Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment of non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials with 7,035 participants

INTRODUCTION

We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin in non-hospitalized patients with early COVID-19.

METHODS

Five databases were searched until October 17, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin against standard of care (SoC), placebo, or active drug. Primary outcomes were hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV), clinical improvement, clinical worsening, viral clearance, and severe adverse events (SAEs). Random effects meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. Pre-specified subgroup analyses (ivermectin dose, control type, risk of bias, follow-up, and country income) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs (n=7,035) were included. The controls were placebo in nine RCTs, SoC in two RCTs, and placebo or active drug in one RCT. Ivermectin did not reduce hospitalization (relative risk [RR], 0.81, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.64-1.03; 8 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.73-1.33; 9 RCTs, low QoE), or AEs (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.75-1.07; 9 RCTs, very low QoE) vs. controls. Ivermectin did not reduce MV, clinical worsening, or SAEs and did not increase clinical improvement and viral clearance vs. controls (very low QoE for secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with main analyses, and TSA-adjusted risk for hospitalization was similar to main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, ivermectin did not have effect on clinical, non-clinical or safety outcomes versus controls. Ivermectin should not be recommended as treatment in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

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.

The clinical application of traditional Chinese medicine NRICM101 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NRICM101 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study from 20 April 2021 to 8 July 2021, and evaluated the safety and outcomes (mortality, hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, oxygen support, diarrhea, serum potassium) in COVID-19 patients. Propensity score matching at a 1:2 ratio was performed to reduce confounding factors.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients were analyzed. The experimental group (n = 67) received NRICM101 and standard care, while the control group (n = 134) received standard care alone. No significant differences were observed in mortality (10.4% vs. 14.2%), intubation (13.8% vs. 11%), time to intubation (10 vs. 11 days), mechanical ventilation days (0 vs. 9 days), or oxygen support duration (6 vs. 5 days). However, the experimental group had a shorter length of hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.12, p = 0.043) and fewer mechanical ventilation days (odds ratio = 0.068, p = 0.008) in initially severe cases, along with an increased diarrhea risk (p = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

NRICM101 did not reduce in-hospital mortality. However, it shortened the length of hospitalization and reduced mechanical ventilation days in initially severe cases. Further investigation is needed.

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.

COVID-19 Treatments: Then and Now

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evolved over the past 3+ years, and strategies to prevent illness and treat infection have changed over time. As COVID-19 transitions from a pandemic to an endemic infection, widespread nonpharmaceutical interventions such as mask mandates and governmental policies requiring social distancing have given way to more selective strategies for risk mitigation. Monoclonal antibody therapies used for disease prevention and treatment lost utility owing to the emergence of resistant viral variants. Oral antiviral medications have become the mainstay of treatment in nonhospitalized individuals, whereas systemic corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy in those requiring supplemental oxygen. Emerging literature also supports the use of additional immune-modulating therapies in select admitted patients. Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both unprecedented research and development of medical interventions while also drawing attention to significant pitfalls in the global response. This review provides a comprehensive update in prevention and management of COVID-19.

Pandemic scientific data sharing recommendations: examining and re-imagining pre-print servers after the end of the world-wide emergency

Early in the pandemic, pre-print servers sped rapid evidence sharing. A collaborative of major medical journals supported their use to ensure equitable access to scientific advancements. In the intervening three years, we have made major advancements in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and learned about the benefits and limitations of pre-prints as a mechanism for sharing and disseminating scientific knowledge. Pre-prints increase attention, citations, and ultimately impact policy, often before findings are verified. Evidence suggests that pre-prints have more spin relative to peer-reviewed publications. Clinical trial findings posted on pre-print servers do not change substantially following peer-review, but other study types (e.g., modeling and observational studies) often undergo substantial revision or are never published. Nuanced policies about sharing results are needed to balance rapid implementation of true and important advancements with accuracy. Policies recommending immediate posting of COVID-19-related research should be re-evaluated, and standards for evaluation and sharing of unverified studies should be developed. These may include specifications about what information is included in pre-prints and requirements for certain data quality standards (e.g., automated review of images and tables); requirements for code release and sharing; and limiting early postings to methods, results, and limitations sections. Academic publishing needs to innovate and improve, but assessments of evidence quality remains a critical part of the scientific discovery and dissemination process.

Against Authority: The Bioethics of Ivermectin Use for COVID-19 Infection

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought new ethical challenges to both health care professionals and the general public. Among the ethical problems amplified during this period were the making of medical decisions to quickly introduce some drugs into therapeutic practice with unproven or insufficiently proven effects (such as ivermectin), the validity of drug testing, and the allocation of limited resources.

FIELDS OF UNCERTAINTY

The COVID-19 pandemic brought to the attention of the entire scientific world a new problem, which exceeded the guidelines and rules known until then. Out of the desire to quickly solve this medical problem, a series of measures were taken, however not sufficiently validated in scientific terms; the recommendations regarding the use of drugs known for their properties to treat a greater number of conditions, such as ivermectin, was tried.

DATA SOURCES

A narrative review of the specialized literature was carried out using keywords such as COVID-19, ivermectin, ethics, and off-label medication from Scopus and Google Scholar but also of official documents developed at the international level (World Health Organization).

ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

The off-label use of ivermectin alone or in combination with other medications during COVID pandemic raised problems related to the demonstration of its effectiveness, but also to ethics, starting from the expectations that both the medical staff and the population had of it. Ivermectin therapy was also evaluated by analyzing the behavior of ivermectin based on ethical principles (nonmaleficence, beneficence, and respect for one's autonomy) or on justice. Even in times of pandemic, exceptionalism must not triumph, and finding an effective treatment must be done through studies that respect ethical standard.

CONCLUSIONS

The failures or rather lack of success in decision making during the pandemic showed that alongside scientific knowledge and the development of health policies, it is necessary to constantly evaluate the measures and decisions from an ethical point of view, and the prevention of slippages and abuses is not only necessary but even mandatory.

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.

Ivermectin role in COVID-19 treatment (IRICT): single-center, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

To investigate the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to hydroxychloroquine and placebo in hospitalized moderate to severe COVID-19 patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was an adaptive, randomized, double-blinded, controlled, single-center trial. The study was a series of 3-arm comparisons between two different investigational therapeutic agents (ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine) and a placebo. There was interim monitoring to allow early stopping for futility, efficacy, or safety.

RESULTS

Ivermectin decreased survival time from 29 to 18.3 days (HR, 9.8, 95%CI, 3.7-26.2), while it did not shorten the recovery time (HR, 1.02, 95%CI, 0.69-1.5). Subgroup analysis showed an association between ivermectin-related mortality and baseline oxygen saturation level. Moreover, stratified groups showed higher risk among patients on high flow O2. Hydroxychloroquine delayed recovery from 10.1 to 12.5 days (HR, 0.62, 95%CI, 0.4-0.95) and non-significantly decreased survival time from 29 to 26.8 days (HR, 1.47, 95%CI, 0.73-2.9). However, 3 months mortality rates were increased with hydroxychloroquine (RR, 2.05, 95%CI, 1.33-3.16). Neither ivermectin nor hydroxychloroquine increased adverse events and demonstrated safety profile compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The study recommends against using either ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with any degree of severity. Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is: NCT04746365.

COVID-19 in Latin America and the Caribbean: Two years of the pandemic

Worldwide, nations have struggled during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, Latin America and the Caribbean faced an unmatched catastrophic toll. As of March 2022, the region has reported approximately 15% of cases and 28% of deaths worldwide. Considering the relatively late arrival of SARS-CoV-2, several factors in the region were determinants of the humanitarian crisis that ensued. Pandemic unpreparedness, fragile healthcare systems, forthright inequalities, and poor governmental support facilitated the spread of the virus throughout the region. Moreover, reliance on repurposed and ineffective drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin-to treat or prevent COVID-19-was publicised through misinformation and created a false sense of security and poor adherence to social distancing measures. While there were hopes that herd immunity could be achieved after the region's disastrous first peak, the emergence of the Gamma, Lambda, and Mu variants made this unattainable. This review explores how Latin America and the Caribbean fared during the first 2 years of the pandemic, and how, despite all the challenges, the region became a global leader in COVID-19 vaccination, with 63% of its population fully vaccinated.

Interaction of the new inhibitor paxlovid (PF-07321332) and ivermectin with the monomer of the main protease SARS-CoV-2: A volumetric study based on molecular dynamics, elastic networks, classical thermodynamics and SPT

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the study of drugs, most notably ivermectin and more recently Paxlovid (PF-07321332) which is in phase III clinical trials with experimental data showing covalent binding to the viral protease M^pro. Theoretical developments of catalytic site-directed docking support thermodynamically feasible non-covalent binding to M^pro. Here we show that Paxlovid binds non-covalently at regions other than the catalytic sites with energies stronger than reported and at the same binding site as the ivermectin B1a homologue, all through theoretical methodologies, including blind docking. We volumetrically characterize the non-covalent interaction of the ivermectin homologues (avermectins B1a and B1b) and Paxlovid with the mM^pro monomer, through molecular dynamics and scaled particle theory (SPT). Using the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT), we estimated the electric dipole moment fluctuations at the surface of each of complex involved in this study, with similar trends to that observed in the interaction volume. Using fluctuations of the intrinsic volume and the number of flexible fragments of proteins using anisotropic and Gaussian elastic networks (ANM+GNM) suggests the complexes with ivermectin are more dynamic and flexible than the unbound monomer. In contrast, the binding of Paxlovid to mM^pro shows that the mM^pro-PF complex is the least structurally dynamic of all the species measured in this investigation. The results support a differential molecular mechanism of the ivermectin and PF homologues in the mM^pro monomer. Finally, the results showed that Paxlovid despite beingbound in different sites through covalent or non-covalent forms behaves similarly in terms of its structural flexibility and volumetric behaviour.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19: evidence beyond the hype

BACKGROUND

The role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is still under debate, yet the drug has been widely used in some parts of the world, as shown by impressive market data. The available body of evidence may have changed over the last months, as studies have been retracted and "standards of care" (SOC) used in control groups have changed with rapidly evolving knowledge on COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin, assessing clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

RCTs evaluating the effects of ivermectin in adult patients with COVID-19 were searched through June 22, 2022, in four databases, L.OVE platform, clinical trial registries and pre-prints platforms. Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and invasive ventilation requirement. Secondary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis included only studies which compared ivermectin to placebo or SOC. Random-effects were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of individual trials. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The protocol was register in PROSPERO (CRD42021257471).

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria (n = 6310). Of those, 14 compared ivermectin with placebo, in night ivermectin associated with SOC was compared to SOC and two studies compared ivermectin to an active comparator. Most RCTs had some concerns or high risk of bias, mostly due to lack of concealment of the randomization sequence and allocation, lack of blinding and high number of missing cases. Ivermectin did not show an effect in reducing mortality (RR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.52-1.11) or mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.48-1.16). This effect was consistent when comparing ivermectin vs. placebo, and ivermectin associated with SOC vs. SOC, as well as in sensitivity analysis. Additionally, there was very low quality of evidence regarding adverse effects (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.84-1.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.

Ivermectin under scrutiny: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and possible sources of controversies in COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs and to address disputes over the existing evidence.

METHODS

MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs assessing the efficacy of Ivermectin up to 20 February 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was performed based on the PRISMA 2020 statement criteria.

RESULTS

19 and 17 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. There was no significant difference in progression to severe disease (log OR - 0.27 [95% CI - 0.61 to 0.08], I2 = 42.29%), negative RT-PCR (log OR 0.25 [95% CI - 0.18-0.68], I2 = 58.73%), recovery (log OR 0.11 [95% CI - 0.22-0.45], I2 = 13.84%), duration of hospitalization (SMD - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.85-0.06], I2 = 88.90%), time to negative RT-PCR (SMD - 0.36 [95% CI - 0.89-0.17], I2 = 46.2%), and viral load (SMD -0.17 [95% CI -0.45 to 0.12], I^2 = 0%). It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR - 0.67 [95% CI - 1.20 to - 0.13], I2 = 28.96%). However, studies with a higher risk of bias were more likely to indicate positive effects on the efficacy of this drug, according to our subgroup analyses based on study quality.

CONCLUSION

Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to clinical trials.

Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 μg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

Hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine had attracted significant attention in the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic but current recommendations do not support its use. However, the evidence against its use as pre-exposure prophylaxis have been of low to moderate quality and have been limited by high risk of bias.

METHODS

Following institutional ethics committee approval, healthcare workers (n = 1294) completing their first week-long COVID in-patient duty, subsequent institutional quarantine and RT-PCR testing for COVID-19 infection were included for this prospective cohort study. Demographic data, hydroxychloroquine usage and related adverse effects were captured through a 'Caring for the Caregivers' surveillance system. A chi-Square test of independence was used to determine the effect of hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Among the 1294 participants (age: 31 ± 7 years, 61% women), 273 (21.1%) healthcare workers used hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis as per Indian Council of Medical Research recommendations and 83/1294 (6.4%) tested positive after their duty. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 incidence between those on hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis and those not on it (5.9% vs 6.6%, χ2 = 0.177, p = 0.675; RR = 0.89, 95% CI - 0.53 to 1.52). There were no significant adverse effects to hydroxychloroquine usage.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated no benefit of hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis and provides quality evidence against its use in COVID-19 prevention.

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions associated with systemic ivermectin: A pharmacovigilance analysis

Despite poor evidence, the antiparasitic ivermectin has been advocated as a potential COVID-19 therapy. This has led to a rise in calls to poison-control centers by people self-medicating with ivermectin, which is sold over the counter for veterinary uses. We aimed to investigate the association between severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) and ivermectin. Postmarketing data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), gathered between 2014 and 2021, was employed to detect disproportional signals of SCARs following systemic ivermectin therapy. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was used to quantify the strength of association, while adjusting for age, sex, and region. The search yielded 517 reports of systemic ivermectin (median age 54 years, 46.8% female), of which 25 (4.8%), 81 (15.7%), and 411 (79.5%) were classified as SCARs, nonsevere cutaneous adverse events (AEs), or noncutaneous AEs, respectively. The regional distribution differed between SCAR reports (32.0% from Africa and 12.0% from North America) compared with other AEs, which originated from North America in over half of cases. The most common SCARs were toxic epidermal necrolysis (seven cases), Stevens-Johnson syndrome (seven cases), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (four cases). Five SCAR cases (20.0%) resulted in death and 12 (48.0%) lead to hospitalization. There was a strong safety signal for any SCAR (adjusted ROR 3.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.17-5.12) and toxidermias (adjusted ROR 7.08, 95% CI 4.23-11.84). This study suggests that ivermectin is associated with SCARs on rare occasions. Dermatologists should be aware of this given the increase in ivermectin misuse.

Promoting constructive feedback on preprints with the FAST principles

Ensuring that public feedback on preprints is focused, appropriate, specific and transparent (or FAST) will help to develop a thriving culture for reviewing and commenting on preprints.

Drug safety of frequently used drugs and substances for self-medication in COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the behavior of self-medication has increased. The dissemination of misleading information regarding the efficacy of certain drugs or substances for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been the major contributing factor for this phenomenon. Alongside with the increase in self-medication behavior, the inherent risks to this act such as drug-drug interactions, adverse events, drug toxicity, and masking of symptoms have also increased. Self-medication in the context of COVID-19 has led to drug misuse leading in some cases to the development of fatal adverse drug reactions. It is important that during this ongoing pandemic drugs with potential clinical efficacy against COVID-19 are adequately analyzed regarding their efficacy, safety, and monitoring. The aim of this review is to describe the available evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and monitoring of the drugs and substances that have been shown to be frequently used for self-medication in patients with COVID-19 (hydroxychloroquine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ivermectin, azithromycin, vitamins, aspirin, and chlorine dioxide) to adequately characterize their risks, safe use, monitoring strategies, and to reinforce the concept that these substances should not be used for self-medication and require a medical prescription.

Plain Language Summary

Drug safety of frequently used drugs and substances for self-medication in COVID-19 Dissemination of information about potential COVID-19 treatments has led individuals to self-medicate and expose themselves to risks such as drug-drug interactions, side effects, antibiotic resistance, and misdiagnosis. There is a need to review the medical literature to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the drugs and substances commonly used by the population for the treatment and prevention of SARS CoV-2 infection. In this review, we included drugs that are frequently used for self-medication and commonly advertised such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, chlorine dioxide, azithromycin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among others. A brief introduction of the drug and its mechanism of action, followed by a summary of the efficacy in COVID-19 and safety, will be described for each drug in order to promote their responsible use.

COVID-19 and The Promise of Small Molecule Therapeutics: Are There Lessons to be Learnt?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had grounded the world to a standstill. As the disease continues to rage two years on, it is apparent that effective therapeutics are critical for a successful endemic living with COVID-19. A dearth in suitable antivirals has prompted researchers and healthcare professionals to investigate existing and developmental drugs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although some of these drugs initially appeared to be promising for the treatment of COVID-19, they were ultimately found to be ineffective. In this review, we provide a retrospective analysis on the merits and limitations of some of these drugs that were tested against SARS-CoV-2 as well as those used for adjuvant therapy. While many of these drugs are no longer part of our arsenal for the treatment of COVID-19, important lessons can be learnt. The recent inclusion of molnupiravir and Paxlovid™ as treatment options for COVID-19 represent our best hope to date for endemic living with COVID-19. Our viewpoints on these two drugs and their prospects as current and future antiviral agents will also be provided.

Ivermectin: a mini-review

Introduction: Avermectins are common antiparasitic drugs, derived from Streptomyces bacteria that exhibit activity against arthropods and nematodes. Ivermectin, an avermectin derivative, is used as a treatment for parasitic infections in humans and domesticated animals.Discussion: Ivermectin's mechanism of action involves binding to ligand-gated ion channel receptors including glutamate, GABA, and glycine, resulting in parasitic paralysis and death. Due to varying expression of these ion channel receptors in vertebrate species, ivermectin toxicity is rarely reported in mammals. Ivermectin is also a substrate for P-glycoprotein, which limits its neurological toxicity in humans. Genetic polymorphisms in P-glycoprotein or coadministration of P-glycoprotein inhibitors may increase the neurotoxicity of ivermectin. Other toxic effects of ivermectin after therapeutic oral use include edema, rash, headache, and ocular complaints. Most of these effects are mild and short in duration. Ivermectin exhibits antiviral effects in-vitro at very high concentrations. This has led to suggestions of ivermectin as a potential treatment for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, although the drug's pharmacokinetic parameters reduce the likelihood that high concentrations of the drug can be achieved in-vivo.Conclusion: Due to concern for adverse events, specifically neurotoxicity, as well as a paucity of supporting evidence, the use of ivermectin as a routine treatment or preventive measure for COVID-19 infection is not recommended at this time.

Ivermectin and the Integrity of Healthcare Evidence During COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by a lack of clear evidence to guide healthcare professionals, the public and policymakers. The resulting uncertainty, coupled with changing guidelines as additional evidence became available, added to the stress and anxiety reported by decision-makers. Research results are key to providing evidence to guide healthcare decisions. Important questions have arisen about whether various interventions are safe and effective. The evidence found guides those making treatment decisions, and influences those selecting interventions for further evaluation in research studies. As the COVID-19 pandemic intensified, the effectiveness and safety of many pharmaceuticals was queried. Ivermectin will be used to explore the ethics of how healthcare evidence must be critically appraised, even, or especially, during a pandemic. This drug is alleged to be effective in treating COVID-19, with various studies and systematic reviews finding supportive evidence. Some of these have now been linked to concerns about fraud or poor research reporting. This article will focus on the scientific literature and how apparently fraudulent studies were published and influenced treatment decisions, on-going research and public health guidelines. Research evidence is critical during emergencies like pandemics, but urgency should not overtake ethical responsibilities to critically appraise (or evaluate) studies as they become available. These responsibilities apply in various ways to editors, peer-reviewers, news media reporters, and those making treatment decisions, including clinicians, policymakers and the general public. While research article authors have the primary ethical responsibility to reject fraudulent or inaccurate claims, the readers of health research must carefully evaluate all publications. To detect and reject fraudulent healthcare claims, readers need critical appraisal skills that match their level of engagement with those articles. The core principles of critical appraisal will be described in the article, and how they can be adapted for different types of readers. Exemplar tools that develop critical appraisal skills will be noted, with reviews of ivermectin's efficacy explored as examples. As stakeholders in healthcare evidence are increasingly able to identify well-conducted and ethical research they will simultaneously be able to spot and reject fraudulent reports and prevent them from influencing healthcare decisions.

Ivermectin for COVID-19: Addressing Potential Bias and Medical Fraud

Ivermectin has become a controversial potential medicine for coronavirus disease 2019. Some early studies suggested clinical benefits in treatment of infection. However, the body of evidence includes studies of varying quality. Furthermore, some trials have now been identified as potentially fraudulent. We present a subgroup meta-analysis to assess the effects of stratifying by trial quality on the overall results. The stratification is based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias measures and raw data analysis where possible. The results suggest that the significant effect of ivermectin on survival was dependent on largely poor-quality studies. According to the potentially fraudulent study (risk ratio [RR], 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02–0.35), ivermectin improved survival ~12 times more in comparison with low-risk studies (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.56–1.66). This highlights the need for rigorous quality assessments, for authors to share patient-level data, and for efforts to avoid publication bias for registered studies. These steps are vital to facilitate accurate conclusions on clinical treatments.

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

The new normal? Redaction bias in biomedical science

A concerning amount of biomedical research is not reproducible. Unreliable results impede empirical progress in medical science, ultimately putting patients at risk. Many proximal causes of this irreproducibility have been identified, a major one being inappropriate statistical methods and analytical choices by investigators. Within this, we formally quantify the impact of inappropriate redaction beyond a threshold value in biomedical science. This is effectively truncation of a dataset by removing extreme data points, and we elucidate its potential to accidentally or deliberately engineer a spurious result in significance testing. We demonstrate that the removal of a surprisingly small number of data points can be used to dramatically alter a result. It is unknown how often redaction bias occurs in the broader literature, but given the risk of distortion to the literature involved, we suggest that it must be studiously avoided, and mitigated with approaches to counteract any potential malign effects to the research quality of medical science.

Safety and efficacy of fluvoxamine in COVID-19 ICU patients: An open label, prospective cohort trial with matched controls

Aims

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and sigma‐1 receptor agonist, has so far shown promise in the prevention of COVID‐19 progression as an early treatment option in three trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fluvoxamine in COVID‐19 patients if administered later in the course of the disease.

Methods

The study was designed as an open‐label, prospective cohort trial with matched controls. In April and May 2021, 51 ICU COVID‐19 patients hospitalised in the University Hospital Dubrava and University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Croatia, were treated with fluvoxamine 100 mg three times daily for 15 days in addition to standard therapy and they were prospectively matched for age, gender, vaccination against COVID‐19, disease severity and comorbidities with 51 ICU controls.

Results

No statistically significant differences between groups were observed regarding the number of days on ventilator support, duration of ICU or total hospital stay. However, overall mortality was lower in the fluvoxamine group, 58.8% (n = 30/51), than in the control group, 76.5% (n = 39/51), HR 0.58, 95% CI (0.36–0.94, P = .027).

Conclusion

Fluvoxamine treatment in addition to the standard therapy in hospitalised ICU COVID‐19 patients could have a positive impact on patient survival. Further studies on the effects of fluvoxamine in COVID‐19 patients are urgently required.

Clinical trials with antiviral drugs against COVID-19: some progress and many shattered hopes

Vaccines and drugs are the cornerstones in the fight against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While vaccines were a success story, the development of antiviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2 turned out to be difficult. For an accelerated use of antivirals in the clinic, most SARS-CoV-2 antivirals represented repurposed drugs. The present article summarizes the outcomes of clinical trials with antiviral drugs in COVID-19 patients. Many antiviral drugs failed to demonstrate beneficial effects or showed mixed results. One reason for the low success rate of clinical trials was shortcomings of antiviral tests in cell culture systems and another reason was the abundance of ill-coordinated and underpowered clinical trials. However, large pragmatic clinical trials particularly of the British RECOVERY trial series demonstrated that even under emergency situation drug trials can be conducted in a timely way such that the therapy of COVID-19 patients can be based on evidence basis instead on expert opinion or even worse on political pressure.

Emergency drug use in a pandemic: Harsh lessons from COVID-19

The scientific and clinical communities have both experienced several harsh lessons on clinical care management and drug development during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we discuss several key lessons learned and describe a framework within which our two communities can work together and invest in to improve future pandemic responses.

COVID-19 in 2021

The Special Issue on Vaccines and Therapeutics against Coronaviruses, which was launched in early 2021, has attracted the scientific community at large, and more than 20 manuscripts have been accepted for publication.[...].

Pharmacological interventions to prevent Covid-19 disease: A rapid review

The aim of this rapid review was to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions (excluding vaccines) to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19) or reduce the severity of disease. A systematic search of published peer‐reviewed articles and non‐peer‐reviewed pre‐prints was undertaken from 1 January 2020 to 17 August 2021. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one non‐RCT were included; three trials (two RCTs and one non‐RCT) tested ivermectin with or without carrageenan. While all reported some potential protective effect of ivermectin, these trials had a high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was deemed to be ‘very low’. One RCT tested bamlanivimab compared to placebo and reported a significantly reduced incidence of Covid‐19 in the intervention group; this trial had a low risk of bias however the certainty of evidence was deemed ‘very low’. The fifth RCT tested casirivimab plus imdevimab versus placebo and reported that the combination of monoclonal antibodies significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, viral load, duration of symptomatic disease and the duration of a high viral load; this trial was deemed to have a low risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was ‘low’. The designations ‘low' and ‘very low’ regarding the certainty of evidence indicate that the estimate of effect is uncertain and therefore is unsuitable for informing decision‐making. At the time of writing, there is insufficient high quality evidence to support the use of pharmacological interventions to prevent Covid‐19.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Updates

This is the fourteenth version (thirteenth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline.

Clinical question

What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19?

Context

The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics.

What is new?

The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19.

About this guideline

This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact.

Future recommendations

Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.