COVID-19: Panama stockpiles unproven drugs

Understanding the "Infodemic" Threat: A Case Study of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is notable among infectious diseases for its distinctive impact, which has halted millions of livelihoods owing to strict social distancing rules and lockdowns. Consequently, millions of individuals have turned to online sources, particularly social media, to remain informed about the virus. The transition to digital sources has resulted in an abundance of information, including both accurate and misleading or false content being shared and consumed on online platforms, contributing to what is commonly referred to as an "infodemic." Although these platforms have been valuable tools for healthcare professionals and public health authorities in disseminating crucial public health messages, they have also aided in the spread of misleading and false information. The widespread dissemination of false information has been instrumental in propagating harmful beliefs and behaviors such as vaccine hesitancy, promoting discriminatory attitudes, and endorsing false beliefs about the efficacy of certain therapeutic products for treating COVID-19. False information has undoubtedly become a challenge and burden for governments, health professionals, and the general population. This review has three main objectives: (1) to assess the scope of the "infodemic" issue, including investigating the factors contributing to the spread of false information online; (2) to examine the multifaceted consequences resulting from false information; and (3) to argue that an interdisciplinary, multi-layered approach, encompassing a focus on prevention, deterrence, and education, should be adopted to prevent the conception and dissemination of false information in this modern digital age.

Quality of clinical evidence and political justifications of ivermectin mass distribution of COVID-19 kits in eight Latin American countries

BACKGROUND

Several countries in Latin America conducted mass distribution of COVID-19 kits intended to treat mild COVID-19, thereby preventing excess hospitalisations. Many of the kits contained ivermectin, an antiparasitic medicine that was not approved at the time for the treatment of COVID-19. The study objective was to compare the timing of the publication of scientific evidence about the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 with the timeline of distribution of COVID-19 kits in eight Latin American countries and to analyse whether evidence was used to justify ivermectin distribution.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published on the efficacy of ivermectin or ivermectin as adjuvant therapy on mortality from, or as prevention for, COVID-19. Each RCT was assessed using the Cochrane Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Information on the timing and justification of government decisions was collected through a systematic search of leading newspapers and government press releases.

RESULTS

After removing the duplicates and abstracts without full text, 33 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. According to GRADE, the majority had a substantial risk of bias. Many government officials made claims that ivermectin was effective and safe in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19, despite the lack of published evidence.

CONCLUSION

All eight governments distributed COVID-19 kits to their populations despite the absence of high-quality evidence on the efficacy of ivermectin for prevention, hospitalisation and mortality in COVID-19 patients. Lessons learnt from this situation could be used to strengthen government institutions' capacities to implement evidence-informed public health policies.