Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial

Formulation and optimization of pH-sensitive nanocrystals for improved oral delivery

The challenge of low water solubility in pharmaceutical science profoundly impacts drug absorption and therapeutic effectiveness. Nanocrystals (NC), consisting of drug molecules and stabilizing agents, offer a promising solution to enhance solubility and control release rates. In the pharmaceutical industry, top-down techniques are favored for their flexibility and cost-effectiveness. However, increased solubility can lead to premature drug dissolution in the stomach, which is problematic due to the acidic pH or enzymes. Researchers are exploring encapsulating agents that facilitate drug release at customized pH levels as a valuable strategy to address this. This study employed wet milling and spray drying techniques to create encapsulated NC for delivering the drug to the intestinal tract using the model drug ivermectin (IVM). Nanosuspensions (NS) were efficiently produced within 2 h using NanoDisp®, with a particle size of 198.4 ± 0.6 nm and a low polydispersity index (PDI) of 0.184, ensuring uniformity. Stability tests over 100 days at 4 °C and 25 °C demonstrated practical viability, with no precipitation or significant changes observed. Cytotoxicity evaluations indicated less harm to Caco-2 cells compared to the pure drug. Furthermore, the solubility of the NC increased by 47-fold in water and 4.8-fold in simulated intestinal fluid compared to the pure active compound. Finally, dissolution tests showed less than 10% release in acidic conditions and significant improvement in simulated intestinal conditions, promising enhanced drug solubility and bioavailability. This addresses a long-standing pharmaceutical challenge in a cost-effective and scalable manner.

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

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

The effect of intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) on the pharmacokinetic/toxicokinetic dispositions of ivermectin and carprofen in rabbits

Intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) has been widely used as an effective antidote in both veterinary and human medicine for the treatment of acute intoxications caused by drugs and pesticides with high lipid solubility. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of ILE co-administration on the kinetic dispositions of ivermectin (IVM) and carprofen (CRP) following intravenous bolus administration at subtoxic doses in rabbits.Twenty-four male New Zealand rabbits weighing 2.78 ± 0.2 kg were used in this study. Rabbits were divided into four groups (Group 1: IVM and Group 2: IVM + ILE or Group 3: CRP and Group 4: CRP + ILE), each group consisting of 6 animals. In the IVM study, Group 1 received IVM (0.6 mg/kg) alone while Group 2 received IVM (0.6 mg/kg) and ILE (2.5 ml/kg). In the CRP study, Group 3 received CRP (12 mg/kg) alone while Group 4 received CRP (12 mg/kg) and ILE (2.5 ml/kg). In both drug groups, ILE was administered 3 times as an i.v. bolus at the 10th min and repeated 4th and 8th h after the drug administration. Blood samples were collected from the auricular vein at various times after drug administration. The drug concentrations in plasma samples were determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography. Kinetic parameters were calculated using a non-compartmental model for both CRP and IVM.The C0 and area under the concentration-time curve from zero up to ∞ (AUC0-∞) values were significantly greater with ILE co-administration (2136 ng/ml and 360.84 ng.d/ml) compared to the IVM alone (1340.63 ng/ml and 206 ng.d/ml), respectively. Moreover, the volume of distribution (Vdss) and clearance (Cl) of IVM were reduced by approximately 42% and 46% with ILE co-administration compared to IVM alone resulting in a reduction of the distribution and slower elimination, respectively. Similar differences in C0, and Vdss values were also observed in CRP with ILE co-administration compared to CRP alone. ILE co-administration changed significantly the kinetic profile of both IVM and CRP in rabbits, supporting the lipid sink theory in which highly lipid-soluble compounds are absorbed into the lipid phase of plasma from peripheral organs such as the heart and brain affected by the acute toxicity of the compounds.

Effectiveness of Drug Repurposing and Natural Products Against SARS-CoV-2: A Comprehensive Review

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a betacoronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, causing respiratory disorders, and even death in some individuals, if not appropriately treated in time. To face the pandemic, preventive measures have been taken against contagions and the application of vaccines to prevent severe disease and death cases. For the COVID-19 treatment, antiviral, antiparasitic, anticoagulant and other drugs have been reused due to limited specific medicaments for the disease. Drug repurposing is an emerging strategy with therapies that have already tested safe in humans. One promising alternative for systematic experimental screening of a vast pool of compounds is computational drug repurposing (in silico assay). Using these tools, new uses for approved drugs such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, zidovudine, ribavirin, lamivudine, remdesivir, lopinavir and tenofovir/emtricitabine have been conducted, showing effectiveness in vitro and in silico against SARS-CoV-2 and some of these, also in clinical trials. Additionally, therapeutic options have been sought in natural products (terpenoids, alkaloids, saponins and phenolics) with promising in vitro and in silico results for use in COVID-19 disease. Among these, the most studied are resveratrol, quercetin, hesperidin, curcumin, myricetin and betulinic acid, which were proposed as SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors. Among the drugs reused to control the SARS-CoV2, better results have been observed for remdesivir in hospitalized patients and outpatients. Regarding natural products, resveratrol, curcumin, and quercetin have demonstrated in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and in vivo, a nebulized formulation has demonstrated to alleviate the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19. This review shows the evidence of drug repurposing efficacy and the potential use of natural products as a treatment for COVID-19. For this, a search was carried out in PubMed, SciELO and ScienceDirect databases for articles about drugs approved or under study and natural compounds recognized for their antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2.

Ivermectin as a possible treatment for COVID-19: a review of the 2022 protocols

Abstract Ivermectin is a safe and effective drug in humans and has been approved for use in numerous parasitic infections for over 50 years. In addition, many studies have already shown its antiviral activity. Ivermectin is generally well tolerated, with no indication of central nervous system-associated toxicity at doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 200 µg/kg. The in vitro results of ivermectin for reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load are promising and show that Ivermectin kills SARS-CoV-2 within 48 hours. A hypothesized mechanism of action for this drug is a likely inhibition of IMPα/β1-mediated nuclear import of viral proteins as demonstrated for other RNA viruses. However, controlled and randomized studies are needed to prove its effectiveness in COVID-19 in humans. In a single in vivo study with published results, patients confirmed to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 received at least one dose of ivermectin at any time during hospitalization. The use of ivermectin was associated with lower mortality during treatment with COVID-19, especially in patients who required increased inspired oxygen or ventilatory support. Additionally, 81 studies with the clinical use of ivermectin in humans are being carried out worldwide according to ClinicalTrials.gov. However, none of these data has been published so far. However, private and public entities in Brazil have been adopting this drug in their protocols as prophylaxis and in the initial phase of the disease. In addition, ivermectin has been used in mass treatment to prevent onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis in sub-Saharan Africa for many years. Surprisingly, this region has the lowest proportional mortality rate among the continents, despite the increasing numbers of infected people released by the World Health Organization.

Does haste make waste? Prevalence and types of errors reported after publication of studies of COVID-19 therapeutics

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic spurred publication of a rapid proliferation of studies on potential therapeutic agents. While important for the advancement of clinical care, pressure to collect, analyze, and report data in an expedited manner could potentially increase the rate of important errors, some of which would be captured in published errata. We hypothesized that COVID-19 therapeutic studies published in the early years of the pandemic would be associated with a high rate of published errata and that, within these errata, there would be a high prevalence of serious errors.

METHODS

We performed a review of published errata associated with empirical studies of COVID-19 treatments. Errata were identified via a MEDLINE and Embase search spanning January 2020 through September 2022. Errors located within each published erratum were characterized by location within publication, error type, and error seriousness.

RESULTS

Of 47 studies on COVID-19 treatments with published errata, 18 met inclusion criteria. Median time from publication of the original article to publication of the associated erratum was 76 days (range, 12-511 days). A majority of errata addressed issues with author attribution or conflict of interest disclosures (39.5%) or numerical results (25.6%). Only one erratum contained a serious error: a typographical error which could have misled readers into believing that the treatment in question had serious adverse effects when in fact it did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite accelerated publication times, we found among studies of COVID-19 treatments the majority of errata (17/18) reported minor errors that did not lead to misinterpretation of the study results. Retractions, an indicator of scientific misdirection even more concerning than errata, were beyond the scope of this review.

Efficacy and Safety of Novel Oral Antivirals in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Objective

Numerous pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of the 2019 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), and the evidence is rapidly evolving. Our aim is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs.

Methods

We searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of novel oral antivirals for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients until November 30, 2022, including baricitinib, ivermectin (IVM), favipiravir (FVP), chloroquine (CQ), lopinavir and ritonavir (LPV/RTV), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (HCQ+AZT). The main outcomes of this network meta-analysis (NMA) were in-hospital mortality, adverse event (AE), recovery time, and improvement in peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2). For dichotomous results, the odds ratio (OR) was used, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was determined. We also used meta-regression to explore whether different treatments affected efficacy and safety. STATA 15.0 was used to conduct the NMA. The research protocol was registered with PROSPERO (#CRD 42023415743).

Results

Thirty-six RCTs, with 33,555 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, were included in this analysis. First, we compared the efficacy of different novel oral antivirals. Baricitinib (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.90) showed the highest probability of being the optimal probiotic species in reducing in-hospital mortality and suggested that none of the interventions reduced AE better than placebo. In terms of safety outcomes, IVM ranked first in improving the recovery time of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (mean difference (MD) -1.36, 95% CI: -2.32 to -0.39). In addition, patients were most likely to increase SpO2 (OR 1.77, 95% CI: 0.09 to 3.45). The meta-regression revealed no significant differences between participants using different novel oral antivirals in all outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

Currently, baricitinib has reduced in-hospital mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with moderate certainty of evidence. IVM appeared to be a safer option than placebo in improving recovery time, while FVP was associated with increased SpO2 safety outcomes. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Accelerating Covid-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-6 Study Group. ACTIV-6: Operationalizing a decentralized, outpatient randomized platform trial to evaluate efficacy of repurposed medicines for COVID-19

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

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

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

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

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

Suppression of NLRP3 inflammasome by ivermectin ameliorates bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis

Ivermectin is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic agent with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. Although recent studies reported the possible anti-inflammatory activity of ivermectin in respiratory injuries, its potential therapeutic effect on pulmonary fibrosis (PF) has not been investigated. This study aimed to explore the ability of ivermectin (0.6 mg/kg) to alleviate bleomycin-induced biochemical derangements and histological changes in an experimental PF rat model. This can provide the means to validate the clinical utility of ivermectin as a treatment option for idiopathic PF. The results showed that ivermectin mitigated the bleomycin-evoked pulmonary injury, as manifested by the reduced infiltration of inflammatory cells, as well as decreased the inflammation and fibrosis scores. Intriguingly, ivermectin decreased collagen fiber deposition and suppressed transforming growth factor-‍β1 (TGF-‍β1) and fibronectin protein expression, highlighting its anti-fibrotic activity. This study revealed for the first time that ivermectin can suppress the nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain (NOD)‍-like receptor family pyrin domain-containing protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome, as manifested by the reduced gene expression of NLRP3 and the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC), with a subsequent decline in the interleukin‍-‍1β (IL‍-‍1β) level. In addition, ivermectin inhibited the expression of intracellular nuclear factor-‍κB (NF‍-‍κB) and hypoxia‑inducible factor‑1α (HIF‍-‍1α) proteins along with lowering the oxidative stress and apoptotic markers. Altogether, this study revealed that ivermectin could ameliorate pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis induced by bleomycin. These beneficial effects were mediated, at least partly, via the downregulation of TGF-‍β1 and fibronectin, as well as the suppression of NLRP3 inflammasome through modulating the expression of HIF‑1α and NF-‍κB.

Drug repositioning in the COVID-19 pandemic: fundamentals, synthetic routes, and overview of clinical studies

INTRODUCTION

Drug repositioning is a strategy to identify a new therapeutic indication for molecules that have been approved for other conditions, aiming to speed up the traditional drug development process and reduce its costs. The high prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) underline the importance of searching for a safe and effective treatment for the disease, and drug repositioning is the most rational strategy to achieve this goal in a short period of time. Another advantage of repositioning is the fact that these compounds already have established synthetic routes, which facilitates their production at the industrial level. However, the hope for treatment cannot allow the indiscriminate use of medicines without a scientific basis.

RESULTS

The main small molecules in clinical trials being studied to be potentially repositioned to treat COVID-19 are chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, favipiravir, colchicine, remdesivir, dexamethasone, nitazoxanide, azithromycin, camostat, methylprednisolone, and baricitinib. In the context of clinical tests, in general, they were carried out under the supervision of large consortiums with a methodology based on and recognized in the scientific community, factors that ensure the reliability of the data collected. From the synthetic perspective, compounds with less structural complexity have more simplified synthetic routes. Stereochemical complexity still represents the major challenge in the preparation of dexamethasone, ivermectin, and azithromycin, for instance.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir and baricitinib were approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Dexamethasone and methylprednisolone should be used with caution. Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, ivermectin, and azithromycin are ineffective for the treatment of the disease, and the other compounds presented uncertain results. Preclinical and clinical studies should not be analyzed alone, and their methodology's accuracy should also be considered. Regulatory agencies are responsible for analyzing the efficacy and safety of a treatment and must be respected as the competent authorities for this decision, avoiding the indiscriminate use of medicines.

Efficacy and safety of single-dose ivermectin in mild-to-moderate COVID-19: the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled CORVETTE-01 trial

Background

To investigate whether ivermectin inhibits SARS-CoV-2 proliferation in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 using time to a negative COVID-19 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.

Methods

CORVETTE-01 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (August 2020-October 2021) conducted in Japan. Overall, 248 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 using RT-PCR were assessed for eligibility. A single oral dose of ivermectin (200  μg/kg) or placebo was administered under fasting. The primary outcome was time to a negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid, assessed using stratified log-rank test and Cox regression models.

Results

Overall, 112 and 109 patients were randomized to ivermectin and placebo, respectively; 106 patients from each group were included in the full analysis set (male [%], mean age: 68.9%, 47.9 years [ivermectin]; 62.3%, 47.5 years [placebo]). No significant difference was observed in the occurrence of negative RT-PCR tests between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.32; p = 0.785). Median (95% CI) time to a negative RT-PCR test was 14.0 (13.0-16.0) and 14.0 (12.0-16.0) days for ivermectin and placebo, respectively; 82.1% and 84% of patients achieved negative RT-PCR tests, respectively.

Conclusion

In patients with COVID-19, single-dose ivermectin was ineffective in decreasing the time to a negative RT-PCR test.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04703205.

Against Authority: The Bioethics of Ivermectin Use for COVID-19 Infection

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought new ethical challenges to both health care professionals and the general public. Among the ethical problems amplified during this period were the making of medical decisions to quickly introduce some drugs into therapeutic practice with unproven or insufficiently proven effects (such as ivermectin), the validity of drug testing, and the allocation of limited resources.

FIELDS OF UNCERTAINTY

The COVID-19 pandemic brought to the attention of the entire scientific world a new problem, which exceeded the guidelines and rules known until then. Out of the desire to quickly solve this medical problem, a series of measures were taken, however not sufficiently validated in scientific terms; the recommendations regarding the use of drugs known for their properties to treat a greater number of conditions, such as ivermectin, was tried.

DATA SOURCES

A narrative review of the specialized literature was carried out using keywords such as COVID-19, ivermectin, ethics, and off-label medication from Scopus and Google Scholar but also of official documents developed at the international level (World Health Organization).

ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

The off-label use of ivermectin alone or in combination with other medications during COVID pandemic raised problems related to the demonstration of its effectiveness, but also to ethics, starting from the expectations that both the medical staff and the population had of it. Ivermectin therapy was also evaluated by analyzing the behavior of ivermectin based on ethical principles (nonmaleficence, beneficence, and respect for one's autonomy) or on justice. Even in times of pandemic, exceptionalism must not triumph, and finding an effective treatment must be done through studies that respect ethical standard.

CONCLUSIONS

The failures or rather lack of success in decision making during the pandemic showed that alongside scientific knowledge and the development of health policies, it is necessary to constantly evaluate the measures and decisions from an ethical point of view, and the prevention of slippages and abuses is not only necessary but even mandatory.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Comparative docking studies of drugs and phytocompounds for emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2

In the last three years, COVID-19 has impacted the world with back-to-back waves leading to devastating consequences. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, was first detected in 2019 and since then has spread to 228 countries. Even though the primary focus of research groups was diverted to fight against COVID-19, yet no dedicated drug has been developed to combat the emergent life-threatening medical conditions. In this study, 35 phytocompounds and 43 drugs were investigated for comparative docking analysis. Molecular docking and virtual screening were performed against SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein of 13 variants using AutoDock Vina tool 1.5.6 and Discovery Studio, respectively, to identify the most efficient drugs. Selection of the most suitable compounds with the best binding affinity was done after screening for toxicity, ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion) properties and drug-likeliness. The potential candidates were discovered to be Liquiritin (binding affinities ranging between -7.0 and -8.1 kcal/mol for the 13 variants) and Apigenin (binding affinities ranging between -6.8 and -7.3 kcal/mol for the 13 variants) based on their toxicity and consistent binding affinity with the Spike protein of all variants. The stability of the protein-ligand complex was determined using Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation of Apigenin with the Delta plus variant of SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, Liquiritin and Apigenin were also found to be less toxic than the presently used drugs and showed promising results based on in silico studies, though, confirmation using in vitro studies is required. This in-depth comparative investigation suggests potential drug candidates to fight against SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13205-022-03450-6.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530 .

Care for adults with COVID ‐19: living guidelines from the National COVID ‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

Introduction

The Australian National COVID‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up‐to‐date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels.

Main recommendations

In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non‐pregnant adults with COVID‐19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID‐19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care.

Changes in management as a result of the guideline

The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID‐19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

Ivermectin: A Controversial Focal Point during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has confirmed the apocalyptic predictions that virologists have been making for several decades. The challenge the world is facing is that of trying to find a possible treatment, and a viable and expedient option for addressing this challenge is the repurposing of drugs. However, in some cases, although these drugs are approved for use in humans, the mechanisms of action involved are unknown. In this sense, to justify its therapeutic application to a new disease, it is ideal, but not necessary, to know the basic mechanisms of action involved in a drug’s biological effects. This review compiled the available information regarding the various effects attributed to Ivermectin. The controversy over its use for the treatment of COVID-19 is demonstrated by this report that considers the proposal unfeasible because the therapeutic doses proposed to achieve this effect cannot be achieved. However, due to the urgent need to find a treatment, an exhaustive and impartial review is necessary in order to integrate the knowledge that exists, to date, of the possible mechanisms through which the treatment may be helpful in defining safe doses and schedules of Ivermectin.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials.

OBJECTIVE

Develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the most recent search conducted on May 31, 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 30 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were done which provided much needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved which we hope future trials can answer.

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.

Repurposing Potential of the Antiparasitic Agent Ivermectin for the Treatment and/or Prophylaxis of COVID-19

Due to the rapid, vast, and emerging global spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many drugs were quickly repurposed in a desperate attempt to unveil a miracle drug. Ivermectin (IVM), an antiparasitic macrocyclic lactone, was tested and confirmed for its in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in early 2020. Along with its potential antiviral activity, the affordability and availability of IVM resulted in a wide public interest. Across the world, trials have put IVM to test for both the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19, as well as its potential role in combination therapy. Additionally, the targeted delivery of IVM was studied in animals and COVID-19 patients. Through this conducted literature review, the potential value and effectiveness of the repurposed antiparasitic agent in the ongoing global emergency were summarized. The reviewed trials suggested a value of IVM as a treatment in mild COVID-19 cases, though the benefit was not extensive. On the other hand, IVM efficacy as a prophylactic agent was more evident and widely reported. In the most recent trials, novel nasal formulations of IVM were explored with the hope of an improved optimized effect.

Microbiome-Based Hypothesis on Ivermectin's Mechanism in COVID-19: Ivermectin Feeds Bifidobacteria to Boost Immunity

Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic agent that has gained attention as a potential COVID-19 therapeutic. It is a compound of the type Avermectin, which is a fermented by-product of Streptomyces avermitilis. Bifidobacterium is a member of the same phylum as Streptomyces spp., suggesting it may have a symbiotic relation with Streptomyces. Decreased Bifidobacterium levels are observed in COVID-19 susceptibility states, including old age, autoimmune disorder, and obesity. We hypothesize that Ivermectin, as a by-product of Streptomyces fermentation, is capable of feeding Bifidobacterium, thereby possibly preventing against COVID-19 susceptibilities. Moreover, Bifidobacterium may be capable of boosting natural immunity, offering more direct COVID-19 protection. These data concord with our study, as well as others, that show Ivermectin protects against COVID-19.

Antiparasitic Drugs against SARS-CoV-2: A Comprehensive Literature Survey

More than two years have passed since the viral outbreak that led to the novel infectious respiratory disease COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Since then, the urgency for effective treatments resulted in unprecedented efforts to develop new vaccines and to accelerate the drug discovery pipeline, mainly through the repurposing of well-known compounds with broad antiviral effects. In particular, antiparasitic drugs historically used against human infections due to protozoa or helminth parasites have entered the main stage as a miracle cure in the fight against SARS-CoV-2. Despite having demonstrated promising anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities in vitro, conflicting results have made their translation into clinical practice more difficult than expected. Since many studies involving antiparasitic drugs are currently under investigation, the window of opportunity might be not closed yet. Here, we will review the (controversial) journey of these old antiparasitic drugs to combat the human infection caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

Efficacy of single-dose and double-dose ivermectin early treatment in preventing progression to hospitalization in mild COVID-19: A multi-arm, parallel-group randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background and objective

Ivermectin is a known anti‐parasitic agent that has been investigated as an antiviral agent against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin in mild COVID‐19 patients.

Methods

In this multi‐arm randomized clinical trial conducted between 9 April 2021 and 20 May 2021, a total of 393 patients with reverse transcription‐PCR‐confirmed COVID‐19 infection and mild symptoms were enrolled. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive single‐dose ivermectin (12 mg), double‐dose ivermectin (24 mg) or placebo. The primary outcome was need for hospitalization.

Results

There was no significant difference in the proportion of subjects who required hospitalization between the placebo and single‐dose ivermectin groups (absolute difference in the proportions: −2.3 [95% CI = −8.5, 4.1]) and between the placebo and double‐dose ivermectin groups (absolute difference in the proportions: −3.9 [95% CI = −9.8, 2.2]). The odds of differences in mean change in severity score between single‐dose ivermectin and placebo groups (OR_difference = 1.005 [95% CI: 0.972, 1.040]; p = 0.762) and double‐dose ivermectin and placebo groups (OR_difference = 1.010 [95% CI: 0.974, 1.046]; p = 0.598) were not statistically significant. None of the six adverse events (including mild dermatitis, tachycardia and hypertension) were serious and required extra action.

Conclusion

Single‐dose and double‐dose ivermectin early treatment were not superior to the placebo in preventing progression to hospitalization and improving clinical course in mild COVID‐19.

We conducted a double‐blinded randomized placebo‐controlled trial including 393 patients with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and found that ivermectin, an anti‐parasitic medication with known antiviral properties, was non‐superior to the placebo. Neither a single nor a double dose was better in preventing progression to hospitalization and worsening of the clinical course of COVID‐19 infection.

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.

Is Ivermectin Effective in Treating COVID-19?

Coronavirus disease 2019 was first discovered in December 2019 and subsequently became a global pandemic with serious political, economic, and social implications worldwide. We urgently need to find drugs that can be effective against COVID-19. Among the many observational studies, ivermectin has attracted the attention of many countries. Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic drug that also has some antiviral effects. We reviewed studies related to ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 over the last 2 years (2019.12–2022.03) via search engines such as PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost. Seven studies showed a lower mortality rate in the ivermectin group than in the control group, six studies found that the ivermectin group had a significantly fewer length of hospitalization than the control group, and eight studies showed better negative RT-PCR responses in the IVM group than in the control group. Our systematic review indicated that ivermectin may be effective for mildly to moderately ill patients. There is no clear evidence or guidelines to recommend ivermectin as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19, so physicians should use it with caution in the absence of better alternatives in the clinical setting, and self-medication is not recommended for patients.

Repurposing Molnupiravir for COVID-19: The Mechanisms of Antiviral Activity

Molnupiravir is a β-d-N4-hydroxycytidine-5'-isopropyl ester (NHC) compound that exerts antiviral activity against various RNA viruses such as influenza, SARS, and Ebola viruses. Thus, the repurposing of Molnupiravir has gained significant attention for combatting infection with SARS-CoV-2, the etiological agent of COVID-19. Recently, Molnupiravir was granted authorization for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults. Findings from in vitro experiments, in vivo studies and clinical trials reveal that Molnupiravir is effective against SARS-CoV-2 by inducing viral RNA mutagenesis, thereby giving rise to mutated complementary RNA strands that generate non-functional viruses. To date, the data collectively suggest that Molnupiravir possesses promising antiviral activity as well as favorable prophylactic efficacy, attributed to its effective mutagenic property of disrupting viral replication. This review discusses the mechanisms of action of Molnupiravir and highlights its clinical utility by disabling SARS-CoV-2 replication, thereby ameliorating COVID-19 severity. Despite relatively few short-term adverse effects thus far, further detailed clinical studies and long-term pharmacovigilance are needed in view of its mutagenic effects.

Non-effectiveness of Ivermectin on Inpatients and Outpatients With COVID-19; Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials

Background

Ivermectin which was widely considered as a potential treatment for COVID-19, showed uncertain clinical benefit in many clinical trials. Performing large-scale clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of this drug in the midst of the pandemic, while difficult, has been urgently needed.

Methods

We performed two large multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 infection. The intervention group received ivermectin, 0.4mg/kg of body weight per day for 3 days. In the control group, placebo tablets were used for 3 days.

Results

Data for 609 inpatients and 549 outpatients were analyzed. In hospitalized patients, complete recovery was significantly higher in the ivermectin group (37%) compared to placebo group (28%; RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.04–1.66]; p-value = 0.02). On the other hand, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the ivermectin group with a mean of 7.98 ± 4.4 days compared to the placebo receiving group with a mean of 7.16 ± 3.2 days (RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.15–1.45]; p-value = 0.02). In outpatients, the mean duration of fever was significantly shorter (2.02 ± 0.11 days) in the ivermectin group versus (2.41 ± 0.13 days) placebo group with p value = 0.020. On the day seventh of treatment, fever (p-value = 0.040), cough (p-value = 0.019), and weakness (p-value = 0.002) were significantly higher in the placebo group compared to the ivermectin group. Among all outpatients, 7% in ivermectin group and 5% in placebo group needed to be hospitalized (RR, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.65–2.84]; p-value = 0.41). Also, the result of RT-PCR on day five after treatment was negative for 26% of patients in the ivermectin group versus 32% in the placebo group (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.60–1.09]; p-value = 0.16).

Conclusion

Our data showed, ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not have a significant potential effect on clinical improvement, reduced admission in ICU, need for invasive ventilation, and death in hospitalized patients; likewise, no evidence was found to support the prescription of ivermectin on recovery, reduced hospitalization and increased negative RT-PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 5 days after treatment in outpatients. Our findings do not support the use of ivermectin to treat mild to severe forms of COVID-19.

Clinical Trial Registration

www.irct.ir IRCT20111224008507N5 and IRCT20111224008507N4.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Ivermectin for the Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19: A Double-Blinded Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

The safety and efficacy of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 are still controversial topics. From August to November 2021, we conducted a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial at Siriraj Hospital, Thailand. Eligible participants were adults ≥ 18 years with suspected COVID-19 who underwent a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test. After enrollment, the participants were randomized to receive either ivermectin (400−600 µg/kg/d) or placebo once daily for 3 days. Among 983 participants, 536 (54.5%) with a negative RT-PCR result were enrolled in the prevention study, and 447 (45.5%) with a positive RT-PCR result were enrolled in the treatment study. In the prevention study, the incidence of COVID-19 on Day 14 was similar between the ivermectin and the placebo group (4.7% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.844; Δ = −0.4%; 95% CI; −4.3−3.5%). In the treatment study, there was no significant difference between the ivermectin and placebo group for any Day 14 treatment outcome: proportion with oxygen desaturation (2.7% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.75), change in WHO score from baseline (1 [−5, 1] vs. 1 [−5, 1]; p = 0.50), and symptom resolution (76% vs. 82.2%; p = 0.13). The ivermectin group had a significantly higher proportion of transient blurred vision (5.6% vs. 0.6%; p < 0.001). Our study failed to demonstrate the efficacy of a 3-day once daily of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. The given regimen of ivermectin should not be used for either prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in populations with a high rate of COVID-19 vaccination.

Immunogenicity and safety of an intradermal ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 boost in a healthy population

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a global pandemic. Two doses of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) have been shown to be insufficient to protect against variants of concern (VOCs), while viral vector vaccines remain protective against the infection. Herein, we conducted a preliminary study to evaluate the safety and immunity in an adult population who received the conventional 2 dosage-regimen of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine; with an additional intradermal ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 reciprocal dosage (1:5). An Intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 booster was also included as a control. Immediate and delayed local reactions were frequently observed in the fractional intradermal boost, but systemic side effects were significantly decreased compared to the conventional intramuscular boost. The anti-RBD-IgG levels, the neutralising function against delta variants, and T cell responses were significantly increased after boosting via both routes. Interestingly, the shorter interval elicited higher immunogenicity compared to the extended interval. Taken together, a reciprocal dosage of intradermal ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 booster reduces systemic adverse reactions and enhances non inferiority humoral and cellular immune responses compared to a full dose of intramuscular boosting. These findings provide for an effective vaccine management during the shortages of vaccine supply.

Management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections with focus on patients with chronic lung diseases (as of 10 January 2022) : Updated statement of the Austrian Society of Pneumology (ASP)

The Austrian Society of Pneumology (ASP) launched a first statement on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in May 2020, at a time when in Austria 285 people had died from this disease and vaccinations were not available. Lockdown and social distancing were the only available measures to prevent more infections and the breakdown of the health system. Meanwhile, in Austria over 13,000 patients have died in association with a SARS-CoV‑2 infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was among the most common causes of death; however, SARS-CoV‑2 has been mutating all the time and currently, most patients have been affected by the delta variant where the vaccination is very effective but the omicron variant is rapidly rising and becoming predominant. Particularly in children and young adults, where the vaccination rate is low, the omicron variant is expected to spread very fast. This poses a particular threat to unvaccinated people who are at elevated risk of severe COVID-19 disease but also to people with an active vaccination. There are few publications that comprehensively addressed the special issues with SARS-CoV‑2 infection in patients with chronic lung diseases. These were the reasons for this updated statement. Pulmonologists care for many patients with an elevated risk of death in case of COVID-19 but also for patients that might be at an elevated risk of vaccination reactions or vaccination failure. In addition, lung function tests, bronchoscopy, respiratory physiotherapy and training therapy may put both patients and health professionals at an increased risk of infection. The working circles of the ASP have provided statements concerning these risks and how to avoid risks for the patients.

Red blood cell-hitchhiking mediated pulmonary delivery of ivermectin: Effects of nanoparticle properties

Recent studies have demonstrated that ivermectin (IVM) exhibits antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative virus of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the repurposing of IVM for the treatment of COVID-19 has presented challenges primarily due to the low IVM plasma concentration after oral administration, which was well below IC₅₀. Here, a red blood cell (RBC)-hitchhiking strategy was used for the targeted delivery of IVM-loaded nanoparticles (NPs) to the lung. IVM-loaded poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) NPs (IVM-PNPs) and chitosan-coating IVM-PNPs (IVM-CSPNPs) were prepared and adsorbed onto RBCs. Both RBC-hitchhiked IVM-PNPs and IVM-CSPNPs could significantly enhance IVM delivery to lungs, improve IVM accumulation in lung tissue, inhibit the inflammatory responses and finally significantly alleviate the progression of acute lung injury. Specifically, the redistribution and circulation effects were related to the properties of NPs. RBC-hitchhiked cationic IVM-CSPNPs showed a longer circulation time, slower accumulation and elimination rates, and higher anti-inflammatory activities than RBC-hitchhiked anionic IVM-PNPs. Therefore, RBC-hitchhiking provides an alternative strategy to improve IVM pharmacokinetics and bioavailability for repurposing of IVM to treat COVID-19. Furthermore, according to different redistribution effects of different NPs, RBC-hitchhiked NPs may achieve various accumulation rates and circulation times for different requirements of drug delivery.

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.

Autophagy Modulators in Coronavirus Diseases: A Double Strike in Viral Burden and Inflammation

Coronaviruses are the etiologic agents of several diseases. Coronaviruses of critical medical importance are characterized by highly inflammatory pathophysiology, involving severe pulmonary impairment and infection of multiple cell types within the body. Here, we discuss the interplay between coronaviruses and autophagy regarding virus life cycle, cell resistance, and inflammation, highlighting distinct mechanisms by which autophagy restrains inflammatory responses, especially those involved in coronavirus pathogenesis. We also address different autophagy modulators available and the rationale for drug repurposing as an attractive adjunctive therapy. We focused on pharmaceuticals being tested in clinical trials with distinct mechanisms but with autophagy as a common target. These autophagy modulators act in cell resistance to virus infection and immunomodulation, providing a double-strike to prevent or treat severe disease development and death from coronaviruses diseases.

Safety and Efficacy of a MEURI Program for the Use of High Dose Ivermectin in COVID-19 Patients

Background

In the absence of antiviral alternatives, interventions under research for COVID-19 might be offered following guidelines from WHO for monitored emergency use of unregistered and experimental interventions (MEURI). Ivermectin is among several drugs explored for its role against SARS-CoV-2, with a well-known safety profile but conflicting data regarding clinical utility for COVID-19. The aim of this report is to inform on the results of a MEURI Program of high-dose ivermectin in COVID-19 carried out by the Ministry of Health of the Province of La Pampa, Argentina.

Methods

COVID-19 subjects, within 5 days of symptoms onset were invited to participate in the program, which consisted in the administration of ivermectin 0.6 mg/kg/day for 5 days plus standard of care. Active pharmacosurveillance was performed for 21 days, and hepatic laboratory assessments were performed in a subset of patients. Frequency of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission and COVID-19-related mortality of subjects in the ivermectin intention to treat group were compared with that observed in inhabitants of the same province during the same period not participating in the program.

Results

From 21,232 subjects with COVID-19, 3,266 were offered and agreed to participate in the ivermectin program and 17,966 did not and were considered as controls. A total of 567 participants reported 819 adverse events (AEs); 3.13% discontinued ivermectin due to adverse events. ICU admission was significantly lower in the ivermectin group compared to controls among participants ≥40 year-old (1.2 vs. 2.0%, odds ratio 0.608; p = 0.024). Similarly, mortality was lower in the ivermectin group in the full group analysis (1.5 vs. 2.1%, odds ratio 0.720; p = 0.029), as well as in subjects ≥ 40 year- old (2.7 vs. 4.1%, odds ratio 0.655; p = 0.005).

Conclusions

This report highlights the safety and possible efficacy of high dose ivermectin as a potentially useful intervention deserving public health-based consideration for COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19 and Chagas Disease in Buenos Aires, Argentina

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. COVID-19 leads, in most patients, to mild-to-moderate symptoms, but some develop severe disease and succumbed to death. People with medical conditions have a higher risk of death than those without them. Chagas disease (CD) can cause cardiac diseases in approximately one-third of affected people. The aim of this study is to find out if there is any clinical association between Chagas disease and COVID-19 severity. This is a cohort study of 29 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and had a diagnosis of chronic Trypanosoma cruzi infection. This coinfected cohort was matched by sex, age, presence of comorbidities, and requirement of hospitalization on intensive care unit (ICU) at admission with a control cohort of patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 without CD in a 3:1 ratio (n = 87). The clinical outcomes evaluated were as follows: days of hospitalization, death, and requirement of ICU and mechanical respiratory assistance (MV). The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics in Research Committee. The Chagas disease/COVID-19 coinfected cohort had a median age of 55 years old (49.0, 66.0); 17 (59%) were male. All patients survived the acute COVID-19. Three of them were admitted to the ICU, and two required MV. Twenty-two (75.8%) required supplemental oxygen. There were no statistical differences in any laboratory parameters between the groups except for lactic acid dehydrogenase, which showed higher levels in the coinfected cohort, with a median of 573 U/L (interquartile range: 486.00, 771.00) vs. 476 U/L (346.00, 641.00) in the control group (p = 0.007). There were no differences in clinical outcomes between both groups. On the cohort with Chagas disease, there were zero deaths, three (10.3%) were admitted in the ICU, and two (6.9%) required MV, while for the control group there were six deaths (6.6%), 13 required ICU (14.9%), and 11 required MV (12.6%), without a statistically significant difference. This small series of coinfected Chagas disease and COVID-19 does not suggest differences in clinical evolution compared to non-Chagas patients. This data is similar to a Brazilian cohort. More data of this population with and without cardiomyopathy is needed to optimize the follow-up and recommendation for the population affected by this neglected tropical disease about COVID-19.

Effectiveness of ivermectin-based multidrug therapy in severely hypoxic, ambulatory COVID-19 patients

Aims: Ivermectin is a safe, inexpensive and effective early COVID-19 treatment validated in 20+ random, controlled trials. Having developed combination therapies for Helicobacter pylori, the authors present a highly effective COVID-19 therapeutic combination, stemming from clinical observations. Patients & methods: In 24 COVID-19 subjects refusing hospitalization with high-risk features, hypoxia and untreated moderate to severe symptoms averaging 9 days, the authors administered this novel combination of ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc and vitamins D and C. Results & conclusions: All subjects resolved symptoms (in 11 days on average), and oxygen saturation improved in 24 h (87.4% to 93.1%; p = 0.001). There were no hospitalizations or deaths, less than (p < 0.002 or 0.05, respectively) background-matched CDC database controls. Triple combination therapy is safe and effective even when used in outpatients with moderate to severe symptoms. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04482686 (ClinicalTrial.gov).

ESCMID COVID-19 living guidelines: drug treatment and clinical management

SCOPE

In January 2021, the ESCMID Executive Committee decided to launch a new initiative to develop ESCMID guidelines on several COVID-19-related issues, including treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the GRADE approach.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A synthesis of the available evidence and recommendations is provided for each of the 15 PICOs, which cover use of hydroxychloroquine, bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab, casirivimab combined with imdevimab, ivermectin, azithromycin and empirical antibiotics, colchicine, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma, favipiravir, remdesivir, tocilizumab and interferon β-1a, as well as the utility of antifungal prophylaxis and enoxaparin. In general, the panel recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, colchicine and interferon β-1a. Conditional recommendations were given for the use of monoclonal antibodies in high-risk outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19, and remdesivir. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of favipiravir and antifungal prophylaxis, and it was recommended that antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in patients with COVID-19 unless bacterial coinfection or secondary infection is suspected or confirmed. Tocilizumab and corticosteroids were recommended for treatment of severe COVID-19 but not in outpatients with non-severe COVID-19.

SCOPE

The aim of the present guidance is to provide evidence-based recommendations for management of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). More specifically, the goal is to aid clinicians managing patients with COVID-19 at various levels of severity including outpatients, hospitalized patients, and those admitted to intensive care unit. Considering the composition of the panel, mostly clinical microbiologists or infectious disease specialists with no pulmonology or intensive care background, we focus only on pharmacological treatment and do not give recommendations on oxygen supplement/support. Similarly, as no paediatricians were included in the panel; the recommendations are only for adult patients with COVID-19. Considering the current literature, no guidance was given for special populations such as the immunocompromised.

Ivermectin in COVID-19 Management: What is the current evidence?

Ivermectin (IVM), an approved anthelminthic drug, has been reported to have antiviral, antibacterial, and anticancer activities. Antiviral activity is due to the inhibition of nuclear cargo importin (IMP) protein. The anti-SARS CoV-2 activity through in vitro study was first reported by an Australian team. Later, many studies were conducted, and most of the study results were available as non-peer reviewed preprints. In this narrative review, literature on the clinical studies conducted with ivermectin from published articles, preprints, and unpublished evidence are collected till 13th June 2021 and they are discussed based on the severity of COVID-19 disease. Out of the 23 peer-reviewed published articles, 13 studies were randomized controlled trials and the remaining were either prospective interventional, prospective observational, retrospective cohort, cross-sectional, or case series type of studies; additionally, there were 10 randomized controlled trials available as preprints. In most of the studies, ivermectin was used in combination with doxycycline, azithromycin or other drugs. Some of the studies suggested either higher dose and/ or increased duration of ivermectin use to achieve favorable effects. In this review, articles on the prophylactic role of ivermectin in COVID-19 are also discussed - wherein the results are more promising. Despite accumulating evidence suggest the possible use of ivermectin, the final call to incorporate ivermectin in the management of COVID-19 is still inconclusive.

High dose ivermectin for the early treatment of COVID-19 (COVER study): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof of concept clinical trial

High concentrations of ivermectin demonstrated antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of high-dose ivermectin in reducing viral load in individuals with early SARS-CoV-2 infection. This was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial. Participants were adults recently diagnosed with asymptomatic/oligosymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Exclusion criteria were: pregnant or lactating women; CNS disease; dialysis; severe medical condition with prognosis <6 months; warfarin treatment; and antiviral/chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine treatment. Participants were assigned (ratio 1:1:1) according to a randomised permuted block procedure to one of the following arms: placebo (arm A); single-dose ivermectin 600 μg/kg plus placebo for 5 days (arm B); and single-dose ivermectin 1200 μg/kg for 5 days (arm C). Primary outcomes were serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) and change in viral load at Day 7. From 31 July 2020 to 26 May 2021, 32 participants were randomised to arm A, 29 to arm B and 32 to arm C. Recruitment was stopped on 10 June because of a dramatic drop in cases. The safety analysis included 89 participants and the change in viral load was calculated in 87 participants. No SADRs were registered. Mean (S.D.) log₁₀ viral load reduction was 2.9 (1.6) in arm C, 2.5 (2.2) in arm B and 2.0 (2.1) in arm A, with no significant differences (P = 0.099 and 0.122 for C vs. A and B vs. A, respectively). High-dose ivermectin was safe but did not show efficacy to reduce viral load.

Intravenous veterinary ivermectin in a COVID-19 patient causing neurotoxicity

Ivermectin administration for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection has gained a lot of attention recently. Although ivermectin has a relatively good safety profile, serious adverse events may occur in patients given doses that are presumed experimental. Ivermectin for human use is available only as an oral formulation. Parenteral administration, as a subcutaneous injection, is possible in veterinary medicine only. In this brief report we describe an unprecedented case of a patient with severe neurotoxicity after intravenous administration of veterinary ivermectin for confirmed COVID-19 infection. The patient required hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU). The toxic serum concentration of ivermectin was determined by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry - time of flight (LC/MS-TOF) with the value of 187.74 ng/mL.

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin became a popular choice for COVID-19 treatment among clinicians and the public following encouraging results from pre-print trials and in vitro studies. Early reviews recommended the use of ivermectin based largely on non-peer-reviewed evidence, which may not be robust. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 based on peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were searched from 1 January 2020 to 1 September 2021 for relevant studies. Outcomes included time to viral clearance, duration of hospitalization, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation and incidence of adverse events. RoB2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. GRADE was used to evaluate quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Three OSs and 14 RCTs were included in the review. Most RCTs were rated as having some concerns in regards to risk of bias, while OSs were mainly rated as having a moderate risk of bias. Based on meta-analysis of RCTs, the use of ivermectin was not associated with reduction in time to viral clearance, duration of hospitalization, incidence of mortality and incidence of mechanical ventilation. Ivermectin did not significantly increase incidence of adverse events. Meta-analysis of OSs agrees with findings from RCT studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low to moderate quality of evidence, ivermectin was not efficacious at managing COVID-19. Its safety profile permits its use in trial settings to further clarify its role in COVID-19 treatment.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021275302).

Bias as a source of inconsistency in ivermectin trials for COVID-19: A systematic review. Ivermectin's suggested benefits are mainly based on potentially biased results

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and to assess inconsistencies in results from individual studies with focus on risk of bias due to methodological limitations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched the L.OVE platform through July 6, 2021 and included randomized trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard or other active treatments. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analysis, assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and performed sensitivity analysis excluding trials with risk of bias.

RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs which enrolled 5592 cases. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low suggesting that ivermectin may result in important benefits. However, after excluding trials classified as "high risk" or "some concerns" in the risk of bias assessment, most estimates of effect changed substantially: Compared to standard of care, low certainty evidence suggests that ivermectin may not reduce mortality (RD 7 fewer per 1000) nor mechanical ventilation (RD 6 more per 1000), and moderate certainty evidence shows that it probably does not increase symptom resolution or improvement (RD 14 more per 1000) nor viral clearance (RD 12 fewer per 1000).

CONCLUSION

Ivermectin may not improve clinically important outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and its effects as a prophylactic intervention in exposed individuals are uncertain. Previous reports concluding important benefits associated with ivermectin are based on potentially biased results reported by studies with substantial methodological limitations. Further research is needed.

Plasma therapy: a passive resistance against the deadliest

Convalescent plasma therapy provides a useful therapeutic tool to treat infectious diseases, especially where no specific therapeutic strategies have been identified. The ongoing pandemic puts back the spotlight on this age-old method as a viable treatment option. In this review, we discuss the usage of this therapy in different diseases including COVID-19, and the possible mechanisms of action. The current review also discusses the progress of therapeutic applications of blood-derivatives, from the simple transfer of immunized animal sera, to the more target-specific intravenous administration of human immunoglobulins from a pool of convalescent individuals, in both infectious and non-infectious diseases of various etiologies.

The antimicrobial and immunomodulatory effects of Ionophores for the treatment of human infection

Ionophores are a diverse class of synthetic and naturally occurring ion transporter compounds which demonstrate both direct and in-direct antimicrobial properties against a broad panel of bacterial, fungal, viral and parasitic pathogens. In addition, ionophores can regulate the host-immune response during communicable and non-communicable disease states. Although the clinical use of ionophores such as Amphotericin B, Bedaquiline and Ivermectin highlight the utility of ionophores in modern medicine, for many other ionophore compounds issues surrounding toxicity, bioavailability or lack of in vivo efficacy studies have hindered clinical development. The antimicrobial and immunomodulating properties of a range of compounds with characteristics of ionophores remain largely unexplored. As such, ionophores remain a latent therapeutic avenue to address both the global burden of antimicrobial resistance, and the unmet clinical need for new antimicrobial therapies. This review will provide an overview of the broad-spectrum antimicrobial and immunomodulatory properties of ionophores, and their potential uses in clinical medicine for combatting infection.