From hydroxychloroquine to ivermectin: how unproven “cures” can go viral

Rivers at risks: The interplay of "COVID kit" medication misuse and urban waterway contaminants

This study investigates the environmental impact of the widespread use of "COVID Kit" drugs-azithromycin (AZI), ivermectin (IVE), and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)-in urban rivers of Curitiba in Brazil, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The research focuses on the occurrence and concentrations of these pharmaceuticals in water and sediment samples collected from key urban rivers. Concentrations of AZI, IVE, and HCQ in water ranged from 326 to 3340 ng/L, 130-3340 ng/L, and 304-3314 ng/L, respectively, while in sediment, they ranged from 18 to 249 ng/g, 21-480 ng/g, and 38-673 ng/g, respectively. Results indicate a significant increase in AZI, IVE, and HCQ concentrations during the pandemic. Concentrations of these drugs peaked in September 2020 and March 2021, declining after the start of Brazil's vaccination campaign. However, the levels of these pharmaceuticals remained elevated in some areas even after the decline in their usage. Environmental risk assessments were conducted to evaluate the potential ecological hazards posed by these pharmaceuticals, revealing the long-term persistence of these drugs in aquatic environments and their potential to contribute to antimicrobial resistance. The findings of this study underscore the critical need for robust regulatory measures and improved wastewater treatment processes to prevent pharmaceutical contamination in urban water systems, particularly during global health crises.

Mismanagement of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Pre Hospitalisation during the Omicron Era: Antibiotics and Steroids Instead of Early Antivirals

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of inappropriate treatment among hospitalised patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection before hospital admission during the Omicron era. This single-centre, retrospective observational study included all the patients hospitalised because of SARS-CoV-2 infection during three periods characterised by the Italian prevalence of an Omicron variant of concern: (1) January-May 2022 (BA.1-BA.2), (2) June-October 2022 (BA.5), and (3) November 2022-March 2023 (BQ.1-XBB). Inappropriate treatment was defined as pre-hospitalisation exposure to antibiotics and/or steroids in the absence of a documented bacterial infection or the need for steroid treatment of an underlying medical condition. A total of 931 subjects were hospitalised: 394 in period 1, 334 in period 2, and 203 in period 3. Of the 157 patients undergoing inappropriate treatment (16.9%), 142 (15.3%) received antibiotics and 52 (5.6%) steroids. The proportion of inappropriately treated patients significantly decreased over time, from 23.1% in period 1 to 11.7% in period 2 and 13.3% in period 3 (p < 0.001), and there was a parallel decrease in antibiotic (p < 0.001) and steroid treatment (p < 0.013). Only 13 subjects (1.4%) received early pre-hospitalisation treatment for SARS-CoV-2. A significant proportion of hospitalised COVID-19 patients were exposed to inappropriate treatment before hospital admission.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A mixed methods study exploring requests for unproven COVID therapies such as ivermectin and healthcare distrust in the rural South

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to contentious discourse regarding unproven COVID-19 therapies (UCTs),(e.g. ivermectin). Despite recommendations against it, ivermectin remains, in some areas, highly demanded. The goal of this study is to understand patient and provider perspectives about UCTs (e.g., ivermectin) and how responses to requests for UCTs impact healthcare distrust. This mixed methods observational study was conducted in a rural healthcare system in the Southern United States. Adults (n = 26) with a history of COVID-19 or clinicians (n = 8) from the same system were interviewed using questionnaires assessing healthcare distrust and qualitatively interviewed exploring perceptions about UCTs. Patient themes were: 1) Importance of anecdotal stories for decision-making; 2) Use of haphazard approaches to 'research'; 3) Strong distrust of government and healthcare organizations; 4) Inherent trust in local healthcare; 5) Decision-making as weighing pros/cons; and 6) Feeling a right to try medications. High survey medians indicated high distrust with differences of 8.5 points for those who requested/used ivermectin versus those who did not (p = 0.027). Clinician themes were: 1) Frustration when patients trust social media over clinicians; 2) Acceptance of community beliefs about UCTs; 3) Distrust originating outside of the healthcare system; 4) Feeling torn about prescribing UCTs to build trust; and 5) Variable educational strategies. When clinicians are perceived as aligned with government, this may void patients' trust of clinicians. Clinicians should leverage trust in local healthcare and distance themselves from distrusted information sources. Ethical questions arise regarding appropriateness of acquiescing to patient requests for ivermectin for building trust.

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

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

Use of Antiviral Agents and other Therapies for COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a remarkably rapid development of a range of effective prophylactic vaccines, including new technologies that had not previously been approved for human use. In contrast, the development of new small molecule antiviral therapeutics has taken years to produce the first approved drugs specifically targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), with the intervening years filled with attempts to repurpose existing drugs and the development of biological therapeutics. This review will discuss the reasons behind this variation in timescale and provide a survey of the many new treatments that are progressing through the clinical pipeline.

The COVID misinfodemic: not new, never more lethal

'Infodemia' is a portmanteau between 'information' and 'epidemics', referring to wide and rapid accumulation and dissemination of information, misinformation, and disinformation about a given subject, such as a disease. As facts, rumors and fears mix and disperse, the misinfodemic creates loud background noise, preventing the general public from discerning between accurate and false information. We compared and contrasted key elements of the AIDS and COVID-19 misinfodemics, to identify common features, and, based on experience with the AIDS pandemic, recommend actions to control and reverse the SARS-CoV-2 misinfodemic that contributed to erode the trust between the public and scientists and governments and has created barriers to control of COVID-19. As pandemics emerge and evolve, providing robust responses to future misinfodemics must be a priority for society and public health.