Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19

Trial sequential analysis involving same-year studies requires careful temporal ordering

Trial sequential analysis (TSA) is an increasingly used tool in systematic reviews to monitor synthesized evidence. However, the current practice of TSAs often overlooks the order of same-year studies, which are typically ordered alphabetically based on the last names of the studies' authors by default in the widely used TSA software application. This practice is inappropriate and contrary to the TSA's definition. This issue is particularly concerning in systematic reviews on time-sensitive topics, such as COVID-19, where reviews include many studies within a short period. In this article, we use a case study to illustrate the impact of the order of same-year studies on TSA conclusions. It shows dramatically different patterns of evidence accumulation when same-year studies are ordered alphabetically vs in their actual temporal order. This article offers suggestions for authors to pay attention to study ordering in future TSAs.

Antiviral therapy for COVID-19 virus: A narrative review and bibliometric analysis

The COVID-19 epidemic has become a major international health emergency. Millions of people have died as a result of this phenomenon since it began. Has there been any successful pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 since the initial report on the virus? How many searches are undertaken to address the impact of the infection? What is the number of drugs that have undergone investigation? What are the mechanisms of action and adverse effects associated with the investigated pharmaceuticals used to treat COVID-19? Has the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved any medication to treat COVID-19? To date, our understanding is based on a restricted corpus of published investigations into the treatment of COVID-19. It is important to note that no single study comprehensively encompasses all pharmacological interventions for COVID-19. This paper provides an introductory summary of a bibliometric analysis conducted on the data about COVID-19, sourced explicitly from two platforms, namely PubMed and ScienceDirect. The analysis encompasses the period spanning from 2019 to 2022. Furthermore, this study examines the published literature about the pharmacological interventions for the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), explicitly focusing on the safety and effectiveness of different medications such as Remdesivir (marketed as Veklury®), Lopinavir/Ritonavir (commercially known as Kaletra® or Aluvia®), Ribavirin, Favipiravir (marketed as Avigan®), Ivermectin, Casirivimab and Imdevimab (branded as Ronapreve®), Sotrovimab (marketed as Xevudy®), Anakinra, Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (marketed as Paxlovid®), and Galidesivir. Findings indicate that while Remdesivir and Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir show significant efficacy in reducing hospitalization and severe outcomes, drugs like Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Ivermectin have inconsistent results. Our insights suggest a multifaceted approach incorporating these therapies can significantly improve patient outcomes. Repurposing drugs has been critical in rapidly responding to COVID-19, allowing existing medications to be used in new ways to combat the virus. Combination therapies and further research are essential to optimize treatment strategies.

Efficacy of Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin in Managing COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Phase III Clinical Trials

Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic several drugs were used to manage the patients mainly those with a severe phenotype. Potential drugs were used off-label and major concerns arose from their applicability to managing the health crisis highlighting the importance of clinical trials. In this context, we described the mechanisms of the three repurposed drugs [Ivermectin-antiparasitic drug, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine-antimalarial drugs, and Azithromycin-antimicrobial drug]; and, based on this description, the study evaluated the clinical efficacy of those drugs published in clinical trials. The use of these drugs reflects the period of uncertainty that marked the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which made them a possible treatment for COVID-19. Methods: In our review, we evaluated phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the efficacy of these drugs published from the COVID-19 pandemic onset to 2023. We included eight RCTs published for Ivermectin, 11 RCTs for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and three RCTs for Azithromycin. The research question (PICOT) accounted for P-hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19; I-use of oral or intravenous Ivermectin OR Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine OR Azithromycin; C-placebo or no placebo (standard of care); O-mortality OR hospitalization OR viral clearance OR need for mechanical ventilation OR clinical improvement; and T-phase III RCTs. Results: While studying these drugs' respective mechanisms of action, the reasons for which they were thought to be useful became apparent and are as follows: Ivermectin binds to insulin-like growth factor and prevents nuclear transportation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), therefore preventing cell entrance, induces apoptosis, and osmotic cell death and disrupts viral replication. Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine blocks the movement of SARS-CoV-2 from early endosomes to lysosomes inside the cell, also, this drug blocks the binding between SARS-CoV-2 and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE)-2 inhibiting the interaction between the virus spike proteins and the cell membrane and this drug can also inhibit SARS-CoV-2 viral replication causing, ultimately, the reduction in viral infection as well as the potential to progression for a higher severity phenotype culminating with a higher chance of death. Azithromycin exerts a down-regulating effect on the inflammatory cascade, attenuating the excessive production of cytokines and inducing phagocytic activity, and acts interfering with the viral replication cycle. Ivermectin, when compared to standard care or placebo, did not reduce the disease severity, need for mechanical ventilation, need for intensive care unit, or in-hospital mortality. Only one study demonstrated that Ivermectin may improve viral clearance compared to placebo. Individuals who received Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine did not present a lower incidence of death, improved clinical status, or higher chance of respiratory deterioration compared to those who received usual care or placebo. Also, some studies demonstrated that Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine resulted in worse outcomes and side-effects included severe ones. Adding Azithromycin to a standard of care did not result in clinical improvement in hospitalized COVID-19 participants. In brief, COVID-19 was one of the deadliest pandemics in modern human history. Due to the potential health catastrophe caused by SARS-CoV-2, a global effort was made to evaluate treatments for COVID-19 to attenuate its impact on the human species. Unfortunately, several countries prematurely justified the emergency use of drugs that showed only in vitro effects against SARS-CoV-2, with a dearth of evidence supporting efficacy in humans. In this context, we reviewed the mechanisms of several drugs proposed to treat COVID-19, including Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin, as well as the phase III clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of these drugs for treating patients with this respiratory disease. Conclusions: As the main finding, although Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin might have mechanistic effects against SARS-CoV-2 infection, most phase III clinical trials observed no treatment benefit in patients with COVID-19, underscoring the need for robust phase III clinical trials.

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment of non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials with 7,035 participants

INTRODUCTION

We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin in non-hospitalized patients with early COVID-19.

METHODS

Five databases were searched until October 17, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin against standard of care (SoC), placebo, or active drug. Primary outcomes were hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV), clinical improvement, clinical worsening, viral clearance, and severe adverse events (SAEs). Random effects meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. Pre-specified subgroup analyses (ivermectin dose, control type, risk of bias, follow-up, and country income) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs (n = 7,035) were included. The controls were placebo in nine RCTs, SoC in two RCTs, and placebo or active drug in one RCT. Ivermectin did not reduce hospitalization (relative risk [RR], 0.81, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.64-1.03; 8 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-1.33; 9 RCTs, low QoE), or AEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.07; 9 RCTs, very low QoE) vs. controls. Ivermectin did not reduce MV, clinical worsening, or SAEs and did not increase clinical improvement and viral clearance vs. controls (very low QoE for secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with main analyses, and TSA-adjusted risk for hospitalization was similar to main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, ivermectin did not have effect on clinical, non-clinical or safety outcomes versus controls. Ivermectin should not be recommended as treatment in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Choosing and accessing COVID-19 treatment options: a qualitative study with patients, caregivers, and health care providers in Lebanon

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained healthcare systems globally, particularly in terms of access to medicines. Lebanon has been greatly affected by the pandemic, having faced concomitant financial and economic crises. The objective of the study was to understand the experiences of patients with COVID-19 in Lebanon, as well as those of their families, and healthcare providers, with regards to their treatment decisions and accessibility to COVID-19 medicines.

METHODS

For this qualitative study, we conducted 28 semi-structured interviews. We used purposive sampling to recruit participants with a diverse range of perspectives. The data collection phase spanned from August to November 2021 and was conducted virtually. After transcribing and translating the interviews, we employed thematic analysis to identify recurring themes and patterns.

RESULTS

In total, 28 individuals participated in this study. Participants highlighted challenges owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis. Accessing COVID-19 medicines posed major hurdles for physicians and patients, given limited availability, global shortages, local circumstances, community hoarding and stockpiling by pharmacies. Providers based treatment decisions on research, local and international practice guidelines, experiences and expert feedback. Patients sought information from social media, community members and physicians, as well as through word of mouth. Accessing medicines involved navigating the healthcare system, the black market, charities, personal networks and political parties and sourcing from abroad. The medicines were either free, subsidized or at inflated costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the diversity and complexity of factors influencing decision-making and accessing medicines during the COVID-19 pandemic in Lebanon. Future research should explore strategies for ensuring medicine access during crises, drawing insights from comparative studies across different countries.

Antiviral Protein-Protein Interaction Inhibitors

Continually repeating outbreaks of pathogenic viruses necessitate the construction of effective antiviral strategies. Therefore, the development of new specific antiviral drugs in a well-established and efficient manner is crucial. Taking into account the strong ability of viruses to change, therapies with diversified molecular targets must be sought. In addition to the widely explored viral enzyme inhibitor approach, inhibition of protein-protein interactions is a very valuable strategy. In this Perspective, protein-protein interaction inhibitors targeting HIV, SARS-CoV-2, HCV, Ebola, Dengue, and Chikungunya viruses are reviewed and discussed. Antibodies, peptides/peptidomimetics, and small molecules constitute three classes of compounds that have been explored, and each of them has some advantages and disadvantages for drug development.

Overcoming publication and dissemination bias in infectious diseases clinical trials

Non-timely reporting, selective reporting, or non-reporting of clinical trial results are prevalent and serious issues. WHO mandates that summary results be available in registries within 12 months of study completion and published in full text within 24 months. However, only a limited number of clinical trials in infectious diseases, including those done during the COVID-19 pandemic, have their results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. An analysis of 50 trials of eight antiviral drugs tested against COVID-19 with a completion date of at least 2 years ago revealed that only 18% had their results published in the registry, with 40% not publishing any results. Non-timely and non-reporting practices undermine patient participation and are ethically unacceptable. Strategies should include obligatory reporting of summary results within 12 months in clinical trial registries, with progress towards peer-reviewed publication within 24 months indicated. Timely publication of research papers should be encouraged through an automated flagging mechanism in clinical trial registries that draws attention to the status of results reporting, such as a green tick for trials that have reported summary results within 12 months and a red tick in case of failure to do so. We propose the inclusion of mandatory clinical trial reporting standards in the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines, which should prohibit sponsor contract clauses that restrict reporting (referred to as gag clauses) and require timely reporting of results as part of the ethics committees' clearance process for clinical trial protocols.

Knowledge, attitude and prevalence of ivermectin use as coronavirus disease treatment: A crosssectional study among a Malaysian population

Introduction

During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, there was a widespread public misconception regarding ivermectin use in managing the disease. There is no approval of ivermectin as COVID-19 treatment by the Food and Drug Administration, and the adverse effects of the drug are alarming. This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge and attitude towards and prevalence of ivermectin use as COVID-19 treatment among the Malaysian population.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted among 391 Malaysians aged ≥18 years. A validated online self-administered questionnaire disseminated via Google Forms was used to evaluate the knowledge and attitude towards and prevalence of ivermectin use as COVID-19 treatment. The socio-demographic characteristics and knowledge and attitude towards and prevalence of ivermectin use among the respondents were evaluated through descriptive analysis. The chi-square test was used to identify the association between the variables.

Results

The respondents had moderate levels of knowledge and attitude towards ivermectin use, while the prevalence of ivermectin use was 3.58%. The respondents' sex (P=0.014), age (P=0.012) and monthly income (P=0.049) were significantly associated with their level of knowledge. The respondents' sex (P=0.04) was significantly associated with their level of attitude. Conversely, no socio-demographic characteristics were significantly associated with the prevalence of ivermectin use as COVID-19 treatment.

Conclusion

The majority of Malaysians have moderate levels of knowledge and attitude towards ivermectin use as COVID-19 treatment, with a low prevalence of actual use.

Dissemination of Registered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT): a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The results of clinical trials should be completely and rapidly reported during public health emergencies such as COVID-19. This study aimed to examine when, and where, the results of COVID-19 clinical trials were disseminated throughout the first 18 months of the pandemic.

METHODS

Clinical trials for COVID-19 treatment or prevention were identified from the WHO ICTRP database. All interventional trials with a registered completion date ≤ 30 June 2021 were included. Trial results, published as preprints, journal articles, or registry results, were located using automated and manual techniques across PubMed, Google Scholar, Google, EuropePMC, CORD-19, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and clinical trial registries. Our main analysis reports the rate of dissemination overall and per route, and the time from registered completion to results using Kaplan-Meier methods, with additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses reported.

RESULTS

Overall, 1643 trials with completion dates ranging from 46 to 561 days prior to the start of results searches were included. The cumulative probability of reporting was 12.5% at 3 months from completion, 21.6% at 6 months, and 32.8% at 12 months. Trial results were most commonly disseminated in journals (n = 278 trials, 69.2%); preprints were available for 194 trials (48.3%), 86 (44.3%) of which converted to a full journal article. Trials completed earlier in the pandemic were reported more rapidly than those later in the pandemic, and those involving ivermectin were more rapidly reported than other common interventions. Results were robust to various sensitivity analyses except when considering only trials in a "completed" status on the registry, which substantially increased reporting rates. Poor trial registry data on completion status and dates limits the precision of estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 trials saw marginal increases in reporting rates compared to standard practice; most registered trials failed to meet even the 12-month non-pandemic standard. Preprints were common, complementing journal publication; however, registries were underutilized for rapid reporting. Maintaining registry data enables accurate representation of clinical research; failing to do so undermines these registries' use for public accountability and analysis. Addressing rapid reporting and registry data quality must be emphasized at global, national, and institutional levels.

How Scientists View Vaccine Hesitancy

This paper examines possible causes, consequences, and potential solutions for addressing vaccine hesitancy in the United States, focusing on the perspectives of academic scientists. By examining the experiences of scientists, who are arguably a critical community in US society, we gain deeper insights into how they understand the complexities of vaccine hesitancy and whether their insights and opinions converge with or diverge from the current literature. We present findings from a national survey of a representative sample of academic scientists from the fields of biology and public health regarding vaccine hesitancy and related topics. Empirical analysis using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses covers multiple topics, including vaccine controversy, trust in science, causes of vaccine hesitancy, preferred policy and regulatory approaches, risk perceptions, and scientists' ethics and perceived communication roles. The results highlight a diversity of opinions within the scientific community regarding how to improve science-society communication in regard to vaccines, including the need to be transparent and candid to the public about the risk of vaccines and their research.

COVID-19 Vaccination Status as Well as Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy among Prisoners and the Implications

Prisoners form a population who are highly vulnerable to COVID-19 due to overcrowding, limited movement, and a poor living environment. Consequently, there is a need to ascertain the status of COVID-19 vaccination and factors associated with hesitancy among prisoners. A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was undertaken among prisoners at three district jails in Punjab Province, Pakistan. A total of 381 prisoners participated and none of the study participants had received an influenza vaccine this year. In total, 53% received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, with the majority having two doses. The top three reasons of vaccine acceptance were "fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection" (56.9%), "desire to return to a pre-pandemic routine as soon as possible" (56.4%), and "having no doubts on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines" (39.6%). There was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in any demographic variables between vaccinated and unvaccinated prisoners except for age, which was strongly association with COVID-19 vaccine uptake (χ²(3) = 76.645, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.457). Among the unvaccinated prisoners (N = 179), only 16 subsequently showed willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. The top three reasons for hesitancy were: COVID-19 is not a real problem/disease (60.1%), safety concerns (51.1%), and COVID-19 vaccine is a conspiracy (50.3%). Efforts are needed to address their concerns given this population's risks and high hesitancy rates, especially among younger prisoners.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards COVID-19 among the population of the state of São Paulo, Brazil

BACKGROUND

The population's adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures is influenced by their knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) towards the disease, making research into people's awareness of the disease essential. The present survey was designed to assess KAP towards COVID-19 among the population of the state of São Paulo, Brazil.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was disseminated via social media between September 14 and October 5, 2020. The intended population was Brazilians over the age of 18, living in the state of São Paulo.

RESULTS

A total of 1,111 individuals completed the questionnaire. The majority were women (71.6%), 31.6% were aged 31-40 years old, and 82.8% had higher education. Among the participants, 17.5% reported that they had taken some medication without a medical prescription to prevent COVID-19. The participants showed good knowledge about the transmission and prevention of the disease. The knowledge mean score was lower among participants with complete high school or less, with poor self-perception of their health status, who almost never seek information about COVID-19, and those who are not sure to belong to a risk group for the disease. Only 51.3% of the participants believed that COVID-19 would finally be successfully controlled, and 56.6% were confident that Brazil could win the battle against the virus.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants demonstrated good knowledge of COVID-19 but were pessimistic about the pandemic's future. The findings of this study can help in the development of effective health communication strategies to promote better knowledge and a positive attitude about prevention measures.

A twisting tale of misinformation: should ivermectin be approved as a treatment for COVID-19 disease?

This editorial examines what has caused the evidence around ivermectin to be so controversial, provides a brief analysis of recently published evidence, and highlights why it is important to learn lessons from ivermectin for future re-purposed drugs.

Does the use of cysteine-rich whey protein supplements (Inmunocal®) improve the health well-being of COVID-19 patients? A qualitative study

<b>Introduction:</b> In the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, it has been proposed that oxidative stress may contribute to the management of COVID-19 severity. The impact on the well-being of patients with COVID-19 using cysteine-providing supplements has not yet been evaluated and there is a need to understand the benefits and limitations they may offer.<br /> <b>Aim:</b> The aim of this study is to understand the experiences of improved well-being with cysteine-rich whey protein supplementation (Immunocal®) in patients with COVID-19.<br /> <b>Methods:</b> A qualitative study was conducted by conducting semi-structured interviews with four participants taking Immunocal® while they had COVID-19. Participants were randomly recruited through internet networking. Ethical approval was obtained from the University ethics committee. Participants were informed of the study objectives two days in advance and consent was obtained before interviews began. We used the 16-item “Use of Immunocal supplement for COVID-19” (USIC-19) questionnaire to inquire about COVID-19 behavior (time of illness, symptoms, and severity of illness) and the experience of using the supplement during illness. Confidentiality was maintained throughout this study.<br /> <b>Results:</b> All participants presented mild discomfort such as headache, weakness, and tiredness when they had COVID-19 impacting most of them emotionally. The use of Immunocal® produced a partial improvement in all patients as only two continued to experience fatigue. Immunocal® improved the mood (50%) and physical health of the participants. In addition, participants reported that the supplement was recommended and dosed primarily by a consultant and that they did not feel hesitant to use it because of previous experiences of friends and family. The daily dosage of half of the participants was two sachets and all felt the need to consume the supplement which resulted in daily use.<br /> <b>Conclusion:</b> Following the daily dosage indications of the consultants, the participants who have consumed Inmunocal® have presented a partial improvement of the symptoms related to COVID-19, however, they feel the need to consume the supplement daily to improve their quality of life.

From idioms of distress, concern, and care to moral distress leading to moral injury in the time of Covid

In this invited commentary on the thematic issue of Transcultural Psychiatry on idioms of distress, concern, and care, I provide a brief overview of how my research agenda evolved over the years while conducting community and clinic-based research in South and Southeast Asia as well as North America. I then suggest areas where future research on idioms of distress, concern, care, and resilience will be needed among different demographics given social change and shifts in how we communicate face to face and in virtual reality, the impact of medicalization, pharmaceuticalization and bracket creep, changes in indigenous healing systems, and hybridization. I further call attention to the importance of conducting idioms guided research in occupational settings. Toward this end I highlight the moral distress health care workers in the U.S. have experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic and point out the importance of differentiating individual burnout from moral injury related to structural distress. I conclude by discussing the general utility of an idioms of distress perspective in the practice of cultural psychiatry and suggest that this perspective needs to be included in the training of all practitioners regardless of the system of medicine they practice. Doing so may enable the formation of mental health communities of practice in contexts where there are pluralistic health care arenas.

Nanoscale Technologies in the Fight against COVID-19: From Innovative Nanomaterials to Computer-Aided Discovery of Potential Antiviral Plant-Derived Drugs

The last few years have increasingly emphasized the need to develop new active antiviral products obtained from artificial synthesis processes using nanomaterials, but also derived from natural matrices. At the same time, advanced computational approaches have found themselves fundamental in the repurposing of active therapeutics or for reducing the very long developing phases of new drugs discovery, which represents a real limitation, especially in the case of pandemics. The first part of the review is focused on the most innovative nanomaterials promising both in the field of therapeutic agents, as well as measures to control virus spread (i.e., innovative antiviral textiles). The second part of the review aims to show how computer-aided technologies can allow us to identify, in a rapid and therefore constantly updated way, plant-derived molecules (i.e., those included in terpenoids) potentially able to efficiently interact with SARS-CoV-2 cell penetration pathways.

Appraisal of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance in the Romanian Pregnant Population

Widespread COVID-19 vaccination is crucial for limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and minimizing the risk of novel variants arising in the general population, especially in pregnant women. According to the publicly available research data, vaccination intentions vary significantly by country, with Romania among the European countries with the lowest vaccination rates. Thus, we sought to determine the scale of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign among pregnant women in Romania, as well as the variables affecting their choices. A cross-sectional study was conducted on pregnant women referred to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic of the Timisoara Municipal Emergency Hospital in Romania, where participants were asked to complete an online survey including standardized and unstandardized questionnaires indicating their willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and the reasons for their willingness. Out of the 500 women who were requested to participate, there was a total of 345 validated questionnaires, with 184 vaccinated and 161 unvaccinated pregnant women. The statistically significant determinant factors for COVID-19 vaccination acceptance were the urban area of residence (OR = 0.86), having a higher level of education (OR = 0.81), the third trimester of pregnancy (OR = 0.54), trusting the government (OR = 0.83), being a frequent traveler (OR = 0.76), fearing the severity of COVID-19 (OR = 0.68), the higher availability of COVID-19 vaccines nearby (OR = 0.87), and seeing more people getting vaccinated (OR = 0.75). As there are no increased risks associated with SARS-CoV-2 immunization in pregnant women, the variables identified in this research are crucial in determining the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines that should be addressed in this vulnerable group to increase vaccination rates.

Ivermectin under scrutiny: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and possible sources of controversies in COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs and to address disputes over the existing evidence.

METHODS

MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs assessing the efficacy of Ivermectin up to 20 February 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was performed based on the PRISMA 2020 statement criteria.

RESULTS

19 and 17 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. There was no significant difference in progression to severe disease (log OR - 0.27 [95% CI - 0.61 to 0.08], I2 = 42.29%), negative RT-PCR (log OR 0.25 [95% CI - 0.18-0.68], I2 = 58.73%), recovery (log OR 0.11 [95% CI - 0.22-0.45], I2 = 13.84%), duration of hospitalization (SMD - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.85-0.06], I2 = 88.90%), time to negative RT-PCR (SMD - 0.36 [95% CI - 0.89-0.17], I2 = 46.2%), and viral load (SMD -0.17 [95% CI -0.45 to 0.12], I^2 = 0%). It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR - 0.67 [95% CI - 1.20 to - 0.13], I2 = 28.96%). However, studies with a higher risk of bias were more likely to indicate positive effects on the efficacy of this drug, according to our subgroup analyses based on study quality.

CONCLUSION

Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to 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.

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.

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.

Social Media and COVID-19—Perceptions and Public Deceptions of Ivermectin, Colchicine and Hydroxychloroquine: Lessons for Future Pandemics

The capacity for social media to influence the utilization of re-purposed medicines to manage COVID-19, despite limited availability of safety and efficacy data, is a cause for concern within health care systems. This study sought to ascertain links between social media reports and utilization for three re-purposed medicines: hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), ivermectin and colchicine. A combined retrospective analysis of social media posts for these three re-purposed medicines was undertaken, along with utilization and clinical trials data, in South Africa, between January 2020 and June 2021. In total, 77,257 posts were collected across key social media platforms, of which 6884 were relevant. Ivermectin had the highest number of posts (55%) followed by HCQ (44%). The spike in ivermectin use was closely correlated to social media posts. Similarly, regarding chloroquine (as HCQ is not available in South Africa), social media interest was enhanced by local politicians. Sentiment analysis revealed that posts regarding the effectiveness of these repurposed medicines were positive. This was different for colchicine, which contributed only a small number of mentions (1%). Of concern is that the majority of reporters in social media (85%) were unidentifiable. This study provides evidence of social media as a driver of re-purposed medicines. Healthcare professionals have a key role in providing evidence-based advice especially with unidentifiable posts.

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.

Management of Children Admitted to Hospitals across Bangladesh with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19 and the Implications for the Future: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study

There is an increasing focus on researching children admitted to hospital with new variants of COVID-19, combined with concerns with hyperinflammatory syndromes and the overuse of antimicrobials. Paediatric guidelines have been produced in Bangladesh to improve their care. Consequently, the objective is to document the management of children with COVID-19 among 24 hospitals in Bangladesh. Key outcome measures included the percentage prescribed different antimicrobials, adherence to paediatric guidelines and mortality rates using purposely developed report forms. The majority of 146 admitted children were aged 5 years or under (62.3%) and were boys (58.9%). Reasons for admission included fever, respiratory distress and coughing; 86.3% were prescribed antibiotics, typically parenterally, on the WHO ‘Watch’ list, and empirically (98.4%). There were no differences in antibiotic use whether hospitals followed paediatric guidance or not. There was no prescribing of antimalarials and limited prescribing of antivirals (5.5% of children) and antiparasitic medicines (0.7%). The majority of children (92.5%) made a full recovery. It was encouraging to see the low hospitalisation rates and limited use of antimalarials, antivirals and antiparasitic medicines. However, the high empiric use of antibiotics, alongside limited switching to oral formulations, is a concern that can be addressed by instigating the appropriate programmes.

COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on Canada’s intensive care units

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the precarious demand-capacity balance in Canadian hospitals, including critical care where there is an urgent need for trained health care professionals to dramatically increase ICU capacity.

The impact of the pandemic on ICUs varied significantly across the country with provinces that implemented public health measures later and relaxed them sooner being impacted more severely. Pediatric ICUs routinely admitted adult patients. Non-ICU areas were converted to ICUs and staff were redeployed from other essential service areas. Faced with a lack of critical care capacity, triage plans for ICU admission were developed and nearly implemented in some provinces.

Twenty eight percent of patients in Canadian ICUs who required mechanical ventilation died. Surviving patients have required prolonged ICU admission, hospitalization and extensive ongoing rehabilitation. Family members of patients were not permitted to visit, resulting in additional psychological stresses to patients, families, and healthcare teams. ICU professionals also experienced extreme psychological stresses from caring for such large numbers of critically ill patients, often in sub-standard conditions. This resulted in large numbers of health workers leaving their professions.

This pandemic is not yet over, and it is likely that new pandemics will follow. A review and recommendations for the future are provided.

Central Effects of Ivermectin in Alleviation of Covid-19-induced Dysauto-nomia

Covid-19 may be associated with various neurological disorders, including dysautonomia, a dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system (ANS). In Covid-19, hypoxia, immunoinflammatory abnormality, and deregulation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may increase sympathetic discharge with dysautonomia development. Direct SARS-CoV-2 cytopathic effects and associated inflammatory reaction may lead to neuroinflammation, affecting different parts of the central nervous system (CNS), including the autonomic center in the hypothalamus, causing dysautonomia. High circulating AngII, hypoxia, oxidative stress, high pro-inflammatory cytokines, and emotional stress can also provoke autonomic deregulation and high sympathetic outflow with the development of the sympathetic storm. During SARS-CoV-2 infection with neuro-invasion, GABA-ergic neurons and nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) are inhibited in the hypothalamic pre-sympathetic neurons leading to sympathetic storm and dysautonomia. Different therapeutic modalities are applied to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection, like antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs. Ivermectin (IVM) is a robust repurposed drug widely used to prevent and manage mild-moderate Covid-19. IVM activates both GABA-ergic neurons and nAChRs to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection- induced dysautonomia. Therefore, in this brief report, we try to identify the potential role of IVM in managing Covid-19-induced dysautonomia.

Pharmacotherapeutic agents for the management of COVID-19 patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the largest public health challenge of the twenty-first century. While COVID-19 primarily affects the respiratory system, manifesting as interstitial pneumonitis and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), it also has implications for the cardiovascular system. Moreover, those admitted to hospital with severe COVID-19 are more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus. The underlying pathophysiology of why COVID-19 onset can further decline cardiac pathologies as well as trigger acute onset of new cardiac complications is not yet well understood.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors extensively review literature focused on the current understanding and approaches of managing patients who have underlying cardiovascular diseases and concomitant COVID-19 infection. Furthermore, the authors explore the possible cardiovascular implications of the suggested COVID-19 therapeutic agents that are used to treat this lethal disease.

EXPERT OPINION

Current evidence is evolving around the many trialed pharmacotherapeutic considerations for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with cardiovascular disease. While we await such data, clinicians should advocate for careful consideration of all concomitant medications for those presenting with COVID-19 on a patient-by-patient basis.

Ivermectin for Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin has received particular attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the evidence to support its clinical efficacy is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

We undertook a new systematic review of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19, including new primary studies, outcomes other than mortality, and grading the quality of the available evidence following the Cochrane guidance for methodology.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases, repository databases, and clinical trial registries (up to June 2021). The measure of treatment effect was risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

The review includes 11 RCTs (2436 participants). The certainty of the available evidence was quite low or very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. When the analysis was limited to patients with baseline mild or moderate disease (8 reports, 1283 patients), there were no differences in mortality between ivermectin and control groups (low level of certainty); in patients with baseline severe diseases (3 reports, 304 patients), the use of ivermectin significantly decreased mortality compared to the controls (RD -0.17; 95% CIs, -0.24/-0.10; p = 0.00001; low level of certainty). In terms of disease progression (to severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit, and/or mechanical ventilation), the results were much the same. At day 14, the rate of patients with a negative RT-PCR test was 21% higher (from 5 to 36% higher) for ivermectin recipients than it was for the controls (low quality of evidence). Three studies (736 subjects) indicated that prophylaxis with ivermectin increased the likelihood of preventing COVID-19 compared to controls (low quality of evidence). Serious adverse events were rarely reported.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence for the benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment and prophylaxis, and most of this evidence is of low quality. Further evidence is needed to fine-tune potential indications and optimal treatment protocols for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, 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 the early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to no treatment, standard of care, 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), medRxiv, and Research Square, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 26 May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity, treated in inpatient or outpatient settings, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  We excluded studies comparing ivermectin to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. The primary analysis excluded studies with high risk of bias. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes 1. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, adverse events, quality of life, duration of hospitalization, and viral clearance; 2. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, admission to hospital, adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance; (3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, adverse events, mortality, admission to hospital, and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID-19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eight studies had an open-label design, six were double-blind and placebo-controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.  Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for inpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to day 28 assessed as need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.59; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or need for supplemental oxygen (0 participants required supplemental oxygen; 1 study, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence), adverse events within 28 days (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.97; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and viral clearance at day seven (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.48; 2 studies, 159 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on clinical improvement up to 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 study; 73 participants; low-certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) -0.10 days, 95% CI -2.43 to 2.23; 1 study; 45 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for outpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality up to 28 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to 14 days assessed as need for IMV (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.47; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or non-IMV or high flow oxygen requirement (0 participants required non-IMV or high flow; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo reduces or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on the number of participants with symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 1 study, 398 participants; low-certainty evidence) and adverse events within 28 days (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for primary analysis. No study reported hospital admission or quality of life up to 14 days. Ivermectin compared to no treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection We found one study. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID-19 symptoms and adverse events up to 14 days that were included in a secondary analysis due to high risk of bias. No study reported SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.