Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

Unlocking insights: Navigating COVID-19 challenges and Emulating future pandemic Resilience strategies with strengthening natural immunity

The original COVID-19 vaccines, developed against SARS-CoV-2, initially mitigated hospitalizations. Bivalent vaccine boosters were used widely during 2022-23, but the outbreaks persisted. Despite this, hospitalizations, mortality, and outbreaks involving dominant mutants like Alpha and Delta increased during winters when the population's vitamin D levels were at their lowest. Notably, 75 % of human immune cell/system functions, including post-vaccination adaptive immunity, rely on adequate circulatory vitamin D levels. Consequently, hypovitaminosis compromises innate and adaptive immune responses, heightening susceptibility to infections and complications. COVID-19 vaccines primarily target SARS-CoV-2 Spike proteins, thus offering only a limited protection through antibodies. mRNA vaccines, such as those for COVID-19, fail to generate secretory/mucosal immunity-like IgG responses, rendering them ineffective in halting viral spread. Additionally, mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 binding domain reduce immune recognition by vaccine-derived antibodies, leading to immune evasion by mutant viruses like Omicron variants. Meanwhile, the repeated administration of bivalent boosters intended to enhance efficacy resulted in the immunoparesis of recipients. As a result, relying solely on vaccines for outbreak prevention, it became less effective. Dominant variants exhibit increased affinity to angiotensin-converting enzyme receptor-2, enhancing infectivity but reducing virulence. Meanwhile, spike protein-related viral mutations do not impact the potency of widely available, repurposed early therapies, like vitamin D and ivermectin. With the re-emergence of COVID-19 and impending coronaviral pandemics, regulators and health organizations should proactively consider approval and strategic use of cost-effective adjunct therapies mentioned above to counter the loss of vaccine efficacy against emerging variants and novel coronaviruses and eliminate vaccine- and anti-viral agents-related serious adverse effects. Timely implementation of these strategies could reduce morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs and provide a rational approach to address future epidemics and pandemics. This perspective critically reviews relevant literature, providing insights, justifications, and viewpoints into how the scientific community and health authorities can leverage this knowledge cost-effectively.

Efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin in the treatment of mild to moderate Covid-19 patients: a multi-centre double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence on ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19 is controversial. A Cochrane review concluded that the efficacy and safety of ivermectin is uncertain (evidence up to April 2022) and WHO recommended its use only in the setting of clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate Covid-19.

TRIAL DESIGN AND METHODS

A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted among RT-PCR-confirmed, adults, hospitalised within the first four days of symptoms. Patients received oral ivermectin 24 mg or placebo daily for five days. RT-PCR was repeated on days five and ten. Clinical progression was monitored using the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale. Serum ivermectin levels were measured on days three, five, and seven. The primary outcome was the difference in the viral load between day zero and ten in the two groups.

RESULTS

Out of 1699 patients screened, 249 underwent randomization and 127 received ivermectin, and 122 placebo. D10 median viral load for E gene (IQR) was 2,000 copies/mL (100 - 20,500) with ivermectin (n = 80) and 4,100 copies/mL (1,000-65,600) with placebo (n = 81, p = 0.028), per protocol analysis. The difference in Log viral load between day zero and ten between ivermectin and placebo was 3.72 and 2.97 respectively (p = 0.022). There was no significant difference in the WHO clinical progression scale or the adverse effects. Ivermectin blood levels taken before or with meals were not significantly different. Only 7 and 17 patients achieved blood levels above 160ng/ML and 100ng/ML respectively and they did not achieve a significantly lower viral load.

CONCLUSION

Although ivermectin resulted in statistically significant lower viral load in patients with mild to moderate Covid-19, it had no significant effect on clinical symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

SLCTR/2021/020, Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry. 19/07/2021.

Risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in Jamaica: a cross-sectional study of national surveillance data

Objectives

To describe the characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 cases in Jamaica and to explore the risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 from 9 March to 31 December 2020.

Methods

A cross-sectional analysis of national surveillance data was conducted using confirmed COVID-19 cases in Jamaica. Definitions of a confirmed case, disease severity, and death were based on World Health Organization guidelines. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to determine association with outcomes. Logistic regression models were used to determine predictors of severe COVID-19.

Results

This analysis included 12 169 cases of COVID-19 (median age, 36 years; 6 744 females [ 55.4%]) of which 512 cases (4.2%) presented with severe disease, and of those, 318 patients (62.1%) died (median age at death, 71.5 years). Severe disease was associated with being male (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7) and 40 years or older (OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 5.1-8.2). COVID-19 death was also associated with being male (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7), age 40 years or older (OR, 17.9; 95% CI, 11.6-27.7), and in the Western versus South East Health Region (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3).

Conclusions

The findings of this cross-sectional analysis indicate that confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Jamaica were more likely to be female and younger individuals, whereas COVID-19 deaths occurred more frequently in males and older individuals. There is increased risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes beginning at age 40, with males disproportionately affected. COVID-19 death also varied by geographic region. This evidence could be useful to other countries with similar settings and to policymakers charged with managing outbreaks and health.

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

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

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. 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 plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or 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 World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC 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 RoB 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 postexposure 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 low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC 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; 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; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC 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 SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Green and Smart Quantitative Quality Control for Veterinary Mixture of Ivermectin and Clorsulon: Ecological Evaluation of Spectral Analyses via Analytical Eco-Scale, Green Analytical Procedure Index, and Analytical GREEnness Metric Approaches

BACKGROUND

The global financial market is still highly threatened by bovine fasciolosis, a parasitic infection that targets cattle, mainly in tropical regions. Binary combination of ivermectin (IVER) and clorsulon (CLO), in challenging concentration ratios, is typically indicated for treatment and control of fasciolosis.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims at smart simultaneous spectrophotometric assay of both compounds at their high ratio in marketed formulation and synthetic mixtures, without any prior separation. Furthermore, their greenness profile was evaluated and compared with previous reported assay methods, including the official one.

METHODS

Mathematical-based proposed methods are the dual-wavelength, induced dual-wavelength, and first derivative ratio methods. Each is developed, optimized, and applied to determine simultaneously IVER and CLO at linear ranges of 1-30 and 5-40 μg/mL, respectively. They have been validated according to ICH guidelines. Statistical Student t-tests and F-tests compared the proposed methods with a USP chromatographic technique. Ecological appraisal is accomplished using three independent metrics: Analytical Eco-Scale (AES), Green Analytical Procedure Index (GAPI), and Analytical GREEnness Metric Approach (AGREE).

RESULTS

Satisfactory recoveries, ICH compliance, and adherence of proposed methods to the ecological safety margin are achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

Developed methods are eco-friendly and cost-effective and can accomplish a routine quantitative quality control for concurrent determination of both drugs.

HIGHLIGHTS

Veterinary antimicrobials need analytical quality control using safer and green methodologies. Data manipulated spectral analyses of IVER and CLO, in a ratio of 1:10% (v/v), are developed and optimized. AES, GAPI, and AGREE approaches illustrate the high green compliance in respect to assays reported in the literature. Furthermore, the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) assay for IVER and CLO in injectable dosage form depends on analysis of each drug separately in the presence of the other drug, but it cannot determine both drugs simultaneously.

Prophylactic administration of ivermectin attenuates SARS-CoV-2 induced disease in a Syrian Hamster Model

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection, is currently among the most important public health concerns worldwide. Although several effective vaccines have been developed, there is an urgent clinical need for effective pharmaceutical treatments for treatment of COVID-19. Ivermectin, a chemical derivative of avermectin produced by Streptomyces avermitilis, is a macrocyclic lactone with antiparasitic activity. Recent studies have shown that ivermectin inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro. In the present study, we investigated the in vivo effects of ivermectin in a hamster model of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The results of the present study demonstrate oral administration of ivermectin prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection in hamsters was associated with decreased weight loss and pulmonary inflammation. In addition, the administration of ivermectin reduced pulmonary viral titers and mRNA expression level of pro-inflammatory cytokines associated with severe COVID-19 disease. The administration of ivermectin rapidly induced the production of virus-specific neutralizing antibodies in the late stage of viral infection. Zinc concentrations leading to immune quiescence were also significantly higher in the lungs of ivermectin-treated hamsters compared to controls. These results indicate that ivermectin may have efficacy in reducing the development and severity of COVID-19 by affecting host immunity in a hamster model of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Ivermectin Effect on In-Hospital Mortality and Need for Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Pneumonia: Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

There is negligible evidence on the efficacy of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 pneumonia. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of ivermectin for pre-emptively treating Strongyloides stercoralis hyperinfection syndrome in order to reduce mortality and the need for respiratory support in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

METHODS

This single-center, observational, retrospective study included patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia at Hospital Vega Baja from 23 February 2020 to 14 March 2021. Because strongyloidiasis is endemic to our area, medical criteria support empiric administration of a single, 200 μg/kg dose of ivermectin to prevent Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome. The outcome was a composite of all-cause in-hospital mortality and the need for respiratory support.

RESULTS

Of 1167 patients in the cohort, 96 received ivermectin. After propensity score matching, we included 192 patients. The composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or need for respiratory support occurred in 41.7% of the control group (40/96) and 34.4% (33/96) of the ivermectin group. Ivermectin was not associated with the outcome of interest (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35, 1.69; p = 0.52). The factors independently associated with this endpoint were oxygen saturation (aOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68, 0.89, p < 0.001) and C-reactive protein at admission (aOR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.03, 1.16, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, ivermectin at a single dose for pre-emptively treating Strongyloides stercoralis is not effective in reducing mortality or the need for respiratory support measures.

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.

Vitamin D as an adjunct to antibiotics for the treatment of acute childhood pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Children with acute pneumonia may be vitamin D deficient. Clinical trials have found that prophylactic vitamin D supplementation decreases children's risk of developing pneumonia. Data on the therapeutic effects of vitamin D in acute childhood pneumonia are limited. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to antibiotics for the treatment of acute childhood pneumonia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries on 28 December 2021. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vitamin D supplementation with placebo in children (aged one month to five years) hospitalised with acute community-acquired pneumonia, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) acute respiratory infection guidelines. For this update, we reappraised eligible trials according to research integrity criteria, excluding RCTs published from April 2018 that were not prospectively registered in a trials registry according to WHO or Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI) guidelines (it was not mandatory to register clinical trials in India before April 2018).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we extracted the number of participants experiencing the outcome and the total number of participants in each treatment group. For continuous data, we used the arithmetic mean and standard deviation (SD) for each treatment group together with number of participants in each group. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included three new trials involving 468 children, bringing the total number of trials to seven, with 1601 children (631 with pneumonia and 970 with severe or very severe pneumonia). We categorised three previously included studies and three new studies as 'awaiting classification' based on the research integrity screen. Five trials used a single bolus dose of vitamin D (300,000 IU in one trial and 100,000 IU in four trials) at the onset of illness or within 24 hours of hospital admission; one used a daily dose of oral vitamin D (1000 IU for children aged up to one year and 2000 IU for children aged over one year) for five days; and one used variable doses (on day 1, 20,000 IU in children younger than six months, 50,000 IU in children aged six to 12 months, and 100,000 IU in children aged 13 to 59 months; followed by 10,000 IU/day for four days or until discharge). Three trials performed microbiological diagnosis of pneumonia, radiological diagnosis of pneumonia, or both. Vitamin D probably has little or no effect on the time to resolution of acute illness (mean difference (MD) -1.28 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.47 to 2.91; 5 trials, 1188 children; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not know if vitamin D has an effect on the duration of hospitalisation (MD 4.96 hours, 95% CI -8.28 to 18.21; 5 trials, 1023 children; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if vitamin D has an effect on mortality rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.07; 3 trials, 584 children; low-certainty evidence). The trials reported no major adverse events. According to GRADE criteria, the evidence was of very low-to-moderate certainty for all outcomes, owing to serious trial limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. Three trials received funding: one from the New Zealand Aid Corporation, one from an institutional grant, and one from multigovernment organisations (Bangladesh, Sweden, and UK). The remaining four trials were unfunded.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, we are uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation has important effects on outcomes of acute pneumonia when used as an adjunct to antibiotics. The trials reported no major adverse events. Uncertainty in the evidence is due to imprecision, risk of bias, inconsistency, and indirectness.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PURPOSE

To assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting.

DATA SOURCES

Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab-imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo.

LIMITATION

Many outcomes had few events and small samples.

CONCLUSION

Some antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

Evaluating Risk: Benefit Ratio of Fat-Soluble Vitamin Supplementation to SARS-CoV-2-Infected Autoimmune and Cancer Patients: Do Vitamin–Drug Interactions Exist?

Simple Summary

This review brings attention to a crucial yet under-investigated subject which is vitamin–drug interactions. Fat-soluble vitamins such as vitamins A, D, E, and K have been proven to possess many beneficial effects in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Moreover, it has been reported that deficiencies of fat-soluble vitamins have been directly linked to COVID-19 infection-related morbidity and mortality, especially in high-risk populations such as cancer and autoimmune patients. However, many vitamin–drug interactions exist between most of the newly COVID-19 FDA-approved medications and fat-soluble vitamins. Hence, this mandates personalizing the COVID-19 treatment protocols, especially for patients who have any deficiency in any of these vital vitamins. Weighing the risk-to-benefit ratio of supplementing any of these fat-soluble vitamins with COVID-19 medications is considered crucial to maximize the therapeutic benefit and decrease the side effects of these drugs.

Abstract

COVID-19 is a recent pandemic that mandated the scientific society to provide effective evidence-based therapeutic approaches for the prevention and treatment for such a global threat, especially to those patients who hold a higher risk of infection and complications, such as patients with autoimmune diseases and cancer. Recent research has examined the role of various fat-soluble vitamins (vitamins A, D, E, and K) in reducing the severity of COVID-19 infection. Studies showed that deficiency in fat-soluble vitamins abrogates the immune system, thus rendering individuals more susceptible to COVID-19 infection. Moreover, another line of evidence showed that supplementation of fat-soluble vitamins during the course of infection enhances the viral clearance episode by promoting an adequate immune response. However, more thorough research is needed to define the adequate use of vitamin supplements in cancer and autoimmune patients infected with COVID-19. Moreover, it is crucial to highlight the vitamin–drug interactions of the COVID-19 therapeutic modalities and fat-soluble vitamins. With an emphasis on cancer and autoimmune patients, the current review aims to clarify the role of fat-soluble vitamins in SARS-CoV-2 infection and to estimate the risk-to-benefit ratio of a fat-soluble supplement administered to patients taking FDA-approved COVID-19 medications such as antivirals, anti-inflammatory, receptor blockers, and monoclonal antibodies.

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.