Effectiveness of a multidrug therapy consisting of Ivermectin, Azithromycin, Montelukast, and Acetylsalicylic acid to prevent hospitalization and death among ambulatory COVID-19 cases in Tlaxcala, Mexico

Effect of Aspirin Use on the Adverse Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) triggers multiple components of the immune system and causes inflammation of endothelial walls across vascular beds, resulting in respiratory failure, arterial and venous thrombosis, myocardial injury, and multi-organ failure leading to death. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, aspirin was suggested for the treatment of symptomatic individuals, given its analgesic, antipyretic, anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, and antiviral effects. This study aimed to evaluate the association of aspirin use with various clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Methods

This was a retrospective study involving patients aged ≥ 18 years and hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to October 2020. Primary outcomes were acute cardiovascular events (ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), type 1 non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), acute congestive heart failure (CHF), and acute stroke) and death. Secondary outcomes were respiratory failure, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE).

Results

Of 376 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 128 were taking aspirin. Significant proportions of native Americans were hospitalized for COVID-19 in both aspirin (22.7%) and non-aspirin (24.6%) groups. Between aspirin and non-aspirin groups, no significant differences were found with regard to mechanical ventilator support (21.1% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.16), acute cardiovascular events (7.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.32), acute DVT/PE (3.9% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.9), readmission rate (13.3% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.91) and mortality (23.4% vs. 20.2%, P = 0.5); however, the median duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter (7 vs. 9 days, P = 0.04) and median length of hospitalization was significantly longer (5.5 vs. 4 days, P = 0.01) in aspirin group compared to non-aspirin group.

Conclusion

No significant differences were found in acute cardiovascular events, acute DVT/PE, mechanical ventilator support, and mortality rate between hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were taking aspirin compared to those not taking aspirin. However, larger studies are required to confirm our findings.

Wastewater surveillance of pharmaceuticals during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico City and the Mezquital Valley: A comprehensive environmental risk assessment

This study tracked five pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs) in Mexico City's sewage, namely, famotidine, indomethacin, dexamethasone, azithromycin, and ivermectin, which were used to treat COVID-19. The monitoring campaign was carried out over 30 months (May 2020 to November 2022), covering the five COVID-19 waves in Mexico. In the Central Emitter, the main sewage outflow, famotidine displayed levels of 132.57 ± 28.16 ng L-1 (range from < LOQ to 189.1 ng L-1), followed by indomethacin (average 672.46 ± 116.4 ng L-1, range from 516.7 to 945.2 ng L-1), dexamethasone (average 610.4 ± 225.7 ng L-1, range from 233.4 to 1044.5 ng L-1), azithromycin (average 4436.2 ± 903.6 ng L-1, range from 2873.7 to 5819.6 ng L-1), and ivermectin (average 3413.3 ± 1244.6 ng L-1, range from 1219.8 to 4622.4 ng L-1). The concentrations of dexamethasone, azithromycin and ivermectin were higher in sewage from a temporary COVID-19 care unit, by a factor of 3.48, 3.52 and 2.55, respectively, compared with those found in municipal wastewater. In the effluent of the Atotonilco Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWWTP), which treats near 60 % of the Mexico City's sewage, famotidine was absent, while concentrations of indomethacin, dexamethasone, azithromycin and ivermectin were 78.2 %, 76.7 %, 74.4 %, and 88.1 % lower than those in the influent, respectively. The occurrence of PhACs in treated and untreated wastewater resulted in medium to high environmental risk since Mexico City's wastewater is reused for irrigation in the Mezquital Valley. There, PhACs were found in irrigation canals at lower levels than those observed in Mexico City throughout the monitoring. On the other hand, famotidine, indomethacin, and dexamethasone were not found in surface water resulting from the infiltration of wastewater through soil in Mezquital Valley, while azithromycin and ivermectin sporadically appeared in surface water samples collected through 2021. Using an optimized risk assessment based on a semi-probabilistic approach, the PhACs were prioritized as ivermectin > azithromycin > dexamethasone > famotidine > indomethacin.

Role of Cytochrome P450 2C9 in COVID-19 Treatment: Current Status and Future Directions

The major human liver drug metabolising cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes are downregulated during inflammation and infectious disease state, especially during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The influx of proinflammatory cytokines, known as a 'cytokine storm', during severe COVID-19 leads to the downregulation of CYPs and triggers new cytokine release, which further dampens CYP expression. Impaired drug metabolism, along with the inevitable co-administration of drugs or 'combination therapy' in patients with COVID-19 with various comorbidities, could cause drug-drug interactions, thus worsening the disease condition. Genetic variability or polymorphism in CYP2C9 across different ethnicities could contribute to COVID-19 susceptibility. A number of drugs used in patients with COVID-19 are inducers or inhibitors of, or are metabolised by, CYP2C9, and co-administration might cause pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions. It is also worth mentioning that some of the COVID-19 drug interactions are due to altered activity of other CYPs including CYP3A4. Isoniazid/rifampin for COVID-19 and tuberculosis co-infection; lopinavir/ritonavir and cobicistat/remdesivir combination therapy; or multi-drug therapy including ivermectin, azithromycin, montelukast and acetylsalicylic acid, known as TNR4 therapy, all improved recovery in patients with COVID-19. However, a combination of CYP2C9 inducers, inhibitors or both, and plausibly different CYP isoforms could lead to treatment failure, hepatotoxicity or serious side effects including thromboembolism or bleeding, as observed in the combined use of azithromycin/warfarin. Further, herbs that are CYP2C9 inducers and inhibitors, showed anti-COVID-19 properties, and in silico predictions postulated that phytochemical compounds could inhibit SARS-CoV-2 virus particles. COVID-19 vaccines elicit immune responses that activate cytokine release, which in turn suppresses CYP expression that could be the source of compromised CYP2C9 drug metabolism and the subsequent drug-drug interaction. Future studies are recommended to determine CYP regulation in COVID-19, while recognising the involvement of CYP2C9 and possibly utilising CYP2C9 as a target gene to tackle the ever-mutating SARS-CoV-2.

Association between self-reported evidence-based medicine competencies and prescribing of drugs without scientific evidence against mild COVID-19 among recently graduated physicians in Peru

Objective

To evaluate the association between self-rated evidence-based medicine (EBM) competencies and the prescription of drugs without scientific evidence against mild COVID-19 (present with any of the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 but who do not have shortness of breath, dyspnea, or abnormal chest imaging) among recently graduated physicians in Peru.

Methods

We conducted an analytical cross-sectional study where we evaluated a non-probability sample of recently graduated physicians during June and July 2021 (end of second wave of COVID-19 in Peru). Self-rated EBM competencies were assessed by four domains (formulation of a clinical question, search, analysis, and application) using a Likert scale with scores from zero to four ("Very inadequate" = 0, to "Very Adequate" = 4), it was considered as "Adequate" if the score was three or four. In addition, the variable "General competence on EBM" was rated as "Adequate" if in all domains evaluated it presented an adequate self-rating. For the outcome, drug prescription, we considered the use of ivermectin, azithromycin, other antibiotics, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, and anticoagulants (drugs with no efficacy demonstrated for patients with mild COVID-19). To assess the association, we used Poisson regression models with robust variances and obtaining crude (cPR) and adjusted (aPR) prevalence ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).

Results

Of a total of 239 physicians included 70.7% prescribed at least one drug without scientific evidence. A total of 51.1% reported adequate ratings in all evaluated domains of EBM. Self-rating the "Clinical Question Formulation" competency as adequate was associated with a lower frequency of prescribing medications for mild COVID-19 (aPR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.95). While self-rating as adequate the competency of "Identify possible implications of investigations" was associated with an increase in the prescription of such drugs (aPR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09-1.20). Additionally, self-rating all domains as adequate were associated with less prescription (aPR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.90-0.96).

Conclusion

Seven out of ten recently graduated physicians prescribed some type of medication without scientific evidence to treat patients with mild COVID-19. Having adequate self-perceived EBM competencies was associated with a lower frequency of prescribing medications without scientific evidence to manage patients with mild COVID-19.

Study of the Effect of Antibiotics in Drinking Water on the Content of Antioxidant Compounds in Red Wines

The presence of antibiotic residues in drinking water may be a source of contamination, which could affect the diffusion of polyphenols into the wine must during the traditional fermentation process. Antibiotic residues such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, ciprofloxacin, and azithromycin on the diffusion of polyphenols and anthocyanins during wine fermentation were studied. Different samples were taken at different periods (0, 48, 96, and 168 h) to analyse the total polyphenols, anthocyanin content, and antioxidant capacity, which were correlated with Peleg's equation to establish the diffusion kinetics of these compounds. The results indicated that the presence of antibiotics reduced between 40 and 50% the diffusion of the total polyphenols and monomeric anthocyanins in red wine. The use of ivermectin showed the highest kinetic parameter k₁ compared with the use of other antibiotics. This suggested that the chemical structure and molecular weight of the antibiotics could play an important role in inhibiting the metabolism of yeasts affecting the ethanol and CO₂ production. Consequently, cell membranes would be impermeable and would not allow the release of polyphenols and anthocyanins. Therefore, it is necessary to establish strategies that allow future water quality control in wine production companies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Synergistic anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of repurposed anti-parasitic drug combinations

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 pandemic has claimed millions of lives and devastated the health service system, livelihood, and economy in many countries worldwide. Despite the vaccination programs in many countries, the spread of the pandemic continues, and effective treatment is still urgently needed. Although some antiviral drugs have been shown to be effective, they are not widely available. Repurposing of anti-parasitic drugs with in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity is a promising approach being tested in many clinical trials. Combination of these drugs is a plausible way to enhance their effectiveness.

METHODS

The in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of combinations of niclosamide, ivermectin and chloroquine were evaluated in Vero E6 and lung epithelial cells, Calu-3.

RESULTS

All the two-drug combinations showed higher potency resulting in up to 4-fold reduction in the half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) values compared to individual drugs. Among these combinations, niclosamide-ivermectin achieved the highest inhibitory level of over 99%. Combination synergy analysis showed niclosamide-ivermectin combination to have the best synergy score with a mean Loewe synergy score of 4.28 and a peak synergy score of 24.6 in Vero E6 cells and a mean Loewe synergy score of 3.82 and a peak synergy score of 10.86 in Calu-3 cells.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated the benefit of drug combinations on anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity. Niclosamide and ivermectin showed the best synergistic profile and should be further tested in clinical trials.

Rural treatment of COVID-19 patients with pirfenidone, nitazoxanide and colchicine. Case series

Combined treatments against SARS-CoV-2 are emerging and some have taken into account the post-COVID-19 fibrosis. The aim of this survey was to report the experience of treating COVID-19 patients with pirfenidone, nitazoxanide (NTZ) and colchicine. It was a case series report of COVID-19 patients treated from December 2020 to March 2021, in a rural health center located in the State of Mexico, Mexico. 23 patients were included (mean age 44.5 ± 17.1 years), 12 women (mean age 45.9 ± 17.9 years) and 11 men (mean age 43 ± 16.9 years) with four deaths (17.39%). The evolution time was of 17.3 ± 6.7 days being the main symptoms fever (82.6%), myalgia (69.6%) and cough (65.2%). The main comorbidities were overweight/obesity 18 (78.26%), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) 4 (17.39%), Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 5 (21.73%) and systemic hypertension 2 (8.69%). Two patients were intubated and both died; in these cases, they refused to take NTZ until after three days the medical doctor had prescribed it for the first time. It can be concluded that implementing a mixed treatment with pirfenidone, NTZ and colchicine could improve the survival rate in ambulatory patients of low socioeconomic status.

Nanovectorization of Ivermectin to avoid overdose of drugs

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that results in the death of the targeted parasites using several mechanical actions. While very well supported, it can induce in rare cases, adverse effects including coma and respiratory failure in case of overdose. This problem should be solved especially in an emergency situation. For instance, the first pandemic of the 21th century was officially declared in early 2020, and while several vaccines around the worlds have been used, an effective treatment against this new strain of coronavirus, better known as SARS-CoV-2, should also be considered, especially given the massive appearance of variants. From all the tested therapies, Ivermectin showed a potential reduction of the viral portability, but sparked significant debate around the dose needed to achieve these positive results. To answer this general question, we propose, using simulations, to show that the nanovectorization of Ivermectin on BN oxide nanosheets can increase the transfer of the drug to its target and thus decrease the quantity of drug necessary to cope with the disease. This first application could help science to develop such nanocargo to avoid adverse effects.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

Antiviral Activity of Repurposing Ivermectin against a Panel of 30 Clinical SARS-CoV-2 Strains Belonging to 14 Variants

Over the past two years, several variants of SARS-CoV-2 have emerged and spread all over the world. However, infectivity, clinical severity, re-infection, virulence, transmissibility, vaccine responses and escape, and epidemiological aspects have differed between SARS-CoV-2 variants. Currently, very few treatments are recommended against SARS-CoV-2. Identification of effective drugs among repurposing FDA-approved drugs is a rapid, efficient and low-cost strategy against SARS-CoV-2. One of those drugs is ivermectin. Ivermectin is an antihelminthic agent that previously showed in vitro effects against a SARS-CoV-2 isolate (Australia/VI01/2020 isolate) with an IC50 of around 2 µM. We evaluated the in vitro activity of ivermectin on Vero E6 cells infected with 30 clinically isolated SARS-CoV-2 strains belonging to 14 different variants, and particularly 17 strains belonging to six variants of concern (VOC) (variants related to Wuhan, alpha, beta, gamma, delta and omicron). The in vitro activity of ivermectin was compared to those of chloroquine and remdesivir. Unlike chloroquine (EC50 from 4.3 ± 2.5 to 29.3 ± 5.2 µM) or remdesivir (EC50 from 0.4 ± 0.3 to 25.2 ± 9.4 µM), ivermectin showed a relatively homogeneous in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the strains or variants (EC50 from 5.1 ± 0.5 to 6.7 ± 0.4 µM), except for one omicron strain (EC50 = 1.3 ± 0.5 µM). Ivermectin (No. EC50 = 219, mean EC50 = 5.7 ± 1.0 µM) was, overall, more potent in vitro than chloroquine (No. EC50 = 214, mean EC50 = 16.1 ± 9.0 µM) (p = 1.3 × 10-34) and remdesivir (No. EC50 = 201, mean EC50 = 11.9 ± 10.0 µM) (p = 1.6 × 10-13). These results should be interpreted with caution regarding the potential use of ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients: it is difficult to translate in vitro study results into actual clinical treatment in patients.

Photo-mediated and advanced oxidative processes applied for the treatment of effluents with drugs used for the treatment of early COVID-19: Review

The COVID-19 pandemic is proving to be one of the most challenging health and social crises ever faced by humanity. Several drugs have been proposed as potential antiviral agents for the treatment of COVID-19 since the beginning of the health crisis. Among them are chloroquine (CQ), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), ivermectin (IVM), and the combination of QC or HCQ and azithromycin (AZI). The use of these and several other drugs has grown sharply, even if there is proof of ineffectiveness in the early treatment or mild cases of COVID-19. Thus, there is great concern about the potential environmental impacts of the effluents released with the presence of these drugs. Therefore, this work aimed to carry out a literature review on wastewater treatment processes, focusing on removing these substances through advanced oxidation process. As the conventional effluent treatment processes do not have high efficiency for removal, it was concentrated in the literature that had as scope advanced and photo-mediated techniques to remove CQ, HCQ, IVM, and AZI. It is expected, with this work, to highlight the importance of conducting research that contributes to the control of pollution and contamination.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A Multidisciplinary Approach to Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

Since December 2019, humanity has faced an important global threat. Many studies have been published on the origin, structure, and mechanism of action of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the treatment of its disease. The priority of scientists all over the world has been to direct their time to research this subject. In this review, we highlight chemical studies and therapeutic approaches to overcome COVID-19 with seven different sections. These sections are the structure and mechanism of action of SARS-CoV-2, immunotherapy and vaccine, computer-aided drug design, repurposing therapeutics for COVID-19, synthesis of new molecular structures against COVID-19, food safety/security and functional food components, and potential natural products against COVID-19. In this work, we aimed to screen all the newly synthesized compounds, repurposing chemicals covering antiviral, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, antiparasitic, anticancer, antipsychotic, and antihistamine compounds against COVID-19. We also highlight computer-aided approaches to develop an anti-COVID-19 molecule. We explain that some phytochemicals and dietary supplements have been identified as antiviral bioproducts, which have almost been successfully tested against COVID-19. In addition, we present immunotherapy types, targets, immunotherapy and inflammation/mutations of the virus, immune response, and vaccine issues.

Active prescription of low-dose aspirin during or prior to hospitalization and mortality in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of adjusted effect estimates

Background

This study aimed to investigate whether the active prescription of low-dose aspirin during or prior to hospitalization affects mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Aspirin is often prescribed for secondary prevention in patients with cardiovascular disease and other comorbidities that might increase mortality, and may therefore falsely demonstrate increased mortality. To reduce bias, only studies that performed an adjusted analysis were included in this review.

Methods

A systematic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed, from inception until 16 April 2021. The exposure was active prescription of low-dose aspirin during or prior to hospitalization. The primary outcome was mortality. The pooled adjusted effect estimate was reported as relative risk (RR).

Results

Six eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 13,993 patients. The studies had low-to-moderate risk of bias based on the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis indicated that the use of low-dose aspirin was independently associated with reduced mortality {RR 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35–0.61], P < 0.001; I² = 36.2%}. Subgroup analysis on in-hospital low-dose aspirin administration also showed a significant reduction in mortality [RR 0.39 (95% CI 0.16–0.96), P < 0.001; I² = 47.0%].

Conclusion

Use of low-dose aspirin is independently associated with reduced mortality in patients with COVID-19, with low certainty of evidence.

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection over six months among Nicaraguan outpatients

New information is emerging about SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology and immunity, but little of this information comes from low- and middle-income countries or from patients receiving care in the outpatient setting. The current study investigated the SARS-CoV-2 infection status and antibody responses in 157 patients seeking care for a respiratory disease suggestive of COVID-19 in private healthcare clinics during the first wave (June-October 2020) of infections in Nicaragua. We examined nasal swabs for the presence of viral RNA via RT-PCR and longitudinally collected sera for the changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibody levels over six months. Among patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, we evaluated if clinical symptoms were associated with age, hematological parameters and co-morbidities. The combination of PCR and paired serology identified 60 (38%) of the 157 outpatients as acute COVID-19. While both PCR and serology identified the majority (n = 38, 64%) of the acute infections, a notable number of outpatients were identified by RT-qPCR (n = 13, 22%) or by serology (n = 9, 14%) only. During the longitudinal study, we identified 6 new infections by serology among the 97 non-COVID-19 subjects. In conclusion, this study report that more than one third of the outpatients seeking care for acute respiratory disease during the first epidemic wave of SARS-CoV-2 in Nicaragua had an acute mild COVID-19 infection that correlate with prolonged humoral response. This immune response to the RBD antigen, more likely IgG dependent, significantly increased between the acute to convalescent and decay in the late convalescent but still remained seropositive.