Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

Covid-19 pandemic: What is the truth?

The ongoing “pandemic” involving the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus (SARS-CoV-2) has several characteristics that make it unique in the history of pandemics. This entails not only the draconian measures that some countries and individual states within the United States and initiated and made policy, most of which are without precedent or scientific support, but also the completely unscientific way the infection has been handled. For the 1^st time in medical history, major experts in virology, epidemiology, infectious diseases, and vaccinology have not only been ignored, but are also demonized, marginalized and in some instances, become the victim of legal measures that can only be characterized as totalitarian. Discussions involving various scientific opinions have been eliminated, top scientists have been frightened into silence by threats to their careers, physicians have lost their licenses, and the concept of early treatment has been virtually eliminated. Hundreds of thousands of people have died needlessly as a result of, in my opinion and the opinion of others, poorly designed treatment protocols, mostly stemming from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which have been rigidly enforced among all hospitals. The economic, psychological, and institutional damage caused by these unscientific policies is virtually unmeasurable. Whole generations of young people will suffer irreparable damage, both physical and psychological, possibly forever. The truth must be told.

COVID-19-Associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS): Mechanistic insights on therapeutic intervention and emerging trends

AIMS

The novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused great distress worldwide. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is well familiar but when it happens as part of COVID-19 it has discrete features which are unmanageable. Numerous pharmacological treatments have been evaluated in clinical trials to control the clinical effects of CARDS, but there is no assurance of their effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the Medline, Scopus, Bentham, PubMed, and EMBASE (Elsevier) databases was examined to understand the novel therapeutic approaches used in COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and their outcomes.

KEY FINDINGS

Current therapeutic options may not be enough to manage COVID-19-associated ARDS complications in group of patients and therefore, the current review has discussed the pathophysiological mechanism of COVID-19-associated ARDS, potential pharmacological treatment and the emerging molecular drug targets.

SIGNIFICANCE

The rationale of this review is to talk about the pathophysiology of CARDS, potential pharmacological treatment and the emerging molecular drug targets. Currently accessible treatment focuses on modulating immune responses, rendering antiviral effects, anti-thrombosis or anti-coagulant effects. It is expected that considerable number of studies conducting globally may help to discover effective therapies to decrease mortality and morbidity occurring due to CARDS. Attention should be also given on molecular drug targets that possibly will help to develop efficient cure for COVID-19-associated ARDS.

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Control between Drug Repurposing and Vaccination: A Comprehensive Overview

Respiratory viruses represent a major public health concern, as they are highly mutated, resulting in new strains emerging with high pathogenicity. Currently, the world is suffering from the newly evolving severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This virus is the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a mild-to-severe respiratory tract infection with frequent ability to give rise to fatal pneumonia in humans. The overwhelming outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 continues to unfold all over the world, urging scientists to put an end to this global pandemic through biological and pharmaceutical interventions. Currently, there is no specific treatment option that is capable of COVID-19 pandemic eradication, so several repurposed drugs and newly conditionally approved vaccines are in use and heavily applied to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The emergence of new variants of the virus that partially or totally escape from the immune response elicited by the approved vaccines requires continuous monitoring of the emerging variants to update the content of the developed vaccines or modify them totally to match the new variants. Herein, we discuss the potential therapeutic and prophylactic interventions including repurposed drugs and the newly developed/approved vaccines, highlighting the impact of virus evolution on the immune evasion of the virus from currently licensed vaccines for COVID-19.

Drug repurposing against SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, large in silico screening studies and numerous in vitro studies have assessed the antiviral activity of various drugs on SARS-CoV-2. In the context of health emergency, drug repurposing represents the most relevant strategy because of the reduced time for approval by international medicines agencies, the low cost of development and the well-known toxicity profile of such drugs. Herein, we aim to review drugs with in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, combined with molecular docking data and results from preliminary clinical studies. Finally, when considering all these previous findings, as well as the possibility of oral administration, 11 molecules consisting of nelfinavir, favipiravir, azithromycin, clofoctol, clofazimine, ivermectin, nitazoxanide, amodiaquine, heparin, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, show an interesting antiviral activity that could be exploited as possible drug candidates for COVID-19 treatment.

A hitchhiker's guide through the COVID-19 galaxy

Numerous reviews have summarized the epidemiology, pathophysiology and the various therapeutic aspects of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but a practical guide on "how to treat whom with what and when" based on an understanding of the immunological background of the disease stages remains missing. This review attempts to combine the current knowledge about the immunopathology of COVID-19 with published evidence of available and emerging treatment options. We recognize that the information about COVID-19 and its treatment is rapidly changing, but hope that this guide offers those on the frontline of this pandemic an understanding of the host response in COVID-19 patients and supports their ongoing efforts to select the best treatments tailored to their patient's clinical status.

COVID-19 and the Eye: Ocular Manifestations, Treatment and Protection Measures

The novel pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) leading to health and economic problems worldwide is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although COVID-19 mainly occurs as a lower respiratory tract infection, there is multiorgan involvement in infected patients. The disease is transmitted from person to person through air droplets or contact with contaminated surfaces. SARS-CoV-2 leads to this systemic involvement by attaching to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors located on several human cells. Since SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been found in tears of infected patients, ocular surface may allow the virus to transmit to nasopharynx via the nasolacrimal duct. This narrative review aims to sum up all segmental ocular complications, ocular adverse effects of COVID-19 treatment, and preventive measures suggested to minimize the SARS-CoV-2 transmission between patients and ophthalmologists by reviewing currently available literature.

Emerging and Established Histological Techniques for the Analysis of Thrombosis in COVID-19 Lungs

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the potentially lethal disease that is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Patients with COVID-19 have an increased risk of thrombosis, but the role of thrombosis in the pathogenesis and progression of severe COVID-19 remains unclear. A better understanding of the contribution of thrombosis to the development and progression of COVID-19 could lead to the development of novel COVID-19 treatments. For this reason, established and emerging histological techniques have recently been used to analyze COVID-19 lungs quantitatively and visually and in two and three dimensions. The gold standard and novel state-of the-art histological techniques that have been used to assess thrombosis in COVID-19 lungs are described in this Mini Review.

Potential use of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Currently no treatment has been proven to be efficacious for patients with early symptoms of COVID-19. Although most patients present mild or moderate symptoms, up to 5-10% may have a poor disease progression, so there is an urgent need for effective drugs, which can be administered even before the onset of severe symptoms, i.e. when the course of the disease is modifiable. Recently, promising results of several studies on oral ivermectin have been published, which has prompted us to conduct the present review of the scientific literature.

METHODS

A narrative review has been carried out, focusing on the following four main topics: a) short-term efficacy in the treatment of the disease, b) long-term efficacy in the treatment of patients with post-acute symptoms of COVID-19, c) efficacy in the prophylaxis of the disease, and c) safety of ivermectin.

RESULTS

The reviewed literature suggests that there seems to be sufficient evidence about the safety of oral ivermectin, as well as the efficacy of the drug in the early-treatment and the prophylaxis of COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

In the view of the available evidence, the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) recommends the use of oral ivermectin for both prophylaxis and early-treatment of COVID-19. Further well-designed studies should be conducted in order to explore the efficacy and safety of invermectin at low and high doses, following different dosing schedules, in both, the short and long-term treatment.

Drug-Induced Liver Injury in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review

Introduction: The severity of COVID-19 may be correlated with the risk of liver injury development. An increasing number of studies indicate that degrees of hepatotoxicity has been associated with using some medications in the management of COVID-19 patients. However, limited studies had systematically investigated the evidence of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in COVID-19 patients. Thus, this study aimed to examine DILI in COVID-19 patients. Methods: A systematic search was carried out in PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to December 30, 2020. Search items included "SARS-CoV-2", "Coronavirus," COVID-19, and liver injury. Results: We included 22 related articles. Among included studies, there was five case report, five case series, four randomizes control trial (RCT), seven cohort studies, and one cross-sectional study. The drugs included in this systematic review were remdesivir, favipiravir, tocilizumab, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir. Among included studies, some studies revealed a direct role of drugs, while others couldn't certainly confirm that the liver injury was due to SARS-CoV-2 itself or administration of medications. However, a significant number of studies reported that liver injury could be attributable to drug administration. Discussion: Liver injury in COVID-19 patients could be caused by the virus itself or the administration of some types of drug. Intensive liver function monitoring should be considered for patients, especially patients who are treated with drugs such as remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, and tocilizumab.

Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19

In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honoured the discovery of ivermectin (IVM), a multifaceted drug deployed against some of the world's most devastating tropical diseases. Since March 2020, when IVM was first used against a new global scourge, COVID-19, more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tracked such inpatient and outpatient treatments. Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities, with a mean 31% relative risk of mortality vs. controls. During mass IVM treatments in Peru, excess deaths fell by a mean of 74% over 30 days in its ten states with the most extensive treatments. Reductions in deaths correlated with the extent of IVM distributions in all 25 states with p < 0.002. Sharp reductions in morbidity using IVM were also observed in two animal models, of SARS-CoV-2 and a related betacoronavirus. The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.

Early COVID-19 therapy with azithromycin plus nitazoxanide, ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in outpatient settings significantly improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to known outcomes in untreated patients

In a prospective observational study (pre-AndroCoV Trial), the use of nitazoxanide, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine demonstrated unexpected improvements in COVID-19 outcomes when compared to untreated patients. The apparent yet likely positive results raised ethical concerns on the employment of further full placebo controlled studies in early-stage COVID-19. The present analysis aimed to elucidate, through a comparative analysis with two control groups, whether full placebo-control randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on early-stage COVID-19 are still ethically acceptable. The Active group (AG) consisted of patients enrolled in the Pre-AndroCoV-Trial (n = 585). Control Group 1 (CG1) consisted of a retrospectively obtained group of untreated patients of the same population (n = 137), and Control Group 2 (CG2) resulted from a precise prediction of clinical outcomes based on a thorough and structured review of indexed articles and official statements. Patients were matched for sex, age, comorbidities and disease severity at baseline. Compared to CG1 and CG2, AG showed reduction of 31.5-36.5% in viral shedding (p < 0.0001), 70-85% in disease duration (p < 0.0001), and 100% in respiratory complications, hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, deaths and post-COVID manifestations (p < 0.0001 for all). For every 1000 confirmed cases for COVID-19, at least 70 hospitalizations, 50 mechanical ventilations and five deaths were prevented. Benefits from the combination of early COVID-19 detection and early pharmacological approaches were consistent and overwhelming when compared to untreated groups, which, together with the well-established safety profile of the drug combinations tested in the Pre-AndroCoV Trial, precluded our study from continuing employing full placebo in early COVID-19.

Could Nanotechnology Help to End the Fight Against COVID-19? Review of Current Findings, Challenges and Future Perspectives

A serious viral infectious disease was introduced to the globe by the end of 2019 that was seen primarily from China, but spread worldwide in a few months to be a pandemic. Since then, accurate prevention, early detection, and effective treatment strategies are not yet outlined. There is no approved drug to counter its worldwide transmission. However, integration of nanostructured delivery systems with the current management strategies has promised a pronounced opportunity to tackle the pandemic. This review addressed the various promising nanotechnology-based approaches for the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of the pandemic. The pharmaceutical, pharmacoeconomic, and regulatory aspects of these systems with currently achieved or predicted beneficial outcomes, challenges, and future perspectives are also highlighted.

Ivermectin as a SARS-CoV-2 Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Method in Healthcare Workers: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin is a drug that has been shown to be active against coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) in previous studies. Healthcare personnel are highly exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Therefore, we decided to offer them ivermectin as a pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) method.

PURPOSE

Primary outcome was to measure the number of healthcare workers with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) COVID-19 test in the ivermectin group and in the control group. Secondary outcome was to measure the number of sick healthcare workers with a positive RT-PCR COVID-19 test whose condition deteriorated and required hospitalization and/or an Intensive Care Unit (ICU), or who died, in the ivermectin group and in the control group.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This observational and retrospective cohort study was carried out in two medical centers, Centro Medico Bournigal (CMBO) in Puerto Plata and Centro Medico Punta Cana (CMPC) in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. The study began on June 29, 2020, and ended on July 26, 2020. A Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Propensity Score Matching procedure was applied in a 1:1 ratio to homogeneously evaluate 271 healthcare personnel that adhered to a PrEP program with ivermectin at a weekly oral (PO) dose of 0.2 mg/kg, and 271 healthcare personnel who did not adhere to the program were assigned as a control group.

RESULTS

In 28 days of follow-up, significant protection of ivermectin preventing the infection from SARS-CoV-2 was observed: 1.8% compared to those who did not take it (6.6%; p-value = 0.006), with a risk reduction of 74% (HR 0.26, 95% CI [0.10,0.71]).  Conclusions: These results suggest that compassionate use of weekly ivermectin could be an option as a preventive method in healthcare workers and as an adjunct to immunizations, while further well-designed randomized controlled trials are developed to facilitate scientific consensus.

Combination Treatment With Remdesivir and Ivermectin Exerts Highly Synergistic and Potent Antiviral Activity Against Murine Coronavirus Infection

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgency to develop effective antiviral therapies against the disease. Murine hepatitis virus (MHV) is a coronavirus that infects mice and shares some sequence identity to SARS-CoV-2. Both viruses belong to the Betacoronavirus genus, and MHV thus serves as a useful and safe surrogate model for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Clinical trials have indicated that remdesivir is a potentially promising antiviral drug against COVID-19. Using an in vitro model of MHV infection of RAW264.7 macrophages, the safety and efficacy of monotherapy of remdesivir, chloroquine, ivermectin, and doxycycline were investigated. Of the four drugs tested, remdesivir monotherapy exerted the strongest inhibition of live virus and viral RNA replication of about 2-log10 and 1-log10, respectively (at 6 µM). Ivermectin treatment showed the highest selectivity index. Combination drug therapy was also evaluated using remdesivir (6 µM) together with chloroquine (15 µM), ivermectin (2 µM) or doxycycline (15 µM) - above their IC50 values and at high macrophage cell viability of over 95%. The combination of remdesivir and ivermectin exhibited highly potent synergism by achieving significant reductions of about 7-log10 of live virus and 2.5-log10 of viral RNA in infected macrophages. This combination also resulted in the lowest cytokine levels of IL-6, TNF-α, and leukemia inhibitory factor. The next best synergistic combination was remdesivir with doxycycline, which decreased levels of live virus by ~3-log10 and viral RNA by ~1.5-log10. These results warrant further studies to explore the mechanisms of action of the combination therapy, as well as future in vivo experiments and clinical trials for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), medRxiv, and Research Square, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 26 May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy of Generalized Face Masking Mandates

This commentary discusses if targeted uses of face masks may provide better results than generalized face masks mandates to limit the spread of Covid-19. The study is based on a literature review, as well as the analysis of cases and fatalities of different countries adopting different mask mandates. Before the Covid-19 emergency, the literature was consistently against generalized masking for cold and flu viruses. The latest literature for Covid-19 infection is opposite mostly supportive for generalized masking, even if contrarian works exist. The Covid-19 recommendations are not based on randomized controlled trials of healthy individuals wearing or not masks, differentiating in between closed or open spaces. Countries that did not mandate face masks have not performed worse for the number of cases and fatalities than countries that adopted generalized face masking policies during the Covid-19 emergency. Face masks help against Covid-19 infection but also have downfalls. Their benefits are overestimated, while their risks are underestimated. Masks can block the larger droplets exhaled by an infected wearer, protecting the healthy from viral exposure, but their ability to filter out viruses is variable and generally poor especially in reused cloth masks worn by the public. New surgical masks should be used in crowded spaces especially indoors, preferring distancing without masks outdoor. There are serious unintended consequences from wearing face masks improperly and for too long that must be accounted for. There could be more advantages from targeted rather than generalized uses of only surgical face masks.