Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

Reconsidering the 'post-truth critique': Scientific controversies and pandemic responses in Brazil

Science and Technology Studies (STS) has long been criticized for eroding science's authority and blurring the line between opinions and facts, and more recently for contributing to the emergence of 'far-right populists' and 'anti-science movements'. This article argues that 'post-truth politics' does not necessarily entail epistemic democratization. This claim is based on an investigation of the controversies surrounding public health policies during the Covid-19 pandemic in Brazil. In 2021, the Brazilian parliament established an inquiry into allegations that President Jair Bolsonaro neglected expert advice and actively promoted contagion, causing a surge in hospitalizations and deaths. The analysis of testimonies and ensuing debates suggests that so-called 'science deniers' did not contest scientific authority but instead positioned themselves as critical thinkers who sought to expose political interests masquerading as facts. Bolsonaro's allies claimed to be supported by unbiased experts who had more prestige and credibility than those cited by the opposition. In short, they were not against modern scientific knowledge and methods but claimed to speak in the name of the best available scientific evidence. Thus, instead of blaming STS for the 'post-truth era', we should further engage with its conceptual tools to understand the complex relations of 'far-right politics' and scientific institutions. More specifically, we need to investigate how expertise gets distributed, how different statements accumulate authority, and how scientific knowledge is enacted across multiple fields of practice.

Is Covid-19 "vaccine uptake" in postsecondary education a "problem"? A critical policy inquiry

Since the launch of the Covid-19 global vaccination campaign, postsecondary institutions have strongly promoted vaccination, often through mandates, and the academic literature has identified "vaccine uptake" among postsecondary students as a problem deserving monitoring, research, and intervention. However, with the admission that vaccines do not stop viral spread, that older-age and co-morbidities are major determinants of poor outcomes, and that many vaccine side effects disproportionately affect the young, it cannot be assumed that a risk-benefit analysis favors vaccinating postsecondary students. Drawing from critical policy studies, I appraise the literature on Covid-19 vaccine uptake in postsecondary education. I find that this literature reflects the "scientific consensus," hardly acknowledging contradictory medical evidence, ignoring coercive elements underlying "vaccine acceptance," and neglecting ethical tensions built into the very design of vaccination policies. I discuss potential explanations for my findings, and their implications for academia's role in society in the COVID-19 era and beyond.

Repurposing Drugs to Treat Novel Infections: A Proposal for a Decision-Making Framework for Clinicians

PURPOSE

Global fears regarding future epidemics of new and re-emerging infections will prompt clinicians to try out unconventional treatments based on limited evidence, including the repurposing of existing drugs. The dilemma involves balancing clinical intuition with the need to rely on low-quality information because of the scarcity of definitive evidence. An example was ivermectin; with its potential antiviral properties, it was promoted for its efficacy in treating coronavirus disease 2019 despite conflicting outcomes in clinical trials and varying expert opinions. This article describes the development of a decision-making framework to resolve such dilemmas.

METHODS

The case study from Sri Lanka illustrates multiple challenges faced by clinicians. As the horrific details of deaths in countries such as Italy spread on social media, there was panic and an unprecedented demand for clinicians and health services to provide effective treatment. This led to the popularity of drugs such as ivermectin and several herbal cures. However, there was no consensus among experts on the efficacy of ivermectin, which eventually led to the authorities to recommend limited approval for use under physician supervision.

FINDINGS

The situation lent itself to a framework with 4 elements: prerequisites, applying an appropriate decision-making tool (eg, multiple criteria decision-making methods), ethical considerations, and sensitive communication.

IMPLICATIONS

We propose this framework for clinicians when they face similar situations with demands to repurpose medicines with inconclusive evidence of efficacy to combat devastating infections from new or re-emerging infections.

Is resistance to Covid-19 vaccination a "problem"? A critical policy inquiry of vaccine mandates for healthcare workers

As the COVID-19 global vaccination campaign was launched in December of 2020, vaccination became mandatory for many healthcare workers (HCWs) worldwide. Large minorities resisted the policy, and the responses of authorities to this resistance led to damaged professional reputations, job losses, and suspension or termination of practice licenses. The joint effect of dismissals, early retirements, career changes, and vaccine injuries disabling some compliant HCWs from adequate performance has exacerbated existing crises within health systems. Nevertheless, leading health authorities have maintained that the benefits of a fully vaccinated healthcare labor force-believed to be protecting health systems, vulnerable patient populations, and even HCWs themselves-achieved through mandates, if necessary, outweigh its potential harms. Informed by critical policy and discourse traditions, we examine the expert literature on vaccine mandates for HCWs. We find that this literature neglects evidence that contradicts official claims about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, dismisses the science supporting the contextual nature of microbial virulence, miscalculates patient and system-level harms of vaccination policies, and ignores or legitimizes the coercive elements built into their design. We discuss the implications of our findings for the sustainability of health systems, for patient care, and for the well-being of HCWs, and suggest directions for ethical clinical and policy practice.

Evaluation of genotoxic effect via expression of DNA damage responsive gene induced by ivermectin on MDBK cell line

Ivermectin (IVM) is an anti-parasitic drug which is used for treating parasitic infestations. It has been used in humans for treating intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis however, currently researchers are investigating its potential for treating coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Due to its broad-spectrum activities, IVM is being used excessively in animals which has generated an interest for researchers to investigate its toxic effects. Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects have been reported in animals due to excessive usage of IVM. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of IVM on the Madin-Darby-Bovine-Kidney (MDBK) cell line by examining the expression of a DNA damage-responsive gene (OGG1). Cytotoxicity of IVM was tested using an assay (MTT 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide), whereas the genotoxicity was evaluated using comet assay along with micronucleus assay. Moreover, the gene expression of DNA damage response gene (OGG1) was measured by qRT-PCR, after extraction of RNA from the MDBK cell line using the TRIzol method and its conversion to cDNA by reverse-transcriptase PCR. During the experiment, cell viability percentage was measured at different doses of IVM i.e., 25%, 50%, 75%, along with LC50/2, LC50 and LC50*2. It was observed that the gene expression of OGG1 increased as the concentration of IVM increased. It was concluded that IVM has both cytotoxic and genotoxic effects on the MDBK cell line. Furthermore, it is recommended that studies related to the toxic effects of IVM at molecular level and on other model organisms should be conducted to combat its hazardous effects.

Efficacy of facemasks in preventing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare settings: A scoping review

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an abundance of literature relating to the efficacy of face masks on reducing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare settings emerged.

Aim/objective

The aim of this scoping review was to allow the identification of: types of evidence conducted in this area; knowledge gaps and common concepts relating to mask efficacy in non-healthcare settings.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase and the Irish Management Institute bibliographic database on December 15th, 2021. All types of face masks were included. Of 722 records, 16 were included after full text screening.

Findings/results

Themes from an adapted model of Howard et al. framework were used to group results and identify common concepts. The grouped thematic results were then applied to the socio-ecological model. This illustrated the multifactorial elements determining the efficacy of masks themselves while also illustrating how other factors such as individual behaviours, social interactions, settings and national policy can influence the degree of the protective effect.

Discussion

The findings from this scoping review indicate that an abundance of experimental literature is available indicating that masks are effective at preventing COVID-19 transmission but their degree of efficacy is impacted by external factors. This review highlights that the quality of the evidence available is low.

In-hospital care of children with COVID-19

Children have been reported to be less affected and to have milder severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection than adults during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, children, and particularly those with underlying disorders, are still likely to develop critical illnesses. In the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, most previous studies have focused on adult patients. To aid in the knowledge of in-hospital care of children with COVID-19, this study presents an expert review of the literature, including the management of respiratory distress or failure, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), hemodynamic and other organ support, pharmaceutical therapies (anti-viral drugs, anti-inflammatory or antithrombotic therapies) and management of cardiopulmonary arrest.

Exposures to Bleach, Peroxide, Disinfectants, Antimalarials, and Ivermectin Reported to the California Poison Control System Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2015-2021

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread fear of infection, with many people expanding their use of cleaning products and trying unproven prevention and treatment strategies. We described shifts in reported exposures related to COVID-19 home interventions.

METHODS

This study considered suspected toxicity exposures involving household cleaning products (bleach, peroxide, disinfectants), antimalarials (hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine), and ivermectin reported to the California Poison Control System from 2015 through 2021 and assessed trends in exposures by using interrupted time-series analyses.

RESULTS

We found a significant increase in exposures reported to the California Poison Control System related to household cleaning products and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. As of January 1, 2015, the baseline level of reported exposures to household cleaning products was 707.33 per month and was declining at a rate of 1.71 (95% CI, -2.87 to -0.56) per month through February 29, 2020. In March 2020, an increase of 466.57 (95% CI, 328.08-605.07) reported exposures above baseline occurred, after which exposures to cleaning products decreased at a rate of 23.40 (95% CI, -32.48 to -14.32) per month. The number of reported exposures to antimalarials did not change significantly before or during the pandemic. The number of reported ivermectin exposures before December 2020 was initially stable at 14.50 per month and then increased by 2.05 per month through December 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Our observations suggest that while some dangerous home prevention and treatment efforts resolve over time, further interventions may be needed to reduce the public health effects related to attempts to self-treat COVID-19 with ivermectin.

Wastewater surveillance of pharmaceuticals during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico City and the Mezquital Valley: A comprehensive environmental risk assessment

This study tracked five pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs) in Mexico City's sewage, namely, famotidine, indomethacin, dexamethasone, azithromycin, and ivermectin, which were used to treat COVID-19. The monitoring campaign was carried out over 30 months (May 2020 to November 2022), covering the five COVID-19 waves in Mexico. In the Central Emitter, the main sewage outflow, famotidine displayed levels of 132.57 ± 28.16 ng L-1 (range from < LOQ to 189.1 ng L-1), followed by indomethacin (average 672.46 ± 116.4 ng L-1, range from 516.7 to 945.2 ng L-1), dexamethasone (average 610.4 ± 225.7 ng L-1, range from 233.4 to 1044.5 ng L-1), azithromycin (average 4436.2 ± 903.6 ng L-1, range from 2873.7 to 5819.6 ng L-1), and ivermectin (average 3413.3 ± 1244.6 ng L-1, range from 1219.8 to 4622.4 ng L-1). The concentrations of dexamethasone, azithromycin and ivermectin were higher in sewage from a temporary COVID-19 care unit, by a factor of 3.48, 3.52 and 2.55, respectively, compared with those found in municipal wastewater. In the effluent of the Atotonilco Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWWTP), which treats near 60 % of the Mexico City's sewage, famotidine was absent, while concentrations of indomethacin, dexamethasone, azithromycin and ivermectin were 78.2 %, 76.7 %, 74.4 %, and 88.1 % lower than those in the influent, respectively. The occurrence of PhACs in treated and untreated wastewater resulted in medium to high environmental risk since Mexico City's wastewater is reused for irrigation in the Mezquital Valley. There, PhACs were found in irrigation canals at lower levels than those observed in Mexico City throughout the monitoring. On the other hand, famotidine, indomethacin, and dexamethasone were not found in surface water resulting from the infiltration of wastewater through soil in Mezquital Valley, while azithromycin and ivermectin sporadically appeared in surface water samples collected through 2021. Using an optimized risk assessment based on a semi-probabilistic approach, the PhACs were prioritized as ivermectin > azithromycin > dexamethasone > famotidine > indomethacin.

Appraising the decision-making process concerning COVID-19 policy in postsecondary education in Canada: A critical scoping review protocol

Background

Responses to COVID-19 in Canadian postsecondary education have overhauled usual norms and practices, with policies of unclear rationale implemented under the pressure of a reported public health emergency.

Objective

To critically appraise the decision-making process informing COVID-19 policy in the postsecondary education sector.

Methods

Our scoping review will draw from macro and micro theories of public policy, specifically the critical tradition exemplified by Carol Bacchi's approach "What is the problem represented to be" and will be guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews and the team-based approach of Levan and colleagues. Data will include diverse and publicly available documents to capture multiple stakeholders' perspectives on the phenomenon of interest and will be retrieved from university newsletters and legal websites using combinations of search terms adapted to specific data types. Two reviewers will independently screen, chart, analyze and synthesize the data. Disagreements will be resolved through full team discussion.

Discussion

Despite the unprecedented nature of the mass medical mandates implemented in the postsecondary sector and their dramatic impact on millions of lives-students, faculty, staff and their families, friends and communities-the decision-making process leading to them has not been documented or appraised. By identifying, summarizing and appraising the evidence, our review should inform practices that can contribute to effective and equitable public health policies in postsecondary institutions moving forward.

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.

Strategies for the Management of Spike Protein-Related Pathology

In the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, a need has arisen to prevent and treat two related conditions, COVID-19 vaccine injury and long COVID-19, both of which can trace at least part of their aetiology to the spike protein, which can cause harm through several mechanisms. One significant mechanism of harm is vascular, and it is mediated by the spike protein, a common element of the COVID-19 illness, and it is related to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Given the significant number of people experiencing these two related conditions, it is imperative to develop treatment protocols, as well as to consider the diversity of people experiencing long COVID-19 and vaccine injury. This review summarizes the known treatment options for long COVID-19 and vaccine injury, their mechanisms, and their evidentiary basis.

The Hidden Cost of COVID-19: Focus on Antimicrobial Resistance in Bloodstream Infections

Antibiotic resistance is one of the greatest growing public health threats and a worldwide priority. According to the WHO, drug-resistant diseases may cause 10 million deaths a year by 2050 and have a substantial impact on the global economy, driving up to 24 million people into poverty. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the fallacies and vulnerability of healthcare systems worldwide, displacing resources from existing programs and reducing funding for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) fighting efforts. Moreover, as already seen for other respiratory viruses, such as flu, COVID-19 is often associated with superinfections, prolonged hospital stays, and increased ICU admissions, further aggravating healthcare disruption. These events are accompanied by widespread antibiotic use, misuse, and inappropriate compliance with standard procedures with a potential long-term impact on AMR. Still, COVID-19-related measures such as increasing personal and environmental hygiene, social distancing, and decreasing hospital admissions could theoretically help the AMR cause. However, several reports have shown increased antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This narrative review focuses on this "twindemic", assessing the current knowledge of antimicrobial resistance in the COVID-19 era with a focus on bloodstream infections and provides insights into the lessons learned in the COVID-19 field that could be applied to antimicrobial stewardship initiatives.

Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis

Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a research integrity assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing "Risk of Bias" aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies.

A Systematic Review of the Role of Purinergic Signalling Pathway in the Treatment of COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a global health concern. Three years since its origin, despite the approval of vaccines and specific treatments against this new coronavirus, there are still high rates of infection, hospitalization, and mortality in some countries. COVID-19 is characterised by a high inflammatory state and coagulation disturbances that may be linked to purinergic signalling molecules such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP), adenosine diphosphate (ADP), adenosine (ADO), and purinergic receptors (P1 and P2). These nucleotides/nucleosides play important roles in cellular processes, such as immunomodulation, blood clot formation, and vasodilation, which are affected during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, drugs targeting this purinergic pathway, currently used for other pathologies, are being evaluated in preclinical and clinical trials for COVID-19. In this review, we focus on the potential of these drugs to control the release, degradation, and reuptake of these extracellular nucleotides and nucleosides to treat COVID-19. Drugs targeting the P1 receptors could have therapeutic efficacy due to their capacity to modulate the cytokine storm and the immune response. Those acting in P2X7, which is linked to NLRP3 inflammasome activation, are also valuable candidates as they can reduce the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. However, according to the available preclinical and clinical data, the most promising medications to be used for COVID-19 treatment are those that modulate platelets behaviour and blood coagulation factors, mainly through the P2Y12 receptor.

Repurposing of US-FDA approved drugs against SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) by using STD-NMR spectroscopy, in silico studies and antiviral assays

SARS-CoV-2 Main protease (M^pro) is a well-known drug target against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Identification of M^pro inhibitors is vigorously pursued due to its crucial role in viral replication. The present study was aimed to identify M^pro inhibitors via repurposing of US-FDA approved drugs by STD-NMR spectroscopy. In this study, 156 drugs and natural compounds were evaluated against M^pro. Among them, 10 drugs were found to be interacting with M^pro, including diltiazem HCl (1), mefenamic acid (2), losartan potassium (3), mexiletine HCl (4), glaucine HBr (5), trimebutine maleate (6), flurbiprofen (7), amantadine HCl (8), dextromethorphan (9), and lobeline HCl (10) in STD-NMR spectroscopy. Their interactions were compared with three standards (Repurposed anti-viral drugs), dexamethasone, chloroquine phosphate, and remdesivir. Thermal stability of M^pro and dissociation constant (K_d) of six interacting drugs were also determined using DSF. RMSD plots in MD simulation studies showed the formation of stable protein-ligand complexes. They were further examined for their antiviral activity by plaque reduction assay against SARS-CoV-2, which showed 55-100% reduction in viral plaques. This study demonstrates the importance of drug repurposing against emerging and neglected diseases. This study also exhibits successful application of STD-NMR spectroscopy combined with plaque reduction assay in rapid identification of potential anti-viral agents.

An overview on the treatments and prevention against COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to plague the world. While COVID-19 is asymptomatic in most individuals, it can cause symptoms like pneumonia, ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome), and death in others. Although humans are currently being vaccinated with several COVID-19 candidate vaccines in many countries, however, the world still is relying on hygiene measures, social distancing, and approved drugs.

RESULT

There are many potential therapeutic agents to pharmacologically fight COVID-19: antiviral molecules, recombinant soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, corticosteroids, interferon therapies, and herbal agents. By an understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 structure and its infection mechanisms, several vaccine candidates are under development and some are currently in various phases of clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

This review describes potential therapeutic agents, including antiviral agents, biologic agents, anti-inflammatory agents, and herbal agents in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. In addition to reviewing the vaccine candidates that entered phases 4, 3, and 2/3 clinical trials, this review also discusses the various platforms that are used to develop the vaccine COVID-19.

The dangers of non-randomized, observational studies: experience from the COVID-19 epidemic

In regulatory evaluations, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for assessing the efficacy of medical interventions. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgent need for treatment options led to regulatory approvals being made based on evidence from non-randomized, observational studies. In this study we contrast results from observational studies and RCTs of six drugs to treat COVID-19 infection. Across a range of studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, ivermectin, aspirin, molnupiravir and tenofovir for COVID-19, there was statistically significant evidence of benefit from non-randomized observational studies, which was then not seen in RCTs. We propose that all observational studies need to be labelled as 'non-randomized' in the title. This should indicate that they are not as reliable for evaluating the efficacy of a drug and should not be used independently for regulatory approval decisions.

A cellular and molecular biology-based update for ivermectin against COVID-19: is it effective or non-effective?

Despite community vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and reduced mortality, there are still challenges in treatment options for the disease. Due to the continuous mutation of SARS-CoV-2 virus and the emergence of new strains, diversity in the use of existing antiviral drugs to combat the epidemic has become a crucial therapeutic chance. As a broad-spectrum antiparasitic and antiviral drug, ivermectin has traditionally been used to treat many types of disease, including DNA and RNA viral infections. Even so, based on currently available data, it is still controversial that ivermectin can be used as one of the effective antiviral agents to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or not. The aim of this study was to provide comprehensive information on ivermectin, including its safety and efficacy, as well as its adverse effects in the treatment of COVID-19.

Use of Antiviral Agents and other Therapies for COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a remarkably rapid development of a range of effective prophylactic vaccines, including new technologies that had not previously been approved for human use. In contrast, the development of new small molecule antiviral therapeutics has taken years to produce the first approved drugs specifically targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), with the intervening years filled with attempts to repurpose existing drugs and the development of biological therapeutics. This review will discuss the reasons behind this variation in timescale and provide a survey of the many new treatments that are progressing through the clinical pipeline.

Outpatient purchasing patterns of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in the USA and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time series analysis from 2016 to 2021

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin received widespread attention after initial studies suggested that they were effective against COVID-19. However, several of these studies were later discredited.

OBJECTIVES

We explored the impact of scientific articles, public announcements and social media posts on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin purchases in the USA and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, population-based time series analysis of retail hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin purchases in the USA and Canada from February 2016 through to December 2021, using IQVIA's Multinational Integrated Data Analysis database. We fitted the purchasing rates with interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models. We used Google Trends to identify the most influential interventions to include in the models.

RESULTS

There were significant pulse increases in hydroxychloroquine purchases in March 2020 in both the USA (P < 0.0001) and Canada (P < 0.0001). For ivermectin, there were no significant changes in April 2020 in either the USA (P = 0.41) or Canada (P = 0.16); however, significant pulse increases occurred from December 2020 to January 2021 in both the USA (P = 0.0006) and Canada (P < 0.0001), as well as significant ramp increases from April to August 2021 in both the USA (P < 0.0001) and Canada (P = 0.02). The increases in ivermectin purchases were larger in the USA than in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

Increases in hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin purchasing rates aligned with controversial scientific articles and social media posts. This highlights the importance of scientific integrity and disseminating accurate epidemiologic information during pandemics.

A Gadolinium-Based Magnetic Ionic Liquid for Dispersive Liquid–Liquid Microextraction of Ivermectin from Environmental Water

The recently introduced gadolinium-based magnetic ionic liquid (Gd-MIL) has been exploited as an extractant in dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) for preconcentration of ivermectin (IVR) from water samples followed by analysis using reversed-phase HPLC with UV detection at 245 nm. The utilized Gd-MIL extractant is hydrophobic with markedly high magnetic susceptibility. These features result in an efficient extraction of the lipophilic analyte and facilitate the phase separation under the influence of a strong magnetic field, thus promoting the method sensitivity and increasing the potential for automation. To maximize the IVR enrichment by DLLME, the procedure was optimized for extractant mass, dispersive solvent type/volume, salt addition and diluent pH. At optimized conditions, an enrichment factor approaching 70 was obtained with 4.0-mL sample sizes. The method was validated in terms of accuracy, precision, specificity and limit of quantitation. The method was successfully applied to the determination of IVR in river water samples with a mean relative recovery of 97.3% at a spiked concentration of 400 ng/mL. Compared with other reported methods, this approach used a simpler procedure with improved precision, lower amounts of safer solvents and a short analysis time.

Comparing the demographics and laboratory biomarkers of the COVID-19 Omicron wave and the Alpha wave in a predominantly Afro-Caribbean patient population in New York City

BACKGROUND

There is a knowledge gap of specific characteristics linked to disease severity of the different COVID-19 waves, especially in underserved populations. We compared the demographic and clinical factors associated with SARS-CoV-2-infected patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) during the Omicron and Alpha waves.

METHODS

An observational study comparing two COVID-19 waves was conducted in Brooklyn, NY. Twenty-seven ICU admitted patients with a positive COVID-19 test result during the period of November 1, 2021, to January 31, 2022, ("Omicron wave") were compared to 271 COVID-19 patients who received ICU consults during the Alpha wave, the period from March 28, 2020, to April 30, 2020.

RESULTS

The Omicron wave had a 55.6% mortality rate compared to a 67.2% mortality rate in the Alpha wave. For the non-survivors, there were more females (66.7%) in the Omicron wave, while the trend was reversed in the Alpha wave (38.5%). Most of the patients seen were Black (> 85%) in both waves. A bivariate comparison of the two waves found that patients in the Omicron wave had overall significantly lower ALT levels (p = 0.03) and higher monocyte % (p = 0.005) compared to the patients in the Alpha wave. In the multivariate analysis, adjusting for age and sex, increasing levels of HCO3- were significantly associated with reduced mortality in the Omicron wave (OR: 0.698; 95% CI: 0.516 - 0.945; p = 0.02). Also, multivariable analyses using both waves combined found that neutrophil % was significantly associated with increased mortality (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.02 - 1.09; p = 0.006) while lymphocyte % was significantly associated with reduced mortality (OR: 0.946; 95% CI: 0.904 - 0.990; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19-positive ICU patients in the Omicron wave experienced less severe outcomes than those of the Alpha wave. In contrast to the Alpha variant, the Omicron variant exhibited enhanced infectivity and disease severity in females.

The pharmaceutical industry is dangerous to health. Further proof with COVID-19

Background:

The COVID-19 period highlights a huge problem that has been developing for decades, the control of science by industry. In the 1950s, the tobacco industry set the example, which the pharmaceutical industry followed. Since then, the latter has been regularly condemned for illegal marketing, misrepresentation of experimental results, dissimulation of information about the dangers of drugs, and considered as criminal. Therefore, this study was conducted to show that knowledge is powerfully manipulated by harmful corporations, whose goals are: 1/financial; 2/to suppress our ability to make choices to acquire global control of public health.

Methods:

Pharmaceutical industry techniques for manipulating science and COVID-19 reporting were reviewed. Several sources of official documents were used: PubMed; National Institutes of Health resources; pharmaceutical companies; policy documents; national newspapers and news agencies; and books by prominent professionals (scientific and legal). A few studies have not been published in peer-reviewed journals; however, they have been conducted by reputable scientists in their respective fields.

Results:

Since the beginning of COVID-19, we can list the following methods of information manipulation which have been used: falsified clinical trials and inaccessible data; fake or conflict-of-interest studies; concealment of vaccines’ short-term side effects and total lack of knowledge of the long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccination; doubtful composition of vaccines; inadequate testing methods; governments and international organizations under conflicts of interest; bribed physicians; the denigration of renowned scientists; the banning of all alternative effective treatments; unscientific and liberticidal social methods; government use of behavior modification and social engineering techniques to impose confinements, masks, and vaccine acceptance; scientific censorship by the media.

Conclusion:

By supporting and selecting only the one side of science information while suppressing alternative viewpoints, and with obvious conflicts of interest revealed by this study, governments and the media constantly disinform the public. Consequently, the unscientifically validated vaccination laws, originating from industry-controlled medical science, led to the adoption of social measures for the supposed protection of the public but which became serious threats to the health and freedoms of the population.

Early Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19: A Retrospective Analysis of 392 Cases in Italy

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020. The knowledge of COVID-19 pathophysiology soon provided a strong rationale for the early use of both anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic drugs; however, its evidence was slowly and partially incorporated into institutional guidelines. The unmet needs of COVID-19 outpatients were taken care of by networks of physicians and researchers. We analyse the characteristics, management and outcomes in COVID-19 outpatients who were taken care of by physicians within the IppocrateOrg Association. In this observational retrospective study, volunteering doctors provided data on 392 COVID-19 patients. The mean age of patients was 48.5 years (range: 0.5-97), and patients were taken care of in COVID-19 stage 0 (15.6%), stage 1 (50.0%), stage 2a (28.8%) and stage 2b (5.6%). Many patients were overweight (26%) or obese (11.5%), with chronic comorbidities (34.9%), mainly cardiovascular (23%) and metabolic (13.3%). The most frequently prescribed drugs included: vitamins and supplements (98.7%), aspirin (66.1%), antibiotics (62%), glucocorticoids (41.8%), hydroxychloroquine (29.6%), enoxaparin (28.6%), colchicine (8.9%), oxygen therapy (6.9%), and ivermectin (2.8%). Hospitalization occurred in 5.8% of cases, mainly in stage 2b (27.3%). A total of 390 patients (99.6%) recovered; one patient was lost at follow up, and one patient died after hospitalization. This is the first real-world study describing the behaviours of physicians caring for COVID-19 outpatients, and the outcomes of COVID-19 early treatment. The lethality in this cohort was 0.2%, while overall, and over the same period, the COVID-19 lethality in Italy was over 3%. The drug use described in this study appears effective and safe. The present evidence should be carefully considered by physicians and political decision makers.

Steroids Induced Black Fungus Infection in India During the May 2021 COVID-19 Outbreak

India was at the center of the attention of global media for the outbreak of COVID-19 infection in May 2021, because of the large total number of daily new cases and fatalities not expressed as a fraction of the total population. In addition to the alleged more infective and fatal variant delta, the emergence of particularly lethal fungal infections in between those that have been infected was also reported. Here we comment as while the specific numbers for India, for both new cases and fatalities, were everything but dramatic, with other countries such as the United Kingdom has experienced much worse outcomes, the incidence of black fungus minimally affected the COVID-19 fatalities. First better care, and the use of intravenous antifungals, and then the use of better therapies in the early stages of infection to prevent more serious outcomes, reduced the burden of this fungal infection.

Novel α-aminophosphonate derivates synthesis, theoretical calculation, Molecular docking, and in silico prediction of potential inhibition of SARS-CoV-2

Using the Density Functional Theory approach and in silico docking, the current study analyzes the inhibitory role of a novel α-aminophosphonate derivative against SARS-CoV-2 major protease (Mpro) and RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) of SARS-CoV-2. FT-IR, UV–Vis, and NMR (1H, 13C, 31P) approaches were used to produce and confirm the novel α-aminophosphonate derivative. The quantum chemical parameters were detremined, and the reactivity of the synthesized molecule was discussed using DFT at the B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) level. In addition, the inhibitory function of the investigated derivative for SARS-CoV-2 major protease (Mpro) and RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) was estimated using in silico docking. These discoveries could pave the way for novel SARS-CoV-2 therapies to develop and be tested.

Changes in SpO2 on Room Air for 34 Severe COVID-19 Patients after Ivermectin-Based Combination Treatment: 62% Normalization within 24 Hours

The emergence of COVID-19 in March 2020 challenged Zimbabwe to respond with limited medical facilities and therapeutic options. Based on early clinical indications of efficacy for the macrocyclic lactone, Ivermectin (IVM), against COVID-19, IVM-based combination treatments were deployed to treat it. Oxygen saturation (SpO2) data were retrospectively analyzed for 34 severe, hypoxic COVID-19 patients all on room air (without supplemental oxygen). The patients, median age 56.5, were treated at clinics or at home between August 2020 and May 2021. All but three of these 34 patients had significantly increased SpO2 values within 24 h after the first IVM dose. The mean increase in SpO2 as a percentage of full normalization to SpO2 = 97 was 55.1% at +12 h and 62.3% at +24 h after the first IVM dose (paired t-test, p < 0.0000001). These results parallel similar sharp, rapid increases in SpO2, all on room air, for 24 mostly severe COVID-19 patients in the USA (California) who were given an IVM-based combination treatment. All patients in both of these critical series recovered. These rapid increases in SpO2 values after IVM treatment stand in sharp contrast to declines in SpO2 and associated pulmonary function through the second week following the onset of moderate or severe COVID-19 symptoms under standard care.

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin in the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background

The emergent outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emphasized the requirement for therapeutic opportunities to overcome this pandemic. Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that has shown effectiveness against various agents, including SARS-CoV-2. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of ivermectin treatment compared with the standard of care (SOC) among people with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-center, parallel-arm, superiority trial among adult hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, 72 patients (mean age 48.57 ± 14.80 years) were randomly assigned to either the ivermectin (n=36) or placebo (n=36) group, along with receiving standard care. We aimed to compare the negativity of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) result at days 7 and 14 of enrolment as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were duration of hospitalization, frequency of clinical worsening, survival on day 28, and adverse events.

Results

At days 7 and 14, no differences were observed in the proportion of PCR-positive patients (RR 0.97 at day 7 (p=0.759) and 0.95 at day 14 (p=0.813). No significant differences were found between the groups for any of the secondary endpoints, and no adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

No difference was found in the proportion of PCR-positive cases after treatment with ivermectin compared with standard care among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. However, early symptomatic recovery was observed without side effects.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05076253. Registered on 8 October 2021, prospectively.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06649-3.

The use of Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: Panacea or enigma?

The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has triggered unprecedented social, economic and health challenges. To control and reduce the infection rate, countries employed non-pharmaceutical measures such as social distancing, isolation, quarantine, and the use of masks, hand and surface sanitisation. Since 2021 a global race for COVID-19 vaccination ensued, mainly due to a lack of equitable vaccine production and distribution. To date, no treatments have been demonstrated to cure COVID-19. The scientific World is now considering the potential use of Ivermectin as a prophylactic and treatment for COVID-19. Against this background, the objective of this study is to review the literature to demystify the enigma or panacea in the use of Ivermectin. This paper intends to investigate literature which supports the existence or shows the nonexistence of a causal link between Ivermectin, COVID-19 mortality and recovery. There are inconsistent results on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Some studies have asserted that in a bid to slow down the transmission of COVID-19, ivermectin can be used to inhibit the in vitro replication of SARS-CoV-2. The pre-existing health system burdens can be alleviated as patients treated prophylactically would reduce hospital admissions and stem the spread of COVID-19. On a global scale, Ivermectin is currently used by about 28% of the world's population, and its adoption is presently about 44% of countries. However, the full administration of this drug would require further tests to establish its clinical effectiveness and efficacy.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).

MAIN RESULTS

We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.

Synergistic anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of repurposed anti-parasitic drug combinations

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 pandemic has claimed millions of lives and devastated the health service system, livelihood, and economy in many countries worldwide. Despite the vaccination programs in many countries, the spread of the pandemic continues, and effective treatment is still urgently needed. Although some antiviral drugs have been shown to be effective, they are not widely available. Repurposing of anti-parasitic drugs with in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity is a promising approach being tested in many clinical trials. Combination of these drugs is a plausible way to enhance their effectiveness.

METHODS

The in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of combinations of niclosamide, ivermectin and chloroquine were evaluated in Vero E6 and lung epithelial cells, Calu-3.

RESULTS

All the two-drug combinations showed higher potency resulting in up to 4-fold reduction in the half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) values compared to individual drugs. Among these combinations, niclosamide-ivermectin achieved the highest inhibitory level of over 99%. Combination synergy analysis showed niclosamide-ivermectin combination to have the best synergy score with a mean Loewe synergy score of 4.28 and a peak synergy score of 24.6 in Vero E6 cells and a mean Loewe synergy score of 3.82 and a peak synergy score of 10.86 in Calu-3 cells.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated the benefit of drug combinations on anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity. Niclosamide and ivermectin showed the best synergistic profile and should be further tested in clinical trials.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency and critical care clinician: Medical management

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.

OBJECTIVE

This is the second part in a series on COVID-19 updates providing a focused overview of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians.

DISCUSSION

COVID-19, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. A variety of medical therapies have been introduced for use, including steroids, antivirals, interleukin-6 antagonists, monoclonal antibodies, and kinase inhibitors. These agents have each demonstrated utility in certain patient subsets. Prophylactic anticoagulation in admitted patients demonstrates improved outcomes. Further randomized data concerning aspirin in outpatients with COVID-19 are needed. Any beneficial impact of other therapies, such as colchicine, convalescent plasma, famotidine, ivermectin, and vitamins and minerals is not present in reliable medical literature. In addition, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not recommended.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a focused update of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians to help improve care for these patients.

Current advancements and future prospects of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics: a narrative review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has made a global impact on the daily lives of humanity, devastating health systems, and cataclysmically affecting the world's economy. Currently, the Standard Public Health Protective practices consist of but are not limited to wearing masks, social distancing, isolating sick and exposed people, and contact tracing. Scientists around the globe undertook swift scientific efforts to develop safe and effective therapeutics and vaccines to combat COVID-19. Presently, as of mid-March 2022, 57.05% of the world population have been fully vaccinated, and 65.3% of the United States of America's (USA) total population have been fully vaccinated while 76.7% have received at least one dose of the vaccine. This article explores the various vaccines created through modern science and technology, including their safety, efficacy, and mechanism of action. Although the vaccines produced are up to 95.0% efficacious, their efficacy wanes over time, underscoring the need for booster doses. Also, vaccination has not been able to prevent "breakthrough" infections. The limitations of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines indicate that further measures are required to ensure a firm control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the use of certain therapeutic agents because they have shown remarkable clinical outcomes. Several therapeutic agents for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 include Gilead's remdesivir, Regeneron's casirivimab and imdevimab combination, Eli Lilly's baricitinib and remdesivir combination, Pfizer's co-packaged nirmatrelvir tablets and ritonavir tablets, and Merck's molnupiravir capsules. Hence concerted efforts in early and accurate diagnosis, education on the COVID-19 virulence, transmission and preventive measures, global vaccination, and therapeutic agents could bring this COVID-19 pandemic under control across the globe.

A review on drug repurposing in COVID-19: from antiviral drugs to herbal alternatives

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is an illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Due to its rapid spread, in March 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) declared pandemic. Since the outbreak of pandemic many governments, scientists, and institutions started to work on new vaccines and finding of new and repurposing drugs. Drug repurposing is an excellent option for discovery of already used drugs, effective against COVID-19, lowering the cost of production, and shortening the period of delivery, especially when preclinical safety studies have already been performed. There are many approved drugs that showed significant results against COVID-19, like ivermectin and hydrochloroquine, including alternative treatment options against COVID-19, utilizing herbal medicine.

SHORT CONCLUSION

This article summarized 11 repurposing drugs, their positive and negative health implications, along with traditional herbal alternatives, that harvest strong potential in efficient treatments options against COVID-19, with small or no significant side effects. Out of 11 repurposing drugs, four drugs are in status of emergency approval, most of them being in phase IV clinical trials. The first repurposing drug approved for clinical usage is remdesivir, whereas chloroquine and hydrochloroquine approval for emergency use was revoked by FDA for COVID-19 treatment in June 2020.

Antimicrobials in COVID-19: strategies for treating a COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose a serious global challenge, with the world engulfed in fighting second, third and fourth waves of the disease, which is reaching scary proportions in terms of cases and mortality in countries like India. Despite the urgent need of proven management protocols, there is still confusion about the best practices for treating COVID-19 with different pharmaceutical interventions. Antimicrobials are empirically used in COVID-19 patients. During the initial phase of this pandemic, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin and doxycycline were widely suggested for possible prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19 in outpatient as well as hospitalized settings. Various national and international guidelines recommended its use. However, cumulative evidence from subsequent clinical trials has revealed no significant clinical benefits in any setting, with the risk of adverse effects being high particularly in combination with azithromycin. Yet, there is continued use of antimicrobials particularly in outpatient settings which should be avoided because there is no justifiable rationale for doing so. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was one of the top problems for global public health before the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began. AMR, which is already a difficult problem, must now be handled in the context of a changing healthcare sector.

Zinc augments the antiviral potential of HCQ/CQ and ivermectin to reduce the risks of more serious outcomes from COVID-19 infection

Treatments do not replace vaccinations or restrictions, but are practical, effective, and safe means to help to reduce the fatality associated with COVID-19 infection. While no treatment is available and effective for all the current and future variants of COVID-19, treatments reduce the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic and reduce mortality and collateral damages. The use of Zinc (Zn) for COVID-19 infection is here reviewed. Zn supplementation may help in prevention as well as during the administration of therapies. Zn supplementation reduces the risks of serious outcomes from Covid19 infection. Evidence also suggests that Zn helps in treatments of COVID-19 infection if taken in conjunction with antiviral drugs. The literature supports the use of Zn, with improvements towards a lower risk ranging from 37% in late treatment, RR 0.63 CI [0.53-0.74], to 78% in sufficiency, RR 0.22 CI [0.05-0.96].

Nanovectorization of Ivermectin to avoid overdose of drugs

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that results in the death of the targeted parasites using several mechanical actions. While very well supported, it can induce in rare cases, adverse effects including coma and respiratory failure in case of overdose. This problem should be solved especially in an emergency situation. For instance, the first pandemic of the 21th century was officially declared in early 2020, and while several vaccines around the worlds have been used, an effective treatment against this new strain of coronavirus, better known as SARS-CoV-2, should also be considered, especially given the massive appearance of variants. From all the tested therapies, Ivermectin showed a potential reduction of the viral portability, but sparked significant debate around the dose needed to achieve these positive results. To answer this general question, we propose, using simulations, to show that the nanovectorization of Ivermectin on BN oxide nanosheets can increase the transfer of the drug to its target and thus decrease the quantity of drug necessary to cope with the disease. This first application could help science to develop such nanocargo to avoid adverse effects.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

Drug safety of frequently used drugs and substances for self-medication in COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the behavior of self-medication has increased. The dissemination of misleading information regarding the efficacy of certain drugs or substances for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been the major contributing factor for this phenomenon. Alongside with the increase in self-medication behavior, the inherent risks to this act such as drug-drug interactions, adverse events, drug toxicity, and masking of symptoms have also increased. Self-medication in the context of COVID-19 has led to drug misuse leading in some cases to the development of fatal adverse drug reactions. It is important that during this ongoing pandemic drugs with potential clinical efficacy against COVID-19 are adequately analyzed regarding their efficacy, safety, and monitoring. The aim of this review is to describe the available evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and monitoring of the drugs and substances that have been shown to be frequently used for self-medication in patients with COVID-19 (hydroxychloroquine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ivermectin, azithromycin, vitamins, aspirin, and chlorine dioxide) to adequately characterize their risks, safe use, monitoring strategies, and to reinforce the concept that these substances should not be used for self-medication and require a medical prescription.

Plain Language Summary

Drug safety of frequently used drugs and substances for self-medication in COVID-19 Dissemination of information about potential COVID-19 treatments has led individuals to self-medicate and expose themselves to risks such as drug-drug interactions, side effects, antibiotic resistance, and misdiagnosis. There is a need to review the medical literature to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the drugs and substances commonly used by the population for the treatment and prevention of SARS CoV-2 infection. In this review, we included drugs that are frequently used for self-medication and commonly advertised such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, chlorine dioxide, azithromycin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among others. A brief introduction of the drug and its mechanism of action, followed by a summary of the efficacy in COVID-19 and safety, will be described for each drug in order to promote their responsible use.

Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities: The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19. Evidence-based data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin are needed.

Objective

To determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients' symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.

Interventions

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events.

Results

Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04920942.

In Silico Analysis of the Multi-Targeted Mode of Action of Ivermectin and Related Compounds

Some clinical studies have indicated activity of ivermectin, a macrocyclic lactone, against COVID-19, but a biological mechanism initially proposed for this anti-viral effect is not applicable at physiological concentrations. This in silico investigation explores potential modes of action of ivermectin and 14 related compounds, by which the infectivity and morbidity of the SARS-CoV-2 virus may be limited. Binding affinity computations were performed for these agents on several docking sites each for models of (1) the spike glycoprotein of the virus, (2) the CD147 receptor, which has been identified as a secondary attachment point for the virus, and (3) the alpha-7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (α7nAChr), an indicated point of viral penetration of neuronal tissue as well as an activation site for the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway controlled by the vagus nerve. Binding affinities were calculated for these multiple docking sites and binding modes of each compound. Our results indicate the high affinity of ivermectin, and even higher affinities for some of the other compounds evaluated, for all three of these molecular targets. These results suggest biological mechanisms by which ivermectin may limit the infectivity and morbidity of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and stimulate an α7nAChr-mediated anti-inflammatory pathway that could limit cytokine production by immune cells.

Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of IVM on adult patients with COVID-19 were searched until 22 March 2021 in 5 engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs (SAEs). The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs (n = 1173) were included. The controls were the standard of care in 5 RCTs and placebo in 5. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in 1, and mild and moderate in 1. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality rates compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.37 [95% confidence interval, .12-1.13]; very low QoE) or LOS compared with controls (mean difference, 0.72 days [95% confidence interval, -.86 to 2.29 days]; very low QoE). AEs, SAEs, and viral clearance were similar between IVM and control groups (low QoE for all outcomes). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality rates in 3 RCTs at high RoB were reduced with IVM.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.

Ivermectin: a mini-review

Introduction: Avermectins are common antiparasitic drugs, derived from Streptomyces bacteria that exhibit activity against arthropods and nematodes. Ivermectin, an avermectin derivative, is used as a treatment for parasitic infections in humans and domesticated animals.Discussion: Ivermectin's mechanism of action involves binding to ligand-gated ion channel receptors including glutamate, GABA, and glycine, resulting in parasitic paralysis and death. Due to varying expression of these ion channel receptors in vertebrate species, ivermectin toxicity is rarely reported in mammals. Ivermectin is also a substrate for P-glycoprotein, which limits its neurological toxicity in humans. Genetic polymorphisms in P-glycoprotein or coadministration of P-glycoprotein inhibitors may increase the neurotoxicity of ivermectin. Other toxic effects of ivermectin after therapeutic oral use include edema, rash, headache, and ocular complaints. Most of these effects are mild and short in duration. Ivermectin exhibits antiviral effects in-vitro at very high concentrations. This has led to suggestions of ivermectin as a potential treatment for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, although the drug's pharmacokinetic parameters reduce the likelihood that high concentrations of the drug can be achieved in-vivo.Conclusion: Due to concern for adverse events, specifically neurotoxicity, as well as a paucity of supporting evidence, the use of ivermectin as a routine treatment or preventive measure for COVID-19 infection is not recommended at this time.

Ivermectin and the Integrity of Healthcare Evidence During COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by a lack of clear evidence to guide healthcare professionals, the public and policymakers. The resulting uncertainty, coupled with changing guidelines as additional evidence became available, added to the stress and anxiety reported by decision-makers. Research results are key to providing evidence to guide healthcare decisions. Important questions have arisen about whether various interventions are safe and effective. The evidence found guides those making treatment decisions, and influences those selecting interventions for further evaluation in research studies. As the COVID-19 pandemic intensified, the effectiveness and safety of many pharmaceuticals was queried. Ivermectin will be used to explore the ethics of how healthcare evidence must be critically appraised, even, or especially, during a pandemic. This drug is alleged to be effective in treating COVID-19, with various studies and systematic reviews finding supportive evidence. Some of these have now been linked to concerns about fraud or poor research reporting. This article will focus on the scientific literature and how apparently fraudulent studies were published and influenced treatment decisions, on-going research and public health guidelines. Research evidence is critical during emergencies like pandemics, but urgency should not overtake ethical responsibilities to critically appraise (or evaluate) studies as they become available. These responsibilities apply in various ways to editors, peer-reviewers, news media reporters, and those making treatment decisions, including clinicians, policymakers and the general public. While research article authors have the primary ethical responsibility to reject fraudulent or inaccurate claims, the readers of health research must carefully evaluate all publications. To detect and reject fraudulent healthcare claims, readers need critical appraisal skills that match their level of engagement with those articles. The core principles of critical appraisal will be described in the article, and how they can be adapted for different types of readers. Exemplar tools that develop critical appraisal skills will be noted, with reviews of ivermectin's efficacy explored as examples. As stakeholders in healthcare evidence are increasingly able to identify well-conducted and ethical research they will simultaneously be able to spot and reject fraudulent reports and prevent them from influencing healthcare decisions.

Ofeleein i mi Vlaptin-Volume II: Immunity Following Infection or mRNA Vaccination, Drug Therapies and Non-Pharmacological Management at Post-Two Years SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

The persistence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has triggered research into limiting transmission, morbidity and mortality, thus warranting a comprehensive approach to guide balanced healthcare policies with respect to people's physical and mental health. The mainstay priority during COVID-19 is to achieve widespread immunity, which could be established through natural contact or vaccination. Deep knowledge of the immune response combined with recent specific data indicates the potential inferiority of induced immunity against infection. Moreover, the prevention of transmission has been founded on general non-pharmacological measures of protection, albeit debate exists considering their efficacy and, among other issues, their socio-psychological burden. The second line of defense is engaged after infection and is supported by a plethora of studied agents, such as antibiotics, steroids and non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs, antiviral medications and other biological agents that have been proposed, though variability in terms of benefits and adverse events has not allowed distinct solutions, albeit certain treatments might have a role in prevention and/or treatment of the disease. This narrative review summarizes the existing literature on the advantages and weaknesses of current COVID-19 management measures, thus underlining the necessity of acting based on the classical principle of "ofeleein i mi vlaptin", that is, to help or not to harm.