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

Misinterpretation of statistical nonsignificance as a sign of potential bias: Hydroxychloroquine as a case study

The term "statistical significance," ubiquitous in the medical literature, is often misinterpreted, as is the "p-value" from which it stems. This article explores the implications of results that are numerically positive (e.g., those in the treatment arm do better on average) but not statistically significant. This lack of statistical significance is sometimes interpreted as strong, even decisive, evidence against an effect without due consideration of other factors. Three influential articles on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for COVID-19 are illustrative. They all involve numerically positive results that were not statistically significant that were misinterpreted as strong evidence against HCQ's efficacy. These and related considerations raise concerns regarding the reliability of academic/medical reasoning around COVID-19 treatments, as well as more generally, and regarding the potential for bias stemming from conflicts of interest.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients With COVID-19 (September 2022)

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

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.

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

Metformin: Past, Present, and Future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides the most recent update of metformin, a biguanide oral antihyperglycemic drug used as a first-line treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RECENT FINDINGS

Metformin continues to dominate in the world of antidiabetics, and its use will continue to rise because of its high efficiency and easy availability. Apart from type 2 diabetes, research is exploring its potential in other conditions such as cancer, memory loss, bone disorders, immunological diseases, and aging. Metformin is the most prescribed oral antidiabetic worldwide. It has been in practical use for the last six decades and continues to be the preferred drug for newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. It reduces glucose levels by decreasing hepatic glucose production, reducing intestinal glucose absorption, and increasing insulin sensitivity. It can be used as monotherapy or combined with other antidiabetics like sulfonylureas, DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors, or insulin, improving its efficacy. Metformin can be used once or twice daily, depending on requirements. Prolonged usage of metformin may lead to abdominal discomfort, deficiency of Vitamin B12, or lactic acidosis. It should be used carefully in patients with renal impairment. Recent studies have explored additional benefits of metformin in polycystic ovarian disease, gestational diabetes mellitus, cognitive disorders, and immunological diseases. However, more extensive studies are needed to confirm these additional benefits.

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 in Japan and Thailand

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug administered to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Fundamental research suggests that ivermectin is effective against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment option.

METHODS

This multi-regional (Japan and Thailand), multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 (IVERMILCO Study). The participants took a specified number of the investigational product (ivermectin or placebo) tablets of, adjusted to a dose of 0.3-0.4 mg/kg, orally on an empty stomach once daily for three days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time at which clinical symptoms first showed an improving trend by 168 h after investigational product administration.

RESULTS

A total of 1030 eligible participants were assigned to receive the investigational product; 502 participants received ivermectin and 527 participants received a placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was approximately 96 h (approximately four days) for both ivermectin and placebo groups, which did not show statistically significant difference (stratified log-rank test, p = 0.61). The incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions did not show statistically significant differences between the ivermectin and placebo groups (chi-square test, p = 0.97, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that ivermectin (0.3-0.4 mg/kg), as a treatment for patients with mild COVID-19, is ineffective; however, its safety has been confirmed for participants, including minor participants of 12 years or older (IVERMILCO Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05056883.).

A randomized trial to assess the acceleration of viral clearance by the combination Favipiravir/Ivermectin/Niclosamide in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 adult patients (FINCOV)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of the viral clearance and clinical outcomes of favipiravir (FPV) in outpatients being treated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Ivermectin (IVM), niclosamide (NCL), and FPV demonstrated synergistic effects in vitro for exceed 78% inhibiting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication.

METHODS

A phase 2, open-label, 1:1, randomized, controlled trial was conducted on Thai patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who received either combination FPV/IVM/NCL therapy or FPV alone to assess the rate of viral clearance among individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

RESULTS

Sixty non-high-risk comorbid patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were randomized; 30 received FPV/IVM/NCL, and 30 received FPV alone. Mixed-effects multiple linear regression analysis of the cycle threshold value from SARS-CoV-2 PCR demonstrated no statistically significant differences in viral clearance rates between the combined FPV/IVM/NCL therapy group and the FPV-alone group. World Health Organization Clinical Progression scores and symptomatic improvement did not differ between arms on days 3, 6, and 10, and no adverse events were reported. No patients required hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or supplemental oxygen or died within 28 days. C-reactive protein on day 3 was lower in the FPV/IVM/NCL group.

CONCLUSION

Viral clearance rates did not differ significantly between the FPV/IVM/NCL combination therapy and FPV-alone groups of individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, although the combined regimen demonstrated a synergistic effect in vitro. No discernible clinical benefit was observed. Further research is required to explore the potential benefits of FVP beyond its antiviral effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TCTR20230403007, Registered 3 April 2023 - Retrospectively registered,https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=TCTR20230403007.

Matched vs Nonmatched Placebos in a Randomized Trial of COVID-19 Treatments

Importance

Matched placebo interventions are complex and resource intensive. Recent evidence suggests matched placebos may not always be necessary. Previous studies have predominantly evaluated potential bias of nonmatched placebos (ie, differing on dose, frequency of administration, or formulation) in pain and mental health, but to date no systematic examination has been conducted in infectious disease.

Objective

To test for differences between nonmatched and matched placebo arms with respect to clinical outcome measures across multiple therapeutics for COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In a comparative effectiveness research study, a post hoc analysis was conducted of data on individual patients enrolled in a large, multiarm, platform randomized clinical trial in symptomatic adult outpatients with COVID-19 between January 15, 2021, to September 28, 2023, in which the outcomes of both matched and nonmatched placebo groups were reported. Bayesian and frequentist covariate-adjusted techniques were compared with 7 intervention-placebo pairs.

Exposures

Seven matched and nonmatched placebo pairs (for a total of 7 comparisons) were evaluated throughout the primary platform trial. Comparisons were made between treatment and its associated matched (concurrent) placebo, as well as with nonmatched placebo (alone and in combination) assessed at a similar time point.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes assessed included hospitalizations, EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level scores, and PROMIS Global-10 scores.

Results

A total of 7 intervention-control pairs (N = 2684) were assessed, including 1620 (60.4%) women, with mean (SD) age, 47 (15.2) years; the most common comorbidities were obesity (41.9%) and hypertension (37.9%). In a meta-analysis with decoupled SEs, accounting for overlapping placebo patients, the overall odds ratio (OR) of nonmatched compared with matched placebo was 1.01 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.32), with posterior probability of equivalence, defined as 0.8 ≤ OR ≤ 1.2 (a deviation from perfect equivalence ie, OR = 1, by no more than 0.2) of 85.4%, implying no significant difference. Unadjusted analysis of the event rate difference between all nonmatched and matched placebo groups did not identify any notable differences across all 7 treatment-placebo combinations assessed. Similar analysis that was conducted for patient-reported quality of life outcomes did not yield statistically significant differences.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this post hoc study of a randomized clinical platform trial, pooling matched and nonmatched placebo patient data did not lead to inconsistencies in treatment effect estimation for any of the investigational drugs. These findings may have significant implications for future platform trials, as the use of nonmatched placebo may improve statistical power, or reduce barriers to placebo implementation.

Back to the Basics of SARS-CoV-2 Biochemistry: Microvascular Occlusive Glycan Bindings Govern Its Morbidities and Inform Therapeutic Responses

Consistent with the biochemistry of coronaviruses as well established over decades, SARS-CoV-2 makes its initial attachment to host cells through the binding of its spike protein (SP) to sialylated glycans (containing the monosaccharide sialic acid) on the cell surface. The virus can then slide over and enter via ACE2. SARS-CoV-2 SP attaches particularly tightly to the trillions of red blood cells (RBCs), platelets and endothelial cells in the human body, each cell very densely coated with sialic acid surface molecules but having no ACE2 or minimal ACE2. These interlaced attachments trigger the blood cell aggregation, microvascular occlusion and vascular damage that underlie the hypoxia, blood clotting and related morbidities of severe COVID-19. Notably, the two human betacoronaviruses that express a sialic acid-cleaving enzyme are benign, while the other three-SARS, SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-are virulent. RBC aggregation experimentally induced in several animal species using an injected polysaccharide caused most of the same morbidities of severe COVID-19. This glycan biochemistry is key to disentangling controversies that have arisen over the efficacy of certain generic COVID-19 treatment agents and the safety of SP-based COVID-19 vaccines. More broadly, disregard for the active physiological role of RBCs yields unreliable or erroneous reporting of pharmacokinetic parameters as routinely obtained for most drugs and other bioactive agents using detection in plasma, with whole-blood levels being up to 30-fold higher. Appreciation of the active role of RBCs can elucidate the microvascular underpinnings of other health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, and therapeutic opportunities to address them.

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 μg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN86534580.

FINDINGS

The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months.

INTERPRETATION

Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted.

FUNDING

UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

A guide to COVID-19 antiviral therapeutics: a summary and perspective of the antiviral weapons against SARS-CoV-2 infection

Antiviral therapies are integral in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), the causative agent of COVID-19. Antiviral therapeutics can be divided into categories based on how they combat the virus, including viral entry into the host cell, viral replication, protein trafficking, post-translational processing, and immune response regulation. Drugs that target how the virus enters the cell include: Evusheld, REGEN-COV, bamlanivimab and etesevimab, bebtelovimab, sotrovimab, Arbidol, nitazoxanide, and chloroquine. Drugs that prevent the virus from replicating include: Paxlovid, remdesivir, molnupiravir, favipiravir, ribavirin, and Kaletra. Drugs that interfere with protein trafficking and post-translational processing include nitazoxanide and ivermectin. Lastly, drugs that target immune response regulation include interferons and the use of anti-inflammatory drugs such as dexamethasone. Antiviral therapies offer an alternative solution for those unable or unwilling to be vaccinated and are a vital weapon in the battle against the global pandemic. Learning more about these therapies helps raise awareness in the general population about the options available to them with respect to aiding in the reduction of the severity of COVID-19 infection. In this 'A Guide To' article, we provide an in-depth insight into the development of antiviral therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2 and their ability to help fight COVID-19.

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.

Fluoxetine and Sertraline Potently Neutralize the Replication of Distinct SARS-CoV-2 Variants

The pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 is still a major health problem. Newly emerging variants and long-COVID-19 represent a challenge for the global health system. In particular, individuals in developing countries with insufficient health care need easily accessible, affordable and effective treatments of COVID-19. Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of functional inhibitors of acid sphingomyelinase against infections with various viruses, including early variants of SARS-CoV-2. This work investigated whether the acid sphingomyelinase inhibitors fluoxetine and sertraline, usually used as antidepressant molecules in clinical practice, can inhibit the replication of the former and recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 variants in vitro. Fluoxetine and sertraline potently inhibited the infection with pseudotyped virus-like particles and SARS-CoV-2 variants D614G, alpha, delta, omicron BA.1 and omicron BA.5. These results highlight fluoxetine and sertraline as priority candidates for large-scale phase 3 clinical trials at different stages of SARS-CoV-2 infections, either alone or in combination with other medications.

Bayesian interim analysis for prospective randomized studies: reanalysis of the acute myeloid leukemia HOVON 132 clinical trial

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to establish the benefit-risk ratio of novel drugs. However, the evaluation of mature results often takes many years. We hypothesized that the addition of Bayesian inference methods at interim analysis time points might accelerate and enforce the knowledge that such trials may generate. In order to test that hypothesis, we retrospectively applied a Bayesian approach to the HOVON 132 trial, in which 800 newly diagnosed AML patients aged 18 to 65 years were randomly assigned to a "7 + 3" induction with or without lenalidomide. Five years after the first patient was recruited, the trial was negative for its primary endpoint with no difference in event-free survival (EFS) between experimental and control groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, p = 0.96) in the final conventional analysis. We retrospectively simulated interim analyses after the inclusion of 150, 300, 450, and 600 patients using a Bayesian methodology to detect early lack of efficacy signals. The HR for EFS comparing the lenalidomide arm with the control treatment arm was 1.21 (95% CI 0.81-1.69), 1.05 (95% CI 0.86-1.30), 1.00 (95% CI 0.84-1.19), and 1.02 (95% CI 0.87-1.19) at interim analysis 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Complete remission rates were lower in the lenalidomide arm, and early deaths more frequent. A Bayesian approach identified that the probability of a clinically relevant benefit for EFS (HR < 0.76, as assumed in the statistical analysis plan) was very low at the first interim analysis (1.2%, 0.6%, 0.4%, and 0.1%, respectively). Similar observations were made for low probabilities of any benefit regarding CR. Therefore, Bayesian analysis significantly adds to conventional methods applied for interim analysis and may thereby accelerate the performance and completion of phase III trials.

Mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: Effects of treatment options (vitamin D, anticoagulation, isoprinosine, ivermectin) assessed by propensity score matching, retrospective analysis

INTRODUCTION

SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infection is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, especially in hospitalized high-risk patients. We aimed to evaluate the effects of treatment options (vitamin D, anticoagulation, isoprinosine, ivermectin) on hospital mortality in non-vaccinated patients during the 2021 spring wave in the Czech Republic.

METHODS

Initially, 991 patients hospitalized in the period January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2021, with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory infection in two university and five rural hospitals were included in the study. After exclusion of patients with an unknown outcome, a total of 790 patients entered the final analysis. The effects of different treatments were assessed in this cohort by means of propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of the 790 patients, 282 patients died in the hospital; 37.7% were male and 33.3% were female. Age, sex, state of the disease, pneumonia, therapy, and several comorbidities were matched to simulate a case-control study. For anticoagulation treatment, 233 cases (full-dose) vs. 233 controls (prophylactic dose) were matched. The difference in mortality was significant in 16 of the 50 runs. For the treatment with isoprinosine, ivermectin, and vitamin D, none of the 50 runs led to a significant difference in hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic-dose anticoagulation treatment in our study was found to be beneficial in comparison with the full dose. Supplementation with vitamin D did not show any meaningful benefit in terms of lowering the hospital mortality. Neither ivermectin nor, isoprinosine was found to significantly decrease hospital mortality.

Wheel Replacing Pyramid: Better Paradigm Representing Totality of Evidence-Based Medicine

Background

Evidence-based medicine (EBM), as originally conceived, used all types of peer-reviewed evidence to guide medical practice and decision-making. During the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the standard usage of EBM, modeled by the Evidence-Based Medicine Pyramid, undermined EBM by incorrectly using pyramid levels to assign relative quality. The resulting pyramid-based thinking is biased against reports both in levels beneath randomized control trials (RCTs) and those omitted from the pyramid entirely. Thus, much of the evidence was ignored. Our desire for a more encompassing and effective medical decision-making process to apply to repurposed drugs led us to develop an alternative to the EBM Pyramid for EBM. Herein, we propose the totality of evidence (T-EBM) wheel.

Objectives

To create an easily understood graphic that models EBM by incorporating all peer-reviewed evidence that applies to both new and repurposed medicines, and to demonstrate its potential utility using ivermectin as a case study.

Methods

The graphics were produced using Microsoft Office Visio Professional 2003 except for part of the T-EBM wheel sunburst chart, which was produced using Microsoft 365 Excel. For the case study, PubMed® was used by searching for peer-reviewed reports containing "ivermectin" and either "covid" or "sars" in the title. Reports were filtered for those using ivermectin-based protocols in the treatment of COVID-19. The resulting 265 reports were evaluated for their study design types and treatment outcomes. The three-ringed graphical T-EBM wheel was composed of two inner rings showing all types of reports and an outer ring showing outcomes for each type.

Findings-Conclusions

The T-EBM wheel avoids the biases of the EBM Pyramid and includes all types of reports in the pyramid along with reports such as population and mechanistic studies. In both early and late stages of medical emergencies, pyramid-based thinking may overlook indications of efficacy in regions of the T-EBM wheel beyond RCTs. This is especially true when searching for ways to prevent and treat a novel disease with repurposed therapeutics before RCTs, safety assessments, and mechanisms of action of novel therapeutics are established. As such, T-EBM Wheels should replace the EBM Pyramids in medical decision-making and education. T-EBM Wheels can be expanded upon by implementing multiple outer rings, one for each different kind of outcome (efficacy, safety, etc.). A T-EBM Wheel can be created for any proprietary or generic medicine. The ivermectin (IVM) T-EBM Wheel displays the efficacy of IVM-based treatments of COVID-19 in a color-coded graphic, visualizing each type of evidence and the proportions of each of their outcomes (positive, inconclusive, negative).

Halofuginone for non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 a multicenter, randomized placebo-controlled phase 2 trial. The HALOS trial

BACKGROUND

Halofuginone (PJS-539) is an oral prolyl-tRNA synthetase inhibitor that has a potent in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 virus. The safety and efficacy of halofuginone in Covid-19 patients has not been studied.

METHODS

We conducted a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose ranging, safety and tolerability trial of halofuginone in symptomatic (≤ 7 days), mostly vaccinated, non-hospitalized adults with mild to moderate Covid-19. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive halofuginone 0.5mg, 1mg or placebo orally once daily for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithmic curve within 10 days after randomization.

RESULTS

From September 25, 2021, to February 3, 2022, 153 patients were randomized. The mean decay rate in SARS-CoV-2 viral load log10 within 10 days was -3.75 (95% CI, -4.11; -3.19) in the placebo group, -3.83 (95% CI, -4.40; -2.27) in the halofuginone 0.5mg group and -4.13 (95% CI, -4.69; -3.57) in the halofuginone 1mg group, with no statistically significant difference in between placebo vs. halofuginone 0.5mg (mean difference -0.08; 95% CI -0.82 to 0.66, p = 0.96) and between placebo vs. halofuginone 1mg (mean difference -0.38; 95% CI, -1.11; 0.36, p = 0.41). There was no difference on bleeding episodes or serious adverse events at 28 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Among non-hospitalized adults with mild to moderate Covid-19 halofuginone treatment was safe and well tolerated but did not decrease SARS-CoV-2 viral load decay rate within 10 days.

Natural products as a source of Coronavirus entry inhibitors

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant and lasting impact on the world. Four years on, despite the existence of effective vaccines, the continuous emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants remains a challenge for long-term immunity. Additionally, there remain few purpose-built antivirals to protect individuals at risk of severe disease in the event of future coronavirus outbreaks. A promising mechanism of action for novel coronavirus antivirals is the inhibition of viral entry. To facilitate entry, the coronavirus spike glycoprotein interacts with angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) on respiratory epithelial cells. Blocking this interaction and consequently viral replication may be an effective strategy for treating infection, however further research is needed to better characterize candidate molecules with antiviral activity before progressing to animal studies and clinical trials. In general, antiviral drugs are developed from purely synthetic compounds or synthetic derivatives of natural products such as plant secondary metabolites. While the former is often favored due to the higher specificity afforded by rational drug design, natural products offer several unique advantages that make them worthy of further study including diverse bioactivity and the ability to work synergistically with other drugs. Accordingly, there has recently been a renewed interest in natural product-derived antivirals in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides a summary of recent research into coronavirus entry inhibitors, with a focus on natural compounds derived from plants, honey, and marine sponges.

Clinical course and management of COVID-19 in the era of widespread population immunity

The clinical implications of COVID-19 have changed since SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in humans. The current high levels of population immunity, due to prior infection and/or vaccination, have been associated with a vastly decreased overall risk of severe disease. Some people, particularly those with immunocompromising conditions, remain at risk for severe outcomes. Through the course of the pandemic, variants with somewhat different symptom profiles from the original SARS-CoV-2 virus have emerged. The management of COVID-19 has also changed since 2020, with the increasing availability of evidence-based treatments in two main classes: antivirals and immunomodulators. Selecting the appropriate treatment(s) for patients with COVID-19 requires a deep understanding of the evidence and an awareness of the limitations of applying data that have been largely based on immune-naive populations to patients today who most likely have vaccine-derived and/or infection-derived immunity. In this Review, we provide a summary of the clinical manifestations and approaches to caring for adult patients with COVID-19 in the era of vaccine availability and the dominance of the Omicron subvariants, with a focus on the management of COVID-19 in different patient groups, including immunocompromised, pregnant, vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

Drug Repurposing in the Chemotherapy of Infectious Diseases

Repurposing is a universal mechanism for innovation, from the evolution of feathers to the invention of Velcro tape. Repurposing is particularly attractive for drug development, given that it costs more than a billion dollars and takes longer than ten years to make a new drug from scratch. The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a large number of drug repurposing activities. At the same time, it has highlighted potential pitfalls, in particular when concessions are made to the target product profile. Here, we discuss the pros and cons of drug repurposing for infectious diseases and analyze different ways of repurposing. We distinguish between opportunistic and rational approaches, i.e., just saving time and money by screening compounds that are already approved versus repurposing based on a particular target that is common to different pathogens. The latter can be further distinguished into divergent and convergent: points of attack that are divergent share common ancestry (e.g., prokaryotic targets in the apicoplast of malaria parasites), whereas those that are convergent arise from a shared lifestyle (e.g., the susceptibility of bacteria, parasites, and tumor cells to antifolates due to their high rate of DNA synthesis). We illustrate how such different scenarios can be capitalized on by using examples of drugs that have been repurposed to, from, or within the field of anti-infective chemotherapy.

Discovery of High Affinity Cyclic Peptide Ligands for Human ACE2 with SARS-CoV-2 Entry Inhibitory Activity

The development of effective antiviral compounds is essential for mitigating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Entry of SARS-CoV-2 virions into host cells is mediated by the interaction between the viral spike (S) protein and membrane-bound angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) on the surface of epithelial cells. Inhibition of this viral protein-host protein interaction is an attractive avenue for the development of antiviral molecules with numerous spike-binding molecules generated to date. Herein, we describe an alternative approach to inhibit the spike-ACE2 interaction by targeting the spike-binding interface of human ACE2 via mRNA display. Two consecutive display selections were performed to direct cyclic peptide ligand binding toward the spike binding interface of ACE2. Through this process, potent cyclic peptide binders of human ACE2 (with affinities in the picomolar to nanomolar range) were identified, two of which neutralized SARS-CoV-2 entry. This work demonstrates the potential of targeting ACE2 for the generation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics as well as broad spectrum antivirals for the treatment of SARS-like betacoronavirus infection.

Clinical antiviral efficacy of favipiravir in early COVID-19 (PLATCOV): an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial

In early symptomatic COVID-19 treatment, high dose oral favipiravir did not accelerate viral clearance.

BACKGROUND

Favipiravir, an anti-influenza drug, has in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical trial evidence to date is inconclusive. Favipiravir has been recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in some countries.

METHODS

In a multicentre open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to one of ten treatment arms including high dose oral favipiravir (3.6g on day 0 followed by 1.6g daily to complete 7 days treatment) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of viral clearance (derived under a linear mixed-effects model from the daily log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 8 days [18 swabs per patient]), assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of the allocated intervention. This ongoing adaptive platform trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907) on 13/09/2021.

RESULTS

In the final analysis, the mITT population contained data from 114 patients randomised to favipiravir and 126 patients randomised concurrently to no study drug. Under the linear mixed-effects model fitted to all oropharyngeal viral density estimates in the first 8 days from randomisation (4,318 swabs), there was no difference in the rate of viral clearance between patients given favipiravir and patients receiving no study drug; a -1% (95% credible interval: -14 to 14%) difference. High dose favipiravir was well-tolerated.

INTERPRETATION

Favipiravir does not accelerate viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. The viral clearance rate estimated from quantitative measurements of oropharyngeal eluate viral densities assesses the antiviral efficacy of drugs in vivo with comparatively few studied patients.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Effectiveness of Drug Repurposing and Natural Products Against SARS-CoV-2: A Comprehensive Review

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a betacoronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, causing respiratory disorders, and even death in some individuals, if not appropriately treated in time. To face the pandemic, preventive measures have been taken against contagions and the application of vaccines to prevent severe disease and death cases. For the COVID-19 treatment, antiviral, antiparasitic, anticoagulant and other drugs have been reused due to limited specific medicaments for the disease. Drug repurposing is an emerging strategy with therapies that have already tested safe in humans. One promising alternative for systematic experimental screening of a vast pool of compounds is computational drug repurposing (in silico assay). Using these tools, new uses for approved drugs such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, zidovudine, ribavirin, lamivudine, remdesivir, lopinavir and tenofovir/emtricitabine have been conducted, showing effectiveness in vitro and in silico against SARS-CoV-2 and some of these, also in clinical trials. Additionally, therapeutic options have been sought in natural products (terpenoids, alkaloids, saponins and phenolics) with promising in vitro and in silico results for use in COVID-19 disease. Among these, the most studied are resveratrol, quercetin, hesperidin, curcumin, myricetin and betulinic acid, which were proposed as SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors. Among the drugs reused to control the SARS-CoV2, better results have been observed for remdesivir in hospitalized patients and outpatients. Regarding natural products, resveratrol, curcumin, and quercetin have demonstrated in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and in vivo, a nebulized formulation has demonstrated to alleviate the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19. This review shows the evidence of drug repurposing efficacy and the potential use of natural products as a treatment for COVID-19. For this, a search was carried out in PubMed, SciELO and ScienceDirect databases for articles about drugs approved or under study and natural compounds recognized for their antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2.

An Update on SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Trial Results-What We Can Learn for the Next Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed over 7 million lives worldwide, providing a stark reminder of the importance of pandemic preparedness. Due to the lack of approved antiviral drugs effective against coronaviruses at the start of the pandemic, the world largely relied on repurposed efforts. Here, we summarise results from randomised controlled trials to date, as well as selected in vitro data of directly acting antivirals, host-targeting antivirals, and immunomodulatory drugs. Overall, repurposing efforts evaluating directly acting antivirals targeting other viral families were largely unsuccessful, whereas several immunomodulatory drugs led to clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with severe disease. In addition, accelerated drug discovery efforts during the pandemic progressed to multiple novel directly acting antivirals with clinical efficacy, including small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. We argue that large-scale investment is required to prepare for future pandemics; both to develop an arsenal of broad-spectrum antivirals beyond coronaviruses and build worldwide clinical trial networks that can be rapidly utilised.

Clinical development of antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants

The unceasing global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) calls for the development of novel therapeutics. Although many newly developed antivirals and repurposed antivirals have been applied to the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), antivirals showing satisfactory clinical efficacy are few in number. In addition, the loss of sensitivity to variants of concern (VOCs) and lack of oral bioavailability have also limited the clinical application of some antivirals. These facts remind us to develop more potent and broad-spectrum antivirals with better pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties to fight against infections from SARS-CoV-2, its variants, and other human coronaviruses (HCoVs). In this review, we summarize the latest advancements in the clinical development of antivirals against infections by SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

Sialylated Glycan Bindings from SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein to Blood and Endothelial Cells Govern the Severe Morbidities of COVID-19

Consistent with well-established biochemical properties of coronaviruses, sialylated glycan attachments between SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (SP) and host cells are key to the virus's pathology. SARS-CoV-2 SP attaches to and aggregates red blood cells (RBCs), as shown in many pre-clinical and clinical studies, causing pulmonary and extrapulmonary microthrombi and hypoxia in severe COVID-19 patients. SARS-CoV-2 SP attachments to the heavily sialylated surfaces of platelets (which, like RBCs, have no ACE2) and endothelial cells (having minimal ACE2) compound this vascular damage. Notably, experimentally induced RBC aggregation in vivo causes the same key morbidities as for severe COVID-19, including microvascular occlusion, blood clots, hypoxia and myocarditis. Key risk factors for COVID-19 morbidity, including older age, diabetes and obesity, are all characterized by markedly increased propensity to RBC clumping. For mammalian species, the degree of clinical susceptibility to COVID-19 correlates to RBC aggregability with p = 0.033. Notably, of the five human betacoronaviruses, the two common cold strains express an enzyme that releases glycan attachments, while the deadly SARS, SARS-CoV-2 and MERS do not, although viral loads for COVID-19 and the two common cold infections are similar. These biochemical insights also explain the previously puzzling clinical efficacy of certain generics against COVID-19 and may support the development of future therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and long COVID patients.

Interactions between the principal risk factors for reduction of the eGFR in unvaccinated COVID‑19 survivors: Normal pre-COVID‑19 eGFR, not having diabetes and being hospitalized

There are contradictory results regarding changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors. An analysis of eGFR changes and clinical characteristics associated with those changes was conducted among COVID-19 survivors. eGFR values were compared at different time points (before and 4-, 8- and 12-months after COVID-19 infection). A multivariate generalized linear mixed model (GENLINMIXED procedure) with a binary logistic regression link was used to determine factors associated with eGFR reduction of ≥10 ml/min/1.73 m2. Being hospitalized (RR=2.90, 95% CI=1.10-7.68, P=0.032), treated with Ivermectin (RR=14.02, 95% CI=4.11-47.80, P<0.001) or anticoagulants (RR=6.51, 95% CI=2.69-15.73, P<0.001) are risk factors for a reduced eGFR. Having a low eGFR (<90 ml/min/1.73 m2) before COVID-19 infection, having B-positive blood type, diabetes, taking vitamin C during the acute phase of COVID-19 or suffering from chronic COVID-19 symptoms, were identified as protective factors. Analysis involving a two-way interaction (A x B, where A and B are factors) demonstrated that the combination of patients with a normal eGFR value before COVID-19 infection without diabetes (RR=58.60, 95% CI=11.62-295.38, P<0.001), or a normal eGFR value with being hospitalized for COVID-19 (RR=38.07, 95% CI=8.68-167.00, P<0.001), increased the probability of a reduced eGFR. The changes in eGFR in COVID-19 survivors varied depending on patient characteristics. Furthermore, the principal risk factors for post-COVID-19 eGFR reduction were analyzed in separate models.

Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicle Infusion for the Treatment of Respiratory Failure From COVID-19: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Dosing Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell (BM-MSC)-derived extracellular vesicles (ExoFlo) convey the immunomodulatory and regenerative properties of intact BM-MSCs. This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ExoFlo as treatment for moderate to severe ARDS in patients with severe COVID-19.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do two doses of ExoFlo safely reduce mortality in COVID-19-associated moderate to severe ARDS compared with placebo?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A prospective phase 2 multicenter double-anonymized randomized placebo-controlled dosing trial was conducted at five sites across the United States with infusions of placebo, 10 mL of ExoFlo, or 15 mL of ExoFlo on days 1 and 4. Patients (N = 102) with COVID-19-associated moderate to severe ARDS were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Adverse events were documented throughout the study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause 60-day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes included time to death (overall mortality); the incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse events; proportion of discharged patients at 7, 30, and 60 days; time to hospital discharge; and ventilation-free days.

RESULTS

No treatment-related adverse events were reported. Mortality (60-day) in the intention-to-treat population was reduced with 15 mL ExoFlo mixed with 85 mL normal saline (ExoFlo-15) compared with placebo (not significant, χ2, P = .1343). For the post hoc subgroup analyses, 60-day mortality was decreased with ExoFlo-15 compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.385; 95% CI, 0.159-0.931; P = .0340; n = 50). With ExoFlo-15, a relative risk of 0.423 (95% CI, 0.173-1.032; P = .0588; n = 24) was determined for participants aged 18 to 65 years with moderate to severe ARDS. Ventilation-free days improved with ExoFlo-15 (P = .0455; n = 50) for all participants aged 18 to 65 years.

INTERPRETATION

The 15 mL dose of ExoFlo was found to be safe in patients with severe or critical COVID-19-associated respiratory failure. In participants aged 18 to 65 years, the risk reduction in 60-day mortality was further improved from subjects of all ages in the intention-to-treat population after two doses of 15 mL of ExoFlo compared with placebo.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04493242; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Innovative approaches to COVID-19 medical countermeasure development

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic, while unfortunately notable for immense strain and death throughout the world, has also shown great promise in the development of medical countermeasures. As the global scientific community shifted almost entirely towards vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics, new trial designs most significantly adaptive platform trials, began to be used with greater speed and broader reach. These designs allowed for deploying and investigating new therapeutics, repurposing currently existing therapeutics and flexibly removing or adding additional medications as data appeared in real-time. Moreover, public-private sector partnering occurred at a level not seen before, contributing greatly to the rapid development and deployment of vaccines.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a brief overview of the advances in preventative and therapeutic medical countermeasure development for COVID-19.

METHODS

A narrative review of relevant major medical countermeasure trials was conducted using the date range February 2020-December 2022, representing the period of greatest productivity in research to investigate COVID-19.

RESULTS

Among the most influential trial designs are the adaptive platform designs, which have been applied to the development of initial COVID-19 antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, repurposing of existing immunomodulatory therapy and assisted in the disproof of ineffective medical therapies. Some of the most prominent examples include the REMAP-CAP, RECOVERY and TOGETHER trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Adaptive platform trial designs hold great promise for utility in future pandemics and mass casualty events. Additionally, public-private sectoring is essential for rapid medical countermeasure development and should be further enhanced for future biopreparedness.

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Medical Product Procurement, Prices, and Supply Chain in Zimbabwe: Lessons for Supply Chain Resiliency

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted global health supply chains including manufacturing, storage, and delivery of essential medicines, testing kits, personal protective equipment, and laboratory reagents. We sought to document how pandemic impacted the procurement, prices, and supply chain of medical products in Zimbabwe.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured in-depth key informant interviews with 36 health system stakeholders in Zimbabwe involved in medicine procurement. Respondents included pharmacists, regulatory officers, and procurement and supply chain management professionals from public and private sectors.

RESULTS

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, respondents described experiencing long-standing resource constraints, medicine shortages, foreign currency shortages, and supply chain inefficiencies. The pandemic exacerbated this situation due to supply constraints, export restrictions, medicine shortages, and movement restrictions that disrupted logistical and stock management systems. Competitive bidding and tendering processes experienced reduced participation by international suppliers. Significant price increases were initially observed among internationally shipped medicines and for personal protective equipment to cover additional freight costs. COVID-19 pandemic impacts were moderated by reduced patient demand and lower health services utilization, resulting in fewer supply shocks and less price volatility. Further, health system adaptations such as switching treatment regimens, modifying dispensing schedules based on stock availability, redistributing stock of medicines among facilities, and new service delivery models such as integrated outreach services helped ensure continued patient access to medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the need for policies that ensure continuity in access to health services and medical products, even during a pandemic, by avoiding blanket restrictions on medical product exports and imports. Pooled procurement, especially at regional and global levels, with long-term service agreements may help achieve greater resiliency to supply and price shocks from supply chain disruptions. Interventions across manufacturing, trade, and regulatory policy and service delivery models are also needed for supply chain resiliency.

Assessment of the available therapeutic approaches for severe COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The study aimed to evaluate severe COVID-19 treatment approaches. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RTCs) with standard of care (SoC) as a control group and/or placebo. Database searching was performed separately for severe COVID-19 treatment such as anakinra, remdesivir, baricitinib, ivermectin, ritonavir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, sotrovimab, casirivimab/imdevimab. The results are presented as Risk Ratio (RR), 95% Confidence Interval (CI), and heterogeneity (I2). We obtained the most statistically significant outcomes favorable tocilizumab compared to SoC for death incidents RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.80, 0.95], overall effect p = 0.002, heterogeneity p = 0.85, I2 = 0%, need for mechanical ventilation RR 0.78 [95% CI 0.68, 0.89], overall effect p = 0.0004, heterogeneity p = 0.55, I2 = 0%, and number of patients discharged from hospital. RR 1.13 [95% CI 1.07, 1.20], overall effect p < 0.00001, heterogeneity p = 0.009, I2 = 85%. This meta-analysis has revealed that a considerable amount of research characterized by a very diverse methodology is available. Despite the limited data that met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, we showed that the available treatment options for severe COVID-19 are effective.

From Emergence to Endemicity: A Comprehensive Review of COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), later renamed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first identified in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019. Initially, the China office of the World Health Organization was informed of numerous cases of pneumonia of unidentified etiology in Wuhan, Hubei Province at the end of 2019. This would subsequently result in a global pandemic with millions of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and millions of deaths reported to the WHO. We have analyzed most of the data published since the beginning of the pandemic to compile this comprehensive review of SARS-CoV-2. We looked at the core ideas, such as the etiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical symptoms, diagnostics, histopathologic findings, consequences, therapies, and vaccines. We have also included the long-term effects and myths associated with some therapeutics of COVID-19. This study presents a comprehensive assessment of the SARS-CoV-2 virology, vaccines, medicines, and significant variants identified during the course of the pandemic. Our review article is intended to provide medical practitioners with a better understanding of the fundamental sciences, clinical treatment, and prevention of COVID-19. As of May 2023, this paper contains the most recent data made accessible.

The importance of patient-partnered research in addressing long COVID: Takeaways for biomedical research study design from the RECOVER Initiative's Mechanistic Pathways taskforce

The NIH-funded RECOVER study is collecting clinical data on patients who experience a SARS-CoV-2 infection. As patient representatives of the RECOVER Initiative's Mechanistic Pathways task force, we offer our perspectives on patient motivations for partnering with researchers to obtain results from mechanistic studies. We emphasize the challenges of balancing urgency with scientific rigor. We recognize the importance of such partnerships in addressing post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), which includes 'long COVID,' through contrasting objective and subjective narratives. Long COVID's prevalence served as a call to action for patients like us to become actively involved in efforts to understand our condition. Patient-centered and patient-partnered research informs the balance between urgency and robust mechanistic research. Results from collaborating on protocol design, diverse patient inclusion, and awareness of community concerns establish a new precedent in biomedical research study design. With a public health matter as pressing as the long-term complications that can emerge after SARS-CoV-2 infection, considerate and equitable stakeholder involvement is essential to guiding seminal research. Discussions in the RECOVER Mechanistic Pathways task force gave rise to this commentary as well as other review articles on the current scientific understanding of PASC mechanisms.

Inhaled Fluticasone Furoate for Outpatient Treatment of Covid-19

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of inhaled glucocorticoids in shortening the time to symptom resolution or preventing hospitalization or death among outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial in the United States to assess the use of repurposed medications in outpatients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Nonhospitalized adults 30 years of age or older who had at least two symptoms of acute infection that had been present for no more than 7 days before enrollment were randomly assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate at a dose of 200 μg once daily for 14 days or placebo. The primary outcome was the time to sustained recovery, defined as the third of 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Key secondary outcomes included hospitalization or death by day 28 and a composite outcome of the need for an urgent-care or emergency department visit or hospitalization or death through day 28.

RESULTS

Of the 1407 enrolled participants who underwent randomization, 715 were assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate and 692 to receive placebo, and 656 and 621, respectively, were included in the analysis. There was no evidence that the use of fluticasone furoate resulted in a shorter time to recovery than placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% credible interval, 0.91 to 1.12; posterior probability of benefit [defined as a hazard ratio >1], 0.56). A total of 24 participants (3.7%) in the fluticasone furoate group had urgent-care or emergency department visits or were hospitalized, as compared with 13 participants (2.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% credible interval, 0.8 to 3.5). Three participants in each group were hospitalized, and no deaths occurred. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with inhaled fluticasone furoate for 14 days did not result in a shorter time to recovery than placebo among outpatients with Covid-19 in the United States. (Funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and others; ACTIV-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04885530.).

Acute Cardiac Manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Spotting the Clot

A middle-aged gentleman presented with a one-week history of progressive dyspnoea on minimal exertion, persistent haemoptysis, and right calf swelling. His only past medical history of note was a recently positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab performed as part of a workplace outbreak screening. A CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) showed bilateral pulmonary thrombi, extensive consolidation, and a left ventricular (LV) thrombus. A transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) showed a dilated LV with severely impaired systolic function and LV thrombus. The patient was anticoagulated with warfarin, commenced on IV diuretics and COVID-19 protocol. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging showed a severely dilated nonischaemic cardiomyopathy with a heavy thrombus burden and a fibrosis pattern in keeping with myocarditis. We present a case of COVID-19-related myocardial dysfunction with high thrombotic burden and a discussion of its management.

A cross-lingual analysis on the spread of misinformation using the case of Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19

The spread of misinformation transgresses international boundaries, between languages and cultures. This is especially evident in times of global crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic. This study observes misinformation on Twitter in the Japanese and English languages regarding false claims that the drug Ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid-19. Our exploratory cross-lingual analysis identifies key themes of discussion and influential users in both languages, finding English misinformation to be highly popular amongst Japanese users. Significantly, an analysis of the timing of retweets between languages reveals that Japanese users find and widely share English misinformation often before English users themselves. This contradicts expectations that users from other languages tend to pick up on popular misinformation in English. Instead, they seek out English language sources irrespective of their popularity to support their agenda. These results emphasise the importance of cross-lingual mitigation strategies for organizations trying to combat misinformation, and that they must look beyond their own language spheres.

Anthracyclines inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection

Vaccines and drugs are two effective medical interventions to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection. Three SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors, remdesivir, paxlovid, and molnupiravir, have been approved for treating COVID-19 patients, but more are needed, because each drug has its limitation of usage and SARS-CoV-2 constantly develops drug resistance mutations. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 drugs have the potential to be repurposed to inhibit new human coronaviruses, thus help to prepare for future coronavirus outbreaks. We have screened a library of microbial metabolites to discover new SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors. To facilitate this screening effort, we generated a recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant carrying the nano luciferase as a reporter for measuring viral infection. Six compounds were found to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 at the half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) below 1 μM, including the anthracycline drug aclarubicin that markedly reduced viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp)-mediated gene expression, whereas other anthracyclines inhibited SARS-CoV-2 by activating the expression of interferon and antiviral genes. As the most commonly prescribed anti-cancer drugs, anthracyclines hold the promise of becoming new SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors.

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

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

Impact of misinformation on ivermectin internet searches and prescribing trends during COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a surge of publications seeking to understand the SARS-CoV-2 virus. A byproduct of the rush to understand COVID-19 has been the publication and subsequent retraction of papers promoting unfounded treatments, such as ivermectin-an anti-parasitic medication. This study aims to determine the impact retracted studies may have had on ivermectin prescription rates. TriNetX was used to gather anonymized patient data from 67 healthcare organizations both within the USA (36,711 patients; 91.6%) and abroad (3,266 patients; 8.14%) to obtain prescribing rates for ivermectin between April 2020-September 2022. Google Trends was used to gauge online interest in purchasing ivermectin in relation to prescribing rates. We found that ivermectin use largely increased following periods in which later-retracted journal articles were written touting its potential benefits. Multiple spikes in Google searches were observed, with the first three local peaks occurring within the first, second, and third publication 'clusters,' respectively. The maximum peak for searches occurred just one month after the maximum number of ivermectin prescriptions. This information is important for understanding how health-related misinformation spreads, and how to best minimize and counteract the impact of such misinformation in the future.

Pan-American Guidelines for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a joint evidence-based guideline of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API)

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations. Considering the particular impact of COVID-19 in the Americas, this document aims to present recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 specific to this population.

METHODS

Fifteen experts, members of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) make up the panel responsible for developing this guideline. Questions were formulated regarding prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. The outcomes considered in decision-making were mortality, hospitalisation, need for mechanical ventilation, symptomatic COVID-19 episodes, and adverse events. In addition, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. The quality of evidence assessment and guideline development process followed the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Nine technologies were evaluated, and ten recommendations were made, including the use of tixagevimab + cilgavimab in the prophylaxis of COVID-19, tixagevimab + cilgavimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, and remdesivir in the treatment of outpatients, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and ivermectin was discouraged.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides recommendations for treating patients in the Americas following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The recommendations present a set of drugs that have proven effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, emphasising the strong recommendation for the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in outpatients as the lack of benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

A template for the authoring of statistical analysis plans

A number of principal investigators may have limited access to biostatisticians, a lack of biostatistical training, or no requirement to complete a timely statistical analysis plan (SAP). SAPs completed early will identify design or implementation weak points, improve protocols, remove the temptation for p-hacking, and enable proper peer review by stakeholders considering funding the trial. An SAP completed at the same time as the study protocol might be the only comprehensive method for at once optimizing sample size, identifying bias, and applying rigor to study design. This ordered corpus of SAP sections with detailed definitions and a variety of examples represents an omnibus of best practice methods offered by biostatistical practitioners inside and outside of industry. The article presents a protocol template for clinical research design, enabling statisticians, from beginners to advanced.

COVID-19 Excess Deaths in Peru's 25 States in 2020: Nationwide Trends, Confounding Factors, and Correlations With the Extent of Ivermectin Treatment by State

Introduction In 2020, nations hastened to contain an emerging COVID-19 pandemic by deploying diverse public health approaches, but conclusive appraisals of the efficacy of these approaches are elusive in most cases. One of the medicines deployed, ivermectin (IVM), a macrocyclic lactone having biochemical activity against SARS-CoV-2 through competitive binding to its spike protein, has yielded mixed results in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for COVID-19 treatments. In Peru, an opportunity to track the efficacy of IVM with a close consideration of confounding factors was provided through data for excess deaths as correlated with IVM use in 2020, under semi-autonomous policies in its 25 states. Methods To evaluate possible IVM treatment effects, excess deaths as determined from Peruvian national health data were analyzed by state for ages ≥60 in Peru's 25 states. These data were compared with monthly summary data for excess deaths in Peru for the period 2020-2021 as published by the WHO in 2022. To identify potential confounding factors, Google mobility data, population densities, SARS-CoV-2 genetic variations, and seropositivity rates were also examined. Results Reductions in excess deaths over a period of 30 days after peak deaths averaged 74% in the 10 states with the most intensive IVM use. As determined across all 25 states, these reductions in excess deaths correlated closely with the extent of IVM use (p<0.002). During four months of IVM use in 2020, before a new president of Peru restricted its use, there was a 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths and then a 13-fold increase in the two months following the restriction of IVM use. Notably, these trends in nationwide excess deaths align with WHO summary data for the same period in Peru. Conclusions The natural experiment that was put into motion with the authorization of IVM use for COVID-19 in Peru in May 2020, as analyzed using data on excess deaths by locality and by state from Peruvian national health sources, resulted in strong evidence for the drug's effectiveness. Several potential confounding factors, including effects of a social isolation mandate imposed in May 2020, variations in the genetic makeup of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and differences in seropositivity rates and population densities across the 25 states, were considered but did not appear to have significantly influenced these outcomes.

The Penn Medicine COVID-19 Therapeutics Committee-Reflections on a Model for Rapid Evidence Review and Dynamic Practice Recommendations During a Public Health Emergency

The Penn Medicine COVID-19 Therapeutics Committee-an interspecialty, clinician-pharmacist, and specialist-front line primary care collaboration-has served as a forum for rapid evidence review and the production of dynamic practice recommendations during the 3-year coronavirus disease 2019 public health emergency. We describe the process by which the committee went about its work and how it navigated specific challenging scenarios. Our target audiences are clinicians, hospital leaders, public health officials, and researchers invested in preparedness for inevitable future threats. Our objectives are to discuss the logistics and challenges of forming an effective committee, undertaking a rapid evidence review process, aligning evidence-based guidelines with operational realities, and iteratively revising recommendations in response to changing pandemic data. We specifically discuss the arc of evidence for corticosteroids; the noble beginnings and dangerous misinformation end of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; monoclonal antibodies and emerging viral variants; and patient screening and safety processes for tocilizumab, baricitinib, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Post-mortem findings in Spanish patients with COVID-19; a special focus on superinfections

Introduction

Whole-body autopsies may be crucial to understand coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathophysiology. We aimed to analyze pathological findings in a large series of full-body autopsies, with a special focus on superinfections.

Methods

This was a prospective multicenter study that included 70 COVID-19 autopsies performed between April 2020 and February 2021. Epidemiological, clinical and pathological information was collected using a standardized case report form.

Results

Median (IQR) age was 70 (range 63.75-74.25) years and 76% of cases were males. Most patients (90%,) had at least one comorbidity prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with vascular risk factors being the most frequent. Infectious complications were developed by 65.71% of the patients during their follow-up. Mechanical ventilation was required in most patients (75.71%) and was mainly invasive. In multivariate analyses, length of hospital stay and invasive mechanical ventilation were significantly associated with infections (p = 0.036 and p = 0.013, respectively). Necropsy findings revealed diffuse alveolar damage in the lungs, left ventricular hypertrophy in the heart, liver steatosis and pre-infection arteriosclerosis in the heart and kidneys.

Conclusion

Our study confirms the main necropsy histopathological findings attributed to COVID-19 in a large patient series, while underlining the importance of both comorbid conditions and superinfections in the pathology.

Outpatient regimens to reduce COVID-19 hospitalisations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

During pandemics, early outpatient treatments reduce the health system burden. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-19 outpatients have tested therapeutic agents, but no RCT or systematic review has been conducted comparing the efficacy of the main outpatient treatment classes to each other. We aimed in this systematic review of outpatient RCTs in COVID-19 to compare hospitalisation rate reductions with four classes of treatment: convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, small molecule antivirals and repurposed drugs.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all COVID-19 outpatient RCTs that included the endpoint of progression to hospitalisation. We assembled, from multiple published and preprint databases, participant characteristics, hospitalisations, resolution of symptoms and mortality from January 2020 to May 21, 2023. The risk of bias from COVID-NMA was incorporated into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We measured heterogeneity with I 2 . Meta-analysis by a random or fixed effect model dependent on significant heterogeneity (I 2 >50%) was performed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022369181.

Findings

The search identified 281 studies of which 54 RCTs for 30 diverse interventions were included in the final analysis. These trials, performed largely in unvaccinated cohorts during pre-Omicron waves, focused on populations with at least one COVID-19 hospitalisation risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (OR=0.31 [95% CI=0.24-0.40]) had highest efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR=0.69 [95% CI=0.53 to 0.90]) and small molecule antivirals (OR=0.78 [95% CI=0.48-1.33]) for hospital reduction. Repurposed drugs (OR=0.82 [95% CI-0.72-0.93]) had lower efficacy.

Interpretation

Inasmuch as omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are now resistant to monoclonal antibodies, oral antivirals are the preferred treatment in outpatients where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

Funding

US Department of Defense and National Institute of Health.

Research in context

Evidence before this study: We systematically searched the published and preprint data bases for outpatient randomized clinical trials of treatment of COVID-19 disease with hospitalisation as an endpoint. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have confined the reviews to specific classes such as convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, small molecule antivirals or repurposed drugs. Few comparisons have been made between these therapeutic classes. The trials took place both in the pre-vaccination and the vaccination era, spanning periods with dominance of different COVID variants. We sought to compare efficacy between the four classes of treatments listed above when used in outpatient COVID-19 patients as shown in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Added value of this study

This systematic review and meta-analysis brings together trials that assessed hospitalisation rates in diverse COVID-19 outpatient populations varying in age and comorbidities, permitting us to assess the efficacy of interventions both within and across therapeutic classes. While heterogeneity exists within and between these intervention classes, the meta-analysis can be placed in context of trial diverse populations over variant time periods of the pandemic. At present most of the world population has either had COVID-19 or been vaccinated with a high seropositivity rate, indicating that future placebo-controlled trials will be limited because of the sample sizes required to document hospitalisation outcomes.

Implications of all the available evidence

Numerous diverse therapeutic tools need to be ready for a resilient response to changing SARS-CoV-2 variants in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised COVID-19 outpatient populations. To date few head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has compared treatment options for COVID-19 outpatients, making comparisons and treatment choices difficult. This systematic review compares outcomes among RCTs of outpatient therapy for COVID-19, taking into account time between onset of symptoms and treatment administration. We found that small-chemical antivirals, convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies had comparable efficacy between classes and amongst interventions within the four classes. Monoclonals have lost efficacy with viral mutation, and chemical antivirals have contraindications and adverse events, while intravenous interventions like convalescent plasma or remdesivir remain resilient options for the immunocompromised, and, in the case of CCP, in resource constrained settings with limited availability of oral drugs.

Protein structure-based in-silico approaches to drug discovery: Guide to COVID-19 therapeutics

With more than 5 million fatalities and close to 300 million reported cases, COVID-19 is the first documented pandemic due to a coronavirus that continues to be a major health challenge. Despite being rapid, uncontrollable, and highly infectious in its spread, it also created incentives for technology development and redefined public health needs and research agendas to fast-track innovations to be translated. Breakthroughs in computational biology peaked during the pandemic with renewed attention to making all cutting-edge technology deliver agents to combat the disease. The demand to develop effective treatments yielded surprising collaborations from previously segregated fields of science and technology. The long-standing pharmaceutical industry's aversion to repurposing existing drugs due to a lack of exponential financial gain was overrun by the health crisis and pressures created by front-line researchers and providers. Effective vaccine development even at an unprecedented pace took more than a year to develop and commence trials. Now the emergence of variants and waning protections during the booster shots is resulting in breakthrough infections that continue to strain health care systems. As of now, every protein of SARS-CoV-2 has been structurally characterized and related host pathways have been extensively mapped out. The research community has addressed the druggability of a multitude of possible targets. This has been made possible due to existing technology for virtual computer-assisted drug development as well as new tools and technologies such as artificial intelligence to deliver new leads. Here in this article, we are discussing advances in the drug discovery field related to target-based drug discovery and exploring the implications of known target-specific agents on COVID-19 therapeutic management. The current scenario calls for more personalized medicine efforts and stratifying patient populations early on for their need for different combinations of prognosis-specific therapeutics. We intend to highlight target hotspots and their potential agents, with the ultimate goal of using rational design of new therapeutics to not only end this pandemic but also uncover a generalizable platform for use in future pandemics.