Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

Quantifying Public Engagement With Science and Malinformation on COVID-19 Vaccines: Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Medical journals are critical vanguards of research, and previous years have seen increasing public interest in and engagement with medicoscientific findings. How findings propagate and are understood and what harms erroneous claims might cause to public health remain unclear, especially on publicly contentious topics like COVID-19 vaccines. Gauging the engagement of the public with medical science and quantifying propagation patterns of medicoscientific papers are thus important undertakings. In contrast to misinformation and disinformation, which pivot on falsehood, the more nuanced issue of malinformation, where ostensibly true information is presented out of context or selectively curated to cause harm and misconception, has been less researched. As findings and facts can be selectively marshaled to present a misleading picture, it is crucial to consider this issue and its potential ramifications.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to quantify patterns of public engagement with medical research and the vectors of propagation taken by a high-profile incidence of medical malinformation.

METHODS

In this work, we undertook an analysis of all altmetric engagements over a decade for 5 leading general-purpose medical journals, constituting approximately 9.8 million engagements with 84,529 papers. We identify and examine the proliferation of sentiment concerning a high-profile publication containing vaccine-negative malinformation. Engagement with this paper, with the highest altmetric score of any paper in an academic journal ever released, was tracked across media outlets worldwide and in social media users on Twitter (subsequently rebranded as X). Vectoring media sources were analyzed, and manual sentiment analysis on high-engagement Twitter shares of the paper was undertaken, contrasted with users' prior vaccine sentiment.

RESULTS

Results of this analysis suggested that this COVID-19 scientific malinformation was much more likely to be engaged and amplified with negative by vaccine-negative Twitter accounts than neutral ones (odds ratio 58.2, 95% CI 9.7-658.0; P<.001), often alluding to the ostensible prestige of medical journals. Malinformation was frequently invoked by conspiracy theory websites and non-news sources (71/181 citations, 39.2%) on the internet to cast doubt on the efficacy of vaccination, many of whom tended to cite the paper repeatedly (51/181, 28.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest growing public interest in medical science and present evidence that medical and scientific journals need to be aware of not only the potential overt misinformation but also the more insidious impact of malinformation. Also, we discuss how journals and scientific communicators can reduce the influence of malinformation on public understanding.

The impact of ivermectin on COVID-19 outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in approximately seven million deaths globally, underscores the urgency for effective treatments. Ivermectin, among several repurposed drugs, garnered interest due to its antiviral properties. However, conflicting evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials raised questions about its efficacy and safety.

Method

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed MOOSE and PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches were conducted in databases including Scopus, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science up to April 2024. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V3 software.

Results

Across 33 studies encompassing 15,376 participants, ivermectin showed no significant impact on critical outcomes such as mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.911, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.732-1.135], mechanical ventilation (RR 0.727, 95% CI 0.521-1.016), polymerase chain reaction conversion (RR 1.024, 95% CI 0.936-1.120), ICU admissions (RR 0.712, 95% CI 0.274-1.850), or hospitalization rates (RR 0.735, 95% CI 0.464-1.165) compared to controls. However, it significantly reduced time to symptom alleviation (standardized mean difference -0.302, 95% CI -0.587 to -0.018) and sustained symptom relief (RR 0.897, 95% CI 0.873-0.921). Adverse event (AE) rates were similar between the ivermectin and control groups (RR 0.896, 95% CI 0.797-1.007). Meta-regression indicated older age and diabetes as predictors of AEs.

Conclusion

Despite its observed benefits in symptom management, ivermectin did not significantly influence critical clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. These findings highlight the importance of continued research to identify effective treatments for COVID-19, emphasizing the need for high-quality studies with robust methodology to inform clinical practice and public health policy effectively.

Repositioning of Antibiotics in the Treatment of Viral Infections

Drug repurposing, also known as drug repositioning, is a currently tested approach by which new uses are being assigned for already tested drugs. In this case there are antibiotics that are used to combat bacterial infections. However, antibiotics are among the drugs that have been studied for possible antiviral activities. Therefore, the aim of this work is to carry out a review of the studies of antibiotics that could be repositioned for the treatment of viral infections. Among the main antibiotics that have demonstrated antiviral activity are macrolides and glycopeptides. In addition, several antibiotics from the group of tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones, cephalosporins and aminoglycosides have also been studied for their antiviral activity. These antibiotics have demonstrated antiviral activity against both RNA and DNA viruses, including the recent pandemic virus SARS-CoV-2. Some of these antibiotics were selected in addition to its antiviral activity for their immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties. Of the antibiotics that present antiviral activity, in many cases the mechanisms of action are not exactly known. The use of these antibiotics to combat viral infections remains controversial and is not generally accepted, since clinical trials are required to prove its effectiveness. Therefore, there is currently no antibiotic approved as antiviral therapy. Hence is necessary to present the studies carried out on antibiotics that can be repositioned in the future as antiviral drugs.

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.

Impact of vitamin D supplementation on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Vitamin D supplementation for infectious diseases has been discussed, but its role in COVID-19 is unclear. Therefore, this study examined the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia patients who received vitamin D supplementation.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted in a university hospital between July 2020 and March 2022. The inclusion criteria were patients aged ≥ 18 years with COVID-19 pneumonia patients. The patients were randomized into two groups: an intervention group receiving vitamin D supplementation (alfacalcidol, two mcg orally daily) until discharge and a control group. The clinical outcomes were pneumonia treatment duration, length of hospital stay, and change in pneumonia severity index between enrollment and discharge. Subgroup analysis was conducted for supplemental oxygen use, high-dose corticosteroid administration, evidence of lymphopenia, C-reactive protein concentration, and total serum vitamin D concentration. Adverse events were monitored.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-four patients were recruited (147 per group). The two groups did not differ in pneumonia treatment duration to discharge (p = 0.788) or length of hospital stay (p = 0.614). The reduction in the pneumonia severity index between enrollment and discharge was more significant in the intervention group (p = 0.007); a significant decrease was also observed among patients who had C-reactive protein > 30 mg/L (p < 0.001). No adverse reactions were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding active vitamin D to standard treatment may benefit COVID-19 pneumonia patients who require supplemental oxygen or high-dose corticosteroid therapy or who have high C-reactive protein concentrations (> 30 mg/L) upon treatment initiation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20210906005 (retrospectively registered, 6 September 2021).

Ivermectin prescription fill rates among U.S. Military members during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic

This report describes ivermectin prescription fill rates among U.S. active component service members (ACSM) over time during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Information about the unsubstantiated benefits of ivermectin for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) prevention and treatment was widely available online early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Ivermectin prescription fill rates increased among ACSM during periods of Alpha and Delta coronavirus variant predominance, but not during the predominance of the Omicron variant. At the peak of the fill rate curve, in August 2021, rates were higher among men compared to women, older compared to younger age groups, senior officers compared to junior officers, senior enlisted compared to junior enlisted service members, and those with a bachelor's or advanced degree compared to those without a bachelor's degree. Ivermectin prescriptions were more likely to have been filled at a retail pharmacy than at a military hospital or clinic. During the COVID-19 pandemic fill rates for ivermectin prescriptions among ACSM increased, including those without a qualifying diagnosis. Rates peaked in August 2021 but subsequently declined. The decrease in ivermectin fill rates was coincident with vigorous efforts to correct previous misinformation and implement pre-authorization requirements for prescriptions. Research on the impact of unproven online claims about clinical and public health interventions has potential to curtail future unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments.

Use of ivermectin and factors associated with the prevention and/or treatment of COVID-19: a cross-sectional online survey in the province of Chincha, Peru

Background

Peru has reported one of the highest mortality rates from COVID-19 worldwide. The Chincha province has been one of the most affected regions in Peru and the leading promoter of the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the frequency of use and factors associated with the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 in Chincha.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted during the second wave of COVID-19 in Peru. For statistical analyses, frequencies and percentages were reported. Prevalence ratios (PR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), and a p-value of 0.05 were used to determine statistical significance. SPSS version 22 (IBM Corp) program was used for the analyses.

Results

A total of 432 participants were included in the study. A total of 67.6% (n = 292) of the participants used ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these, 20.20% (n=59) of the people used ivermectin for prophylactic purposes only, while 41.79% (n=122) used it as treatment for COVID-19 only, and 38.01% (n=111) used it for both reasons. The consumption of ivermectin was associated with being 50 years or older (PR:1.27, 95% CI:1.04-1.54), having a technical education level (PR:1.16, 95% CI:1.01-1.34), having had symptoms of COVID-19 with negative/no diagnosis (PR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07-1.53) or positive diagnosis (PR:1.38, 95% CI:1.18-1.61), or having had contact with infected people (PR:1.45, 95% CI:1.06-1.98).

Conclusions

Most people in Chincha used ivermectin during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The main factors associated with the use of ivermectin for the prevention/treatment of COVID-19 were age ≥50 years, having a technical education level, having had symptoms with negative/no diagnosis or positive diagnosis, and contact with people infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Ivermectin as a potential therapeutic strategy for glioma

Ivermectin (IVM), a semi-synthetic macrolide parasiticide, has demonstrated considerable effectiveness in combating internal and external parasites, particularly nematodes and arthropods. Its remarkable ability to control parasites has earned it significant recognition, culminating in Satoshi Omura and William C. Campbell's receipt of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their contributions to the development of IVM. In recent years, investigations have revealed that IVM possesses antitumor properties. It can suppress the growth of various cancer cells, including glioma, through a multitude of mechanisms such as selective targeting of tumor-specific proteins, inducing programmed cell death, and modulation of tumor-related signaling pathways. Hence, IVM holds tremendous potential as a novel anticancer drug. This review seeks to provide an overview of the underlying mechanisms that enable IVM's capacity to suppress glioma. Furthermore, it aims to elucidate the challenges and prospects associated with utilizing IVM as a new anticancer agent.

Erythromycin, retapamulin, pyridoxine, folic acid, and ivermectin inhibit cytopathic effect, papain-like protease, and MPRO enzymes of SARS-CoV-2

Background

Although tremendous success has been achieved in the development and deployment of effective COVID-19 vaccines, developing effective therapeutics for the treatment of those who do come down with the disease has been with limited success. To repurpose existing drugs for COVID-19, we previously showed, qualitatively, that erythromycin, retapamulin, pyridoxine, folic acid, and ivermectin inhibit SARS-COV-2-induced cytopathic effect (CPE) in Vero cells.

Aim

This study aimed to quantitatively explore the inhibition of SARS-CoV-2-induced CPE by erythromycin, retapamulin, pyridoxine, folic acid, and ivermectin and to determine the effect of these drugs on SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease and 3CL protease (MPRO) enzymes.

Methods

Neutral red (3-amino-7-dimethylamino-2-methyl-phenazine hydrochloride) cell viability assay was used to quantify CPE after infecting pre-treated Vero cells with clinical SARS-Cov-2 isolates. Furthermore, SensoLyte® 520 SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease and SensoLyte® 520 SARS-CoV-2 MPRO activity assay kits were used to evaluate the inhibitory activity of the drugs on the respective enzymes.

Results

Erythromycin, retapamulin, pyridoxine, folic acid, and ivermectin dose-dependently inhibit SARS-CoV-2-induced CPE in Vero cells, with inhibitory concentration-50 (IC50) values of 3.27 µM, 4.23 µM, 9.29 µM, 3.19 µM, and 84.31 µM, respectively. Furthermore, erythromycin, retapamulin, pyridoxine, folic acid, and ivermectin dose-dependently inhibited SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease with IC50 values of 0.94 µM, 0.88 µM, 1.14 µM, 1.07 µM, and 1.51 µM, respectively, and inhibited the main protease (MPRO) with IC50 values of 1.35 µM, 1.25 µM, 7.36 µM, 1.15 µM, and 2.44 µM, respectively.

Conclusion

The IC50 for all the drugs, except ivermectin, was at the clinically achievable plasma concentration in humans, which supports a possible role for the drugs in the management of COVID-19. The lack of inhibition of CPE by ivermectin at clinical concentrations could be part of the explanation for its lack of effectiveness in clinical trials.

Implementation and Outcomes of an Empiric Ivermectin Strongyloides Treatment Protocol for Patients Receiving High-Dose Corticosteroids for Severe COVID-19

Strongyloides stercoralis is a parasitic roundworm that is present worldwide and can cause lifelong, often asymptomatic, infection. Immunosuppression, particularly by corticosteroids, is a risk factor for hyperinfection syndrome and disseminated strongyloidiasis-severe disease states that can lead to septic shock and death. Our institution implemented a strongyloidiasis screening and empiric ivermectin treatment protocol for inpatients receiving high-dose corticosteroids for severe COVID-19. Among 487 COVID-19 admissions treated with high-dose corticosteroids from June 10, 2020 to March 31, 2021, 61% of those with demographics at risk for Strongyloides exposure were screened for Strongyloides and treated empirically with ivermectin. Adherence to the protocol declined over time during the study period. The empiric ivermectin protocol appeared safe, but more research is needed to determine the effect on hyperinfection and/or disseminated strongyloidiasis risk and mortality rate, as well as to improve institutional adherence to the protocol.

Staying Ahead of the Game: How SARS-CoV-2 has Accelerated the Application of Machine Learning in Pandemic Management

In recent years, machine learning (ML) techniques have garnered considerable interest for their potential use in accelerating the rate of drug discovery. With the emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, the utilization of ML has become even more crucial in the search for effective antiviral medications. The pandemic has presented the scientific community with a unique challenge, and the rapid identification of potential treatments has become an urgent priority. Researchers have been able to accelerate the process of identifying drug candidates, repurposing existing drugs, and designing new compounds with desirable properties using machine learning in drug discovery. To train predictive models, ML techniques in drug discovery rely on the analysis of large datasets, including both experimental and clinical data. These models can be used to predict the biological activities, potential side effects, and interactions with specific target proteins of drug candidates. This strategy has proven to be an effective method for identifying potential coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other disease treatments. This paper offers a thorough analysis of the various ML techniques implemented to combat COVID-19, including supervised and unsupervised learning, deep learning, and natural language processing. The paper discusses the impact of these techniques on pandemic drug development, including the identification of potential treatments, the understanding of the disease mechanism, and the creation of effective and safe therapeutics. The lessons learned can be applied to future outbreaks and drug discovery initiatives.

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

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

Inhibition of SARS-CoV2 viral infection with natural antiviral plants constituents: An in-silico approach

Background and Objective

In 2019, a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) was declared pandemic. Advancement in computational technology has provided rapid and cost-effective techniques to test the efficacy of newer therapeutic agents. This study evaluated some of the potent phytochemicals obtained from AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa, and Homeopathy)-listed medicinal plants against SARS-CoV-2 proteins using computational techniques.

Materials and methods

The potential SARS-CoV-2 protein targets were utilized to study the ligand-protein binding characteristics. The bioactive agents were obtained from ashwagandha, liquorice, amla, neem, tinospora, pepper, and stevia. Ivermectin was utilized as a reference agent to compare its efficacy with phytochemicals.

Results

The computational analysis suggested that all the bioactive components from the selected plants possessed negative docking scores (ranging from -6.24 to -10.53). The phytoconstituents were well absorbed, distributed in the body except for the CNS, metabolized by liver enzymes, well cleared from the body, and well tolerated. The data suggest that AYUSH-recommended plants demonstrated therapeutic efficacy against SARS CoV-2 virus infection with significantly reduced toxicity.

Conclusion

The phytoconstituents were found to hinder the early stages of infection, such as absorption and penetration, while ivermectin prevented the passage of genetic material from the cytoplasm to the nucleus. Additional research involving living tissues and clinical trials are suggested to corroborate the computational findings.

Liver Injury Associated with COVID-19 Infection: Pathogenesis, Histopathology, Prognosis, and Treatment

Liver injury occurs frequently as a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Direct infection of the liver leads to hepatic impairment with elevated transaminases. In addition, severe COVID-19 is characterized by cytokine release syndrome, which may initiate or exacerbate liver injury. In patients with cirrhosis, SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with acute-on-chronic liver failure. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is one of the world's regions characterized by a high prevalence of chronic liver diseases. Both parenchymal and vascular types of injury contribute to liver failure in COVID-19, with a myriad of pro-inflammatory cytokines playing a major role in perpetuating liver injury. Additionally, hypoxia and coagulopathy complicate such a condition. This review discusses the risk factors, and the underlying causes of impaired liver functions in COVID-19, with a focus on key players in the pathogenesis of liver injury. It also highlights the histopathological changes encountered in postmortem liver tissues as well as potential predictors and prognostic factors of such injury, in addition to the management strategies to ameliorate liver damage.

The Interplay among Glucocorticoid Therapy, Platelet-Activating Factor and Endocannabinoid Release Influences the Inflammatory Response to COVID-19

COVID-19 is associated with a dysregulated immune response. Currently, several medicines are licensed for the treatment of this disease. Due to their significant role in inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokines and lipid mediators, glucocorticoids (GCs) have attracted a great deal of attention. Similarly, the endocannabinoid (eCB) system regulates various physiological processes including the immunological response. Additionally, during inflammatory and thrombotic processes, phospholipids from cell membranes are cleaved to produce platelet-activating factor (PAF), another lipid mediator. Nonetheless, the effect of GCs on this lipid pathway during COVID-19 therapy is still unknown. This is a cross-sectional study involving COVID-19 patients (n = 200) and healthy controls (n = 35). Target tandem mass spectrometry of plasma lipid mediators demonstrated that COVID-19 severity affected eCBs and PAF synthesis. This increased synthesis of eCB was adversely linked with systemic inflammatory markers IL-6 and sTREM-1 levels and neutrophil counts. The use of GCs altered these lipid pathways by reducing PAF and increasing 2-AG production. Corroborating this, transcriptome analysis of GC-treated patients blood leukocytes showed differential modulation of monoacylglycerol lipase and phospholipase A2 gene expression. Altogether, these findings offer a breakthrough in our understanding of COVID-19 pathophysiology, indicating that GCs may promote additional protective pharmacological effects by influencing the eCB and PAF pathways involved in the disease course.

Dispensing of Ivermectin From Veterans Administration Pharmacies During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This cohort study compares changes in ivermectin dispensing during the COVID-19 pandemic between the Veterans Administration (VA) and retail pharmacy settings and examines the association of the VA national formulary restriction with ivermectin dispensing.

Do selected lifestyle parameters affect the severity and symptoms of COVID-19 among elderly patients? The retrospective evaluation of individuals from the STOP-COVID registry of the PoLoCOV study

BACKGROUND

Older individuals tend to include less physical activity in their routine and are more prone to chronic diseases and severe medical complications, making them the most burdened group that is losing years of life due to pandemic-related premature mortality. This research aimed to assess the lifestyle factors that affect the COVID-19 course among patients ≥ 65 years old.

METHODS

The study included 568 convalescents (64.1% women and 35.9% men) with persistent clinical symptoms after isolation. The mean age was 70.41 ± 4.64 years (minimum: 65 years; maximum: 89 years). The patients completed the questionnaire during their in-person visit to the medical center. The survey included questions regarding their health status when suffering from COVID-19, basic sociodemographic data, and medical history concerning chronic conditions and lifestyle.

RESULTS

Physical inactivity (p < 0.001) and feeling nervous (p = 0.026) increased the risk of having a severe disease course. Coronary artery disease raised both the risk of a severe disease course (p = 0.002) and the number of present symptoms up to 4 weeks (p = 0.039). Sleep disturbances increased the number of symptoms during infection (p = 0.001). The occurrence of any symptoms was also associated with the female sex (p = 0.004). The severity of the course was associated with longer persistent symptoms (p < 0.001) and a greater number of symptoms (p = 0.004); those with a more severe course were also at a greater risk of persistent symptoms for up to 4 weeks (p = 0.006). Senior citizens in the third pandemic wave suffered with more severe disease (p = 0.004), while illness during the fourth (p = 0.001) and fifth (p < 0.001) waves was associated with a lower risk of persistent symptoms for up to 4 weeks. The disease duration was significantly shorter among vaccinated patients (p = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly COVID-19 patients should re-think their lifestyle habits to consider a physical activity level that is adjusted to their abilities, in order to decrease the risk of a severe disease course and to further limit both the number and duration of symptoms. The research was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approval from the Bioethics Committee of Lodz Regional Medical Chamber to conduct the study was obtained (approval number 0115/2021). The PoLoCOV-Study ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT05018052.

Ivermectin compared with placebo in the clinical course in Mexican patients with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the development and application of vaccines against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) around the world, the scientific community is still trying to find some therapies to avoid or ameliorate the fatal evolution of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since the publication of the potential use of ivermectin as a treatment against the disease, a pleiad of information about it has been published. However, the evidence is not strong or weak enough to conclude its usefulness in the clinical evolution of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. We evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in the treatment of Mexican patients with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 in a three-day administration in comparison to placebo.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was carried out in 66 adults with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 ratio to ivermectin plus acetaminophen or placebo plus acetaminophen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects without a disease progression to severity according to COVID-19 guidelines by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) since randomization to 14 days.

RESULTS

None of the participants presented progression to a severe state in either group. Viral load was measured on Days 1, 5, and 14. No significant differences were observed in baseline or 14-day between groups (p = 0.720 and 0.362, respectively). However, on Day 5, a significant difference in viral load was observed between groups (p = 0.039). The frequency of symptoms was similar between groups, and no significant differences were observed. The most frequent symptom was cough. One severe adverse event associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in the ivermectin group.

CONCLUSIONS

At standard doses, ivermectin is not effective to prevent progression to a severe state or reducing symptoms in adults with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19. Trial registration The study was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04407507) on May 29, 2020.

A Comprehensive Review on the Efficacy of Several Pharmacologic Agents for the Treatment of COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and the cause of the pandemic is extremely contagious among people and has spread around the world. Antivirals, immunomodulators, and other medications, such as antibiotics, stem cells, and plasma therapy, have all been utilized in the treatment of COVID-19. To better understand the clinical efficacy of these agents and to aid in the selection of effective COVID-19 therapies in various countries, this study reviewed the effectiveness of the various pharmacologic agents that have been used for COVID-19 therapy globally by summarizing the clinical outcomes that have been obtained from the clinical trials published on each drug related to COVID-19 infection. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the use of remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir, baricitinib, tixagevimab-cilgavimab, and bebtelovimab for the management of COVID-19. On the other hand, most research advises against using chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients because they are not beneficial. Although the FDA has given emergency use authorization for some monoclonal antibodies, including bamlanivimab, etesevimab, casirivimab, and imdevimab for managing COVID-19, they are not currently approved for use because the Omicron variant has significantly reduced their in vitro susceptibility. In this study, we also included a wide range of alternative therapy strategies that effectively treat COVID-19 patients, although further randomized studies are necessary to support and assess their applicability.

Systematic Down-Selection of Repurposed Drug Candidates for COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic which has claimed more than 6.5 million lives worldwide, devastating the economy and overwhelming healthcare systems globally. The development of new drug molecules and vaccines has played a critical role in managing the pandemic; however, new variants of concern still pose a significant threat as the current vaccines cannot prevent all infections. This situation calls for the collaboration of biomedical scientists and healthcare workers across the world. Repurposing approved drugs is an effective way of fast-tracking new treatments for recently emerged diseases. To this end, we have assembled and curated a database consisting of 7817 compounds from the Compounds Australia Open Drug collection. We developed a set of eight filters based on indicators of efficacy and safety that were applied sequentially to down-select drugs that showed promise for drug repurposing efforts against SARS-CoV-2. Considerable effort was made to evaluate approximately 14,000 assay data points for SARS-CoV-2 FDA/TGA-approved drugs and provide an average activity score for 3539 compounds. The filtering process identified 12 FDA-approved molecules with established safety profiles that have plausible mechanisms for treating COVID-19 disease. The methodology developed in our study provides a template for prioritising drug candidates that can be repurposed for the safe, efficacious, and cost-effective treatment of COVID-19, long COVID, or any other future disease. We present our database in an easy-to-use interactive interface (CoviRx that was also developed to enable the scientific community to access to the data of over 7000 potential drugs and to implement alternative prioritisation and down-selection strategies.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022.  This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other 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. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers.  We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance.  Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient.  The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.

Understanding the widespread use of veterinary ivermectin for Chagas disease, underlying factors and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic: a convergent mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

Veterinary ivermectin (vet-IVM) has been used widely in Latin America against COVID-19, despite the lack of scientific evidence and potential risks. Widespread vet-IVM intake was also discovered against Chagas disease during a study in Bolivia prior to the pandemic. All vet-IVM-related data were extracted to understand this phenomenon, its extent and underlying factors and to discuss potential implications for the current pandemic.

DESIGN

A convergent mixed-methods study design including a survey, qualitative in-depth interviews (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGD).

SETTING

A cross-sectional study conducted in 2018 covering the geographic area of Monteagudo, an endemic municipality for Chagas disease.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 669 adult household representatives from 26 communities participated in the survey, supplemented by 14 IDI and 2 FGD among patients, relatives and key informants.

RESULTS

9 IDI and 2 FGD contained narratives on vet-IVM use against Chagas disease. Five main themes emerged: (1) the extent of the vet-IVM phenomenon, (2) the perception of vet-IVM as a treatment for Chagas disease, (3) the vet-IVM market and the controversial role of stakeholders, (4) concerns about potential adverse events and (5) underlying factors of vet-IVM use against Chagas disease.In quantitative analysis, 28% of participants seropositive for Chagas disease had taken vet-IVM. Factors associated with multivariate analysis were advanced age (OR 17.01, 95 CI 1.24 to 36.55, p=0.027 for age above 60 years), the experience of someone close as information source (OR 3.13, 95 CI 1.62 to 5.02, p<0.001), seropositivity for Chagas disease (OR 3.89, 95 CI 1.39 to 6.20, p=0.005) and citing the unavailability of benznidazole as perceived healthcare barrier (OR 2.3, 95 CI 1.45 to 5.18, p=0.002). Participants with an academic education were less likely to report vet-IVM intake (OR 0.12, 95 CI 0.01 to 0.78, p=0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Social determinants of health, the unavailability of treatment and a wonder drug image might contribute to the phenomenon of vet-IVM.

Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a variety of anxiety disorders; it is available as an oral preparation. Fluvoxamine has not been approved for the treatment of infections, but has been used in the early treatment of people with mild to moderate COVID-19. As there are only a few effective therapies for people with COVID-19 in the community, a thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an anti-inflammatory and possible anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in addition to standard care, compared to standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies up to 1 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared fluvoxamine in addition to standard care (also including no intervention), with standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy in clinical trials for the treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, in both inpatients and outpatients. Co-interventions needed to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence to treat people with asymptomatic to severe COVID-19 for the primary outcomes including mortality, clinical deterioration, clinical improvement, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events of any grade, and suicide or suicide attempt.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two completed studies with a total of 1649 symptomatic participants. One study was conducted in the USA (study with 152 participants, 80 and 72 participants per study arm) and the other study in Brazil (study with 1497 high-risk participants for progression to severe disease, 741 and 756 participants per study arm) among outpatients with mild COVID-19. Both studies were double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in which participants were prescribed 100 mg fluvoxamine two or three times daily for a maximum of 15 days. We identified five ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification (due to translation issues, and due to missing published data). We found no published studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions of proven efficacy. We assessed both included studies to have an overall high risk of bias. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in inpatients We did not identify any completed studies of inpatients. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients Fluvoxamine in addition to standard care may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; risk difference (RD) 9 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce clinical deterioration defined as all-cause hospital admission or death before hospital admission (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.89; RD 57 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; RD 54 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events of any grade (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37; RD 7 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies reported on symptom resolution (clinical improvement), quality of life or suicide/suicide attempt.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on a low-certainty evidence, fluvoxamine may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28, and may reduce the risk of admission to hospital or death in outpatients with mild COVID-19. However, we are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events, or any adverse events. In accordance with the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials as they arise, to complete any gaps in the evidence.

Artificial Intelligence in Biological Sciences

Artificial intelligence (AI), currently a cutting-edge concept, has the potential to improve the quality of life of human beings. The fields of AI and biological research are becoming more intertwined, and methods for extracting and applying the information stored in live organisms are constantly being refined. As the field of AI matures with more trained algorithms, the potential of its application in epidemiology, the study of host–pathogen interactions and drug designing widens. AI is now being applied in several fields of drug discovery, customized medicine, gene editing, radiography, image processing and medication management. More precise diagnosis and cost-effective treatment will be possible in the near future due to the application of AI-based technologies. In the field of agriculture, farmers have reduced waste, increased output and decreased the amount of time it takes to bring their goods to market due to the application of advanced AI-based approaches. Moreover, with the use of AI through machine learning (ML) and deep-learning-based smart programs, one can modify the metabolic pathways of living systems to obtain the best possible outputs with the minimal inputs. Such efforts can improve the industrial strains of microbial species to maximize the yield in the bio-based industrial setup. This article summarizes the potentials of AI and their application to several fields of biology, such as medicine, agriculture, and bio-based industry.

Tinnitus emerging in the context of a COVID-19 infection seems not to differ in its characteristics from tinnitus unrelated to COVID-19

Background and aim

COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, for which the first cases were reported in China, by December 2019. The spectrum of clinical presentations is wide, ranging from asymptomatic cases to a severe acute respiratory syndrome, sometimes with multiple systems involvement. Viral infections, including those related to respiratory virus, may cause hearing loss and, by extent, considering its pathophysiology, tinnitus. A systematic review on inner ear related symptoms in patients with COVID-19 reported 4.5% occurrence rate of tinnitus, with high variance of prevalence between the studies. Our aim is to further explore the relationship between COVID-19 and tinnitus. For this purpose we analyzed a sample of people who had suffered from a COVID-19 infection in the city of Volta Redonda, Brazil. In detail, we compared those with new onset tinnitus during or after the COVID-19 infection with those without tinnitus and those with tinnitus onset before the COVID-19 infection.

Methods

Fifty-seven patients over 18 years old and previously diagnosed with COVID-19 confirmed by a RT-PCR test were included. Patients were subdivided in three groups: no tinnitus (NT), tinnitus that already existed before COVID-19 (chronic tinnitus, CT) and tinnitus that arose during or after COVID-19 (post-COVID-19 tinnitus, PCT). Data concerning COVID-19 symptoms, drugs prescribed for COVID-19, tinnitus characteristics, comorbidities and other otological symptoms were collected. For all the patients, tonal audiometry and otoacoustic emissions were performed. Tinnitus patients fulfilled the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and visual-analog scales (VAS) for loudness and distress. Patients with CT answered a simple question about the worsening of their tinnitus after COVID-19.

Results

PCT was reported by 19.3% of the patients, while 22.8% reported CT. No statistical difference was found between CT and PCT concerning hearing function, tinnitus characteristics and tinnitus distress. There was also no statistically significant difference between PCT and NT with respect to COVID-19 symptoms and pharmacological COVID-19 treatment. Patients with CT reported worsening of their tinnitus after COVID-19.

Conclusion

As with other viral infections, inner ear symptoms may be associated with COVID-19. In our sample patients with tinnitus onset before COVID-19 and those with tinnitus onset during or after COVID-19 did not differ significantly in their clinical characteristics and their hearing function, suggesting that tinnitus occurring in the context of a COVID-19 infection is not related to a unique pathophysiological mechanism. The comparison of COVID-19 patients, who developed tinnitus with those who did not develop tinnitus did not reveal any differences in COVID-19 symptoms or COVID-19 treatment. Thus, there was no hint, that a specific expression of COVID-19 is closely related to post COVID-19 tinnitus onset. Although some drugs used to treat tinnitus are known to damage the inner ear cells (especially hydroxychloroquine), we did not see any relationship between the intake of these drugs and tinnitus onset, eventually due to the short prescription time and low doses. Among those patients who had tinnitus before COVID-19 30,8% reported worsening after COVID-19. Overall, tinnitus emerging in the context of a COVID-19 infection seems not to differ from tinnitus unrelated to COVID-19. For further exploring the relationship of tinnitus and COVID-19, large population based studies are warranted.

Informing healthcare operations with integrated pathology, clinical, and epidemiology data: Lessons from a single institution in Kenya during COVID-19 waves

Pathology, clinical care teams, and public health experts often operate in silos. We hypothesized that large data sets from laboratories when integrated with other healthcare data can provide evidence that can be used to optimize planning for healthcare needs, often driven by health-seeking or delivery behavior. From the hospital information system, we extracted raw data from tests performed from 2019 to 2021, prescription drug usage, and admission patterns from pharmacy and nursing departments during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya (March 2020 to December 2021). Proportions and rates were calculated. Regression models were created, and a t-test for differences between means was applied for monthly or yearly clustered data compared to pre-COVID-19 data. Tests for malaria parasite, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, rifampicin resistance, blood group, blood count, and histology showed a statistically significant decrease in 2020, followed by a partial recovery in 2021. This pattern was attributed to restrictions implemented to control the spread of COVID-19. On the contrary, D-dimer, fibrinogen, CRP, and HbA1c showed a statistically significant increase (p-value <0.001). This pattern was attributed to increased utilization related to the clinical management of COVID-19. Prescription drug utilization revealed a non-linear relationship to the COVID-19 positivity rate. The results from this study reveal the expected scenario in the event of similar outbreaks. They also reveal the need for increased efforts at diabetes and cancer screening, follow-up of HIV, and tuberculosis patients. To realize a broader healthcare impact, pathology departments in Africa should invest in integrated data analytics, for non-communicable diseases as well.

Perspective: repurposed drugs for COVID-19

Introduction

The article aims to emphasize the necessity of proper research design, both scientifically and ethically, in order to provide good evidence for physicians to base their decisions on when prescribing drug treatment.

Methods

Research articles and guidelines related to therapy of COVID-19 were searched from the PubMed database.

Results

Only remdesivir and tocilizumab are medicines that have been approved by the US FDA's decision to approve their clinical use in moderate and severe COVID-19.

Conclusions

Favipiravir, ivermectin and andrographolide need further well-conducted research to confirm the efficacy and safety against COVID-19 at different stages.

Superlatives, clickbaits, appeals to authority, poor grammar, or boldface: Is editorial style related to the credibility of online health messages?

Adolescents, as active online searchers, have easy access to health information. Much health information they encounter online is of poor quality and even contains potentially harmful health information. The ability to identify the quality of health messages disseminated via online technologies is needed in terms of health attitudes and behaviors. This study aims to understand how different ways of editing health-related messages affect their credibility among adolescents and what impact this may have on the content or format of health information. The sample consisted of 300 secondary school students (M_age = 17.26; SD_age = 1.04; 66.3% female). To examine the effects of manipulating editorial elements, we used seven short messages about the health-promoting effects of different fruits and vegetables. Participants were then asked to rate the message’s trustworthiness with a single question. We calculated second-order variable sensitivity as the derivative of the trustworthiness of a fake message from the trustworthiness of a true neutral message. We also controlled for participants’ scientific reasoning, cognitive reflection, and media literacy. Adolescents were able to distinguish overtly fake health messages from true health messages. True messages with and without editorial elements were perceived as equally trustworthy, except for news with clickbait headlines, which were less trustworthy than other true messages. The results were also the same when scientific reasoning, analytical reasoning, and media literacy were considered. Adolescents should be well trained to recognize online health messages with editorial elements characteristic of low-quality content. They should also be trained on how to evaluate these messages.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Trial registration

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

Supplementary Information

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

Honey as an Adjuvant in the Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Review

Since ancestor times, honey has been used to promote human health due to its medicinal, and nutritious properties, mainly due to bioactive compounds present, such as phenolic compounds. The emergence of COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, led to the pursuit of solutions for the treatment of symptoms and/or disease. Honey has proven to be effective against viral infections, principally due to its potential antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities that attenuate oxidative damage induced by pathogens, and by improving the immune system. Therefore, the aim of this review is to overview the abilities of honey to attenuate different COVID-19 symptoms, highlighting the mechanisms associated with these actions and relating the with the different bioactive compounds present. A brief, detailed approach to SARS-CoV-2 mechanism of action is first overviewed to allow readers a deep understanding. Additionally, the compounds and beneficial properties of honey, and its previously application in other similar diseases, are detailed in depth. Despite the already reported efficacy of honey against different viruses and their complications, further studies are urgently needed to explain the molecular mechanisms of activity against COVID-19 and, most importantly, clinical trials enrolling COVID-19 patients.

Long COVID and its Management

The pandemic of COVID-19 is the biggest public health crisis in 21st Century. Besides the acute symptoms after infection, patients and society are also being challenged by the long-term health complications associated with COVID-19, commonly known as long COVID. While health professionals work hard to find proper treatments, large amount of knowledge has been accumulated in recent years. In order to deal with long COVID efficiently, it is important for people to keep up with current progresses and take proactive actions on long COVID. For this purpose, this review will first introduce the general background of long COVID, and then discuss its risk factors, diagnostic indicators and management strategies. This review will serve as a useful resource for people to understand and prepare for long COVID that will be with us in the foreseeable future.

Post COVID-19 complications, adjunct therapy explored, and steroidal after effects

For COVID-19 survivors, defeating the virus is just the beginning of a long road to recovery. The inducibility and catastrophic effects of the virus are distributed across multiple organs. The induction of cytokine storms in COVID-19 patients is due to the interaction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the host receptor, leading to various immunopathological consequences that may eventually lead to death. So far, COVID-19 has affected tons of people across the world, but there is still no effective treatment. Patients facing complications of COVID-19 after recovery have shown extensive clinical symptoms similar to that of patients recovering from previously circulating coronaviruses. Previous knowledge and literature have opened up ways to treat this disease and manage post-COVID-19 complications, which pose a severe challenge to the health system globally and may exacerbate the fragmentation of diseases. The use of steroids as a treatment has resulted in various health problems and side-effects in COVID-19 patients. This review discusses various post-COVID-19 complications observed and adjunctive therapies used along with common COVID-19 treatment and spotlights their side effects and consequences. This review provides the latest literature on COVID-19, which emphasizes the subsequent complications in various organs, side effects of drugs, and alternative regimens used to treat COVID-19.

A comprehensive review of adverse events to drugs used in COVID-19 patients: Recent clinical evidence

BACKGROUND

Since the breakthrough of the pandemic, several drugs have been used to treat COVID-19 patients. This review aims to gather information on adverse events (AE) related to most drugs used in this context.

METHODS

We performed a literature search to find articles that contained information about AE in COVID-19 patients. We analysed and reviewed the most relevant studies in the Medline (via PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science. The most frequent AE identified were grouped in our qualitative analysis by System Organ Class (SOC), the highest level of the MedDRA medical terminology for each of the drugs studied.

RESULTS

The most frequent SOCs among the included drugs are investigations (n = 7 drugs); skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (n = 5 drugs); and nervous system disorders, infections and infestations, gastrointestinal disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, and metabolism and nutrition disorders (n = 4 drugs). Other SOCs also emerged, such as general disorders and administration site conditions, renal and urinary disorders, vascular disorders and cardiac disorders (n = 3 drugs). Less frequent SOC were eye disorders, respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, and immune system disorders (n = 2 drugs). Psychiatric disorders, and injury, poisoning and procedural complications were also reported (n = 1 drug).

CONCLUSIONS

Some SOCs seem to be more frequent than others among the COVID-19 drugs included, although neither of the studies included reported causality analysis. For that purpose, further clinical studies with robust methodologies, as randomised controlled trials, should be designed and performed.

The Politicization of Ivermectin Tweets During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

We explore the ivermectin discourse and sentiment in the United States with a special focus on political leaning through the social media blogging site Twitter.

Methods

We used sentiment analysis and topic modeling to geospatially explore ivermectin Twitter discourse in the United States and compared it to the political leaning of a state based on the 2020 presidential election.

Results

All modeled topics were associated with a negative sentiment. Tweets originating from democratic leaning states were more likely to be negative.

Conclusions

Real-time analysis of social media content can identify public health concerns and guide timely public health interventions tackling disinformation.

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.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).

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.

Prescription for COVID-19 by non-medical professionals during the pandemic in Colombia: a cross-sectional study

Background:

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the behavior of self-medication (SM). Given the massive release of misleading information during the pandemic, some pharmacies recommend drugs such as ivermectin, azithromycin, and hydroxychloroquine that are not useful for preventing or treating COVID-19 and could expose patients to unnecessary adverse drug reactions (ADRs), drug-drug interactions (DDIs), disease masking, and antibiotic resistance.

Rationale:

SM with drugs advertised for COVID-19 can have consequences, and people should be aware of approved uses, potential contraindications, and ADRs. Thus, the aim of this study was to know the drug therapies including natural products and homeopathic drugs offered by Colombian pharmaceutical establishments for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, as well as the information provided on the safe use of the product.

Methods:

An observational, cross-sectional mystery shopping study was carried out to determine the pharmaceutical alternatives for the management of COVID-19 offered by pharmaceutical establishments (drugstores, pharmacies, homeopathic pharmacies, and nutritional supplements stores) in Colombia, and information related to the safe use of the product. The study included 482 pharmaceutical establishments from 16 Colombian departments. Data collection was done through telephone calls to each of the establishments following an interview protocol pretending to be a patient who presents symptoms related to COVID-19.

Results:

About 57.3% (276) of the establishments recommended a product for the treatment of COVID-19 infection, 66.6% (321) asked whether the caller had COVID-19 symptoms and what they are, and 44.2% (213) suggested taking a COVID-19 test. Of 59 drugs suggested by pharmacies, the most recommended were azithromycin, ivermectin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and ASA (aspirin). From the establishments that recommended a product, dosage was indicated in 85.5% (236) of the pharmaceutical establishments and 14.5% (40) of the establishments reported the most common adverse effects of this substance. About 9.4% (26) of the establishments reported possible interactions of the recommended drugs and substances with food, beverages, or supplements.Conclusion: Pharmaceutical establishments in Colombia seem to have significantly contributed to self-medication for COVID-19 in Colombia during the pandemic. This behavior is inappropriate, since the mild forms of the disease do not have a specific treatment.

Plain Language Summary

Self-medication induced by pharmaceutical establishments in Colombia during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the behavior of self-medication (SM). Given the massive release of misleading information during the pandemic, some pharmacies recommend drugs such as ivermectin, azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine among others, which are not useful for preventing or treating COVID-19 and could expose patients to unnecessary side effects and interactions with other medications. People should be aware of the approved and non-approved uses, and potential side effects of these drugs. Rationale: The aim of this study was to know the drugs, including natural products and homeopathic drugs, offered by Colombian pharmaceutical establishments for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, as well as the information provided on the safe use of the product. Methods: The study was done using the mystery shopping method, collecting data through telephone calls to each of the establishments by a trained individual pretending to be a patient with COVID-19 symptoms. The study included 482 pharmaceutical establishments from 16 Colombian departments. Results: Of 59 drugs suggested by pharmacies, the most recommended were azithromycin, ivermectin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and aspirin. The recommended dose was indicated in 85.5% (236) of the pharmaceutical establishments, and 14.5% (40) of them reported the most common adverse effects of the recommended product. About 9.4% (26) of the establishments reported possible interactions of the recommended drugs and substances with food, beverages, or supplements. Conclusion: The majority of the pharmaceutical establishments included in the study promoted inadequate self-medication for COVID-19 in Colombia during the pandemic.

Clinical-Epidemiology Aspect of Inpatients With Moderate or Severe COVID-19 in a Brazilian Macroregion: Disease and Countermeasures

COVID-19, also known as coronavirus disease 2019, is an infectious viral disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus. Since its emergence, its epidemiology has been explored; however, for some regions of the world, COVID-19's behavior, incidence, and impact remain unclear. In continental nations like Brazil, this lack of knowledge results in nonuniform control, prevention, and treatment measures, which can be controversial in some locations. This study aimed to describe the epidemiological profile of patients with COVID-19 in the macroregion of Triângulo Sul in the state of Minas Gerais (MG), Brazil. Between March 25 and October 21, 2020, data were collected and statistically analyzed from 395 hospitalized patients in the city of Uberaba, MG, suspected to have moderate or severe forms of the disease. Of the 395 suspected cases, 82% were confirmed to be positive for COVID-19. The mean age of positive patients was 58.4 years, and 60.76% were male. Following these patients throughout their hospitalization, a mortality rate of 31.3% was observed. In the population positive for COVID-19, the risk of death increased by 4% for each year of the patient's age. Likewise, the older the patient, the longer their hospitalization and the higher the risk of developing acute respiratory failure. Among the treatments tested in patients, heparin was associated with protection against mortality, and the absence of anticoagulant use was linked to a more than six times greater risk of death. Finally, comorbidities in patients with COVID-19 were positively correlated with increased hospitalization time. In summary, this study revealed that age, presence of comorbidities, length of hospitalization, and drug treatment considerably altered COVID-19's lethality. To understand infection rates and the factors involved in COVID-19's lethality, knowledge of the local epidemiology is necessary.

Recommendations for the Outpatient Drug Treatment of Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

One of the purposes of outpatient treatment for COVID-19 patients is to prevent severe disease courses and hospitalization. There is a need for evidence-based recommendations to be applied in primary care and specialized outpatient settings.

METHODS

This guideline was developed on the basis of publications that were retrieved by a systematic search for randomized controlled trials in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE, and structured consensus generation was carried out with MAGICapp.

RESULTS

Unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients with at least one risk factor for a severe disease course may be treated in the early phase of the disease with sotrovimab, remdesivir, or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Molnupiravir may also be used for such patients if no other clinically appropriate treatment options are available. Immunosuppressed persons with COVID-19 who are at high risk, and whose response to vaccination is expected to be reduced, ought to be treated with sotrovimab. It should be noted, however, that the clinical efficacy of sotrovimab against infections with the omicron subtype BA.2 is uncertain at the currently used dose, as the drug has displayed reduced activity against this subtype in vitro. COVID-19 patients at risk of a severe course may be offered budesonide inhalation, according to an off-label recommendation of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (other medical societies do not recommend either for or against this treatment). Thrombo - embolism prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin may be given to elderly patients or those with a pre-existing illness. No recommendation is made concerning fluvoxamine or colchicine. Acetylsalicylic acid, azithromycin, ivermectin, systemic steroids, and vitamin D should not be used for the outpatient treatment of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Drug treatment is now available for outpatients with COVID-19 in the early phase. Nearly all of the relevant trials have been conducted in unvaccinated subjects; this needs to be kept in mind in patient selection.

Ivermectin in COVID-19: The Case for a Moratorium on Prescriptions

In treatment or prevention of COVID-19, ivermectin is not approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nonetheless, in the US, prescriptions of ivermectin by healthcare providers have increased > tenfold from 3589 per week pre-COVID-19 to 39,102. Ivermectin is FDA approved for animals to treat parasites and for humans to treat intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis orally, and ectoparasites and skin conditions topically. It is not a benign drug, with reported side effects including cutaneous, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular symptoms. The evidence to support ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 includes some basic research and inconsistent clinical observations that contribute to the formulation of a hypothesis of efficacy in COVID-19. At present, data from peer-reviewed published randomized trials of sufficient size, dose, and duration to reliably test the hypothesis of the most plausible small to moderate benefits on clinically relevant endpoints are sparse. In addition to the US FDA, the US National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, and European Medicines Agency have all advised against ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of randomized trials. For ivermectin in treatment or prevention of COVID-19, healthcare providers should reassure all patients that if sufficient evidence were to emerge, then this drug could be considered a therapeutic innovation and regulatory authorities would approve the drug. In the meanwhile, we strongly recommend a moratorium on the prescription of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 except in randomized trials to provide the most reliable test of the hypothesis.

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.

METHODS

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.