-hospital mortality and the need for respiratory support.

RESULTS

Of 1167 patients in the cohort, 96 received ivermectin. After propensity score matching, we included 192 patients. The composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or need for respiratory support occurred in 41.7% of the control group (40/96) and 34.4% (33/96) of the ivermectin group. Ivermectin was not associated with the outcome of interest (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35, 1.69; p = 0.52). The factors independently associated with this endpoint were oxygen saturation (aOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68, 0.89, p < 0.001) and C-reactive protein at admission (aOR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.03, 1.16, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, ivermectin at a single dose for pre-emptively treating Strongyloides stercoralis is not effective in reducing mortality or the need for respiratory support measures.

Interferon lambda as a potential treatment for COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Pegylated interferon lambda substantially reduced the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalizations or emergency room visits in a recent phase 3, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of high-risk, non-hospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to treatment with placebo.

AREAS COVERED

Interferons are a family of signaling molecules produced as part of the innate immune response to viral infections. The administration of exogenous interferon may limit disease progression in patients with COVID-19.

EXPERT OPINION

Interferons have been used to treat viral infections, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C, and malignancies such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, as well as the autoimmune condition multiple sclerosis. This manuscript examines what is known about the role of interferon lambda in the treatment of COVID-19, including potential limitations, and explores how this approach may be used in the future.

Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg (n = 602) daily, or placebo (n = 604) for 6 days.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28.

Results

Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 713 (59.1%) were women, and 1008 (83.5%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.13; P = .68). Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.0 [95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5]; P = .53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Cancer, more than a “COVID-19 co-morbidity”

Patients with cancer represent a particularly vulnerable population at risk of adverse outcomes related to COVID-19. Collectively, the initial studies, including patients with and without cancer, confirmed that patients with cancer had a higher risk of complications and death related to COVID-19. Subsequent studies on patients with COVID-19 and cancer investigated patient and disease-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity and morality. Multiple interconnected factors include demographics, comorbidities, cancer-associated variables, treatment side effects, and other parameters. However, there is a lack of clarity on the contributions of any one factor. In this commentary, we deconvolute the data of specific risk factors associated with worse outcomes due to COVID-19 in cancer patients and focus on understanding the recommended guidelines to mitigate COVID-19 risk in this vulnerable population. In the first section, we highlight the key parameters, including age and race, cancer status, type of malignancy, cancer therapy, smoking status and comorbidities that impact outcomes for cancer patients with COVID-19. Next, we discuss efforts made at the patient, health system, and population levels to mitigate the effects of the ongoing outbreak for patients with cancer, including (1) screening, barrier and isolation strategies (2), Masking/PPE (3), vaccination, and (4) systemic therapies (e.g., evusheld) to prevent disease onset in patients. In the last section, we discuss optimal treatment strategies for COVID-19, including additional therapies for patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Overall, this commentary focuses on articles with high yield and impact on understanding the evolving evidence of risk factors and management guidelines in detail. We also emphasize the ongoing collaboration between clinicians, researchers, health system administrators and policymakers and how its role will be important in optimizing care delivery strategies for patients with cancer. Creative patient-centered solutions will be critical in the coming years, post the pandemic.

Acute Visual Disturbances and Ataxia Secondary to Attempted COVID-19 Prophylaxis With Ivermectin in a Nine-Year-Old

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic agent listed as an essential medication by the World Health Organization. Ivermectin utilization has increased due to the popular, though inaccurate, perception of its use in COVID-19 management. Poison Control Central calls regarding ivermectin toxicity have increased 245% since pre-pandemic baselines. This case study illustrates the clinical presentation of ivermectin toxicity in a nine-year-old child with acute vision changes and ataxia. The child was given 60 mg (1 mg/kg) of veterinary-grade ivermectin by a parent, 10 times the clinically recommended dose of 0.1 mg/kg, as prophylaxis after household exposure to COVID-19. Ten hours later, the child developed new-onset blurry vision, a perception of red dots in the peripheral vision, dizziness, and balance issues. Physical examination was notable for pulsating pupils, ataxia, and dysmetria. Symptoms resolved completely after 10 hours. Ivermectin ingestion is an important diagnostic consideration in children presenting with similar symptoms. We hope our case aids in the identification of ivermectin toxicity and hastens necessary supportive measures.

Prevalence of Ivermectin use to prevent COVID-19 during the pandemic in Mato Grosso: cross-sectional home-based study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the use of ivermectin as COVID-19 prevention method by the population of Mato Grosso in 2020.

METHODS

This is a home-based survey, carried out between September and October 2020, in 10 pole cities of the socioeconomic regions of State. The use of ivermectin was evaluated through the question: "Did you take ivermectin to prevent COVID-19?". Sociodemographic variables (sex, age group, education, family income), current work situation, being benefitted by government financial programs, as well as symptoms, seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and previous diagnosis of COVID-19 were evaluated. Prevalence and their associations were estimated using the chi-square test.

RESULTS

4.206 individuals were evaluated for prevalence of ivermectin use; 58.3% of the individuals responded positively, this rate being higher in the municipalities of the western region of the state (66.6%). There was no significant difference between sexes, but the prevalence was higher among people aged 50-59 years (69.7%), who were white (66.5%), with complete higher education or more (68.8%) and higher family income (≥3 minimum wages-64.2%). The use of this drug was even higher among participants who considered their knowledge of the disease good or very good (65.0%), who reported having symptoms of COVID-19 (75.3%), and who had been previously diagnosed with the disease (91.2%).

CONCLUSION

There was a high prevalence of use of ivermectin as a method to prevent covid-19 by the population of Mato Grosso, indicating the need for strategies to inform the population about the risks of off-label use of drugs and to combat the advertising of drugs that are ineffective against COVID-19.

Antimicrobial Prescribing before and after the Implementation of a Carbapenem-Focused Antimicrobial Stewardship Program in a Greek Tertiary Hospital during the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Irrational use of antimicrobials poses a significant risk for public health by aggravating antimicrobial resistance. The aim of this repeated point prevalence survey (PPS) was to evaluate the impact of a carbapenem-focused antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) on overall antimicrobial use and quality of antimicrobial prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

All adult inpatients in the University Hospital of Heraklion in Greece were audited twice, before and after the implementation of the ASP, in October 2019 and October 2020, respectively. Patient characteristics, indications and diagnoses for antimicrobial administration, antimicrobials prescribed, and compliance with treatment guidelines were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 743 adult inpatients on the days of the two surveys, 398 (53.6%) were on antimicrobials for 437 diagnoses. Following implementation of the ASP, there was substantial decrease in the utilization of carbapenems (4.9% of all antibacterials prescribed in the second PPS compared to 10.3% in the first PPS). A significant improvement was observed for all indicators of the quality of antimicrobial prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated a positive impact of an ASP implementation during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic on reducing the use of last-line antimicrobials and improving overall quality of antimicrobial prescribing.

Effect of Ivermectin 600 μg/kg for 6 days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin, dosed at 600 μg/kg, daily for 6 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19.

Methods

ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants age ≥30 years with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing ≥2 symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days, were enrolled from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022, at 93 sites in the US. Participants were randomized to ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg (n=602), daily vs. placebo daily (n=604) for 6 days. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28.

Results

Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, median (interquartile range) age was 48 (38-58) years; 713 (59%) were women; and 1008 (84%) reported ≥2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. Median time to recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (HR) (95% credible interval [CrI], posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (0.92-1.13; P[HR>1]=0.68). In those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (HR 1.0, 0.6- 1.5; P[HR<1]=0.53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.

Conclusions

Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530 .