Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

Ivermectin repurposing for COVID-19: pharmacological and bibliometric analysis

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, researchers worldwide have sought effective drugs to prevent and manage SARS-CoV-2 and its spectrum of symptoms. Ivermectin, originally developed as an anthelmintic for controlling parasitic infections in humans and animals, has drawn attention based on the hypothesis that it inhibits viral replication. In Austria, ivermectin usage peaked in November 2021, following promotion by the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) as an alternative treatment to vaccination, resonating strongly within anti-vaccine and skeptical communities. The topic is also very present in the United States of America due to the re-election of D. Trump as US President and the designation of R. Kennedy as the United States' Secretary of Health and Human Services. To critically examine the controversial use of ivermectin for COVID-19 and publication trends during the pandemic, this study analysed all publications listed in PubMed from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022 using the keywords 'ivermectin' and 'COVID-19', resulting in a dataset of 353 publications. These publications were assessed for scientific quality, methodological rigour and bias, with particular focus on the influence of social and political dynamics on publication practices, as well as the prevalence of preprints, citation trends and the role of funding sources. Our study shows that many highly cited studies on ivermectin display methodological weaknesses and data gaps, contributing to the propagation of hypotheses lacking substantial empirical support. This analysis underscores the necessity of rigorous quality control during crises and highlights the long-term risks posed to scientific databases and public health by methodologically deficient research.

Repurposing Anthelmintic Drugs for COVID-19 Treatment: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials on Ivermectin and Mebendazole

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the urgent exploration of therapeutic options, including drug repurposing. Anthelmintic drugs such as ivermectin and mebendazole have garnered interest due to their potential antiviral and immunomodulatory properties. However, conflicting evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) necessitates a comprehensive meta-analysis to determine their efficacy and safety in COVID-19 management. Objective: This meta-analysis evaluates the clinical efficacy of ivermectin and mebendazole in treating COVID-19 by analyzing their impact on viral clearance, symptom resolution, hospitalization duration, and safety profiles. Methods: A systematic search of Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to identify RCTs published up to February 2025. Eligible studies included adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 who received ivermectin or mebendazole compared with a placebo or standard of care. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic, and pooled effect sizes were calculated for primary clinical outcomes. Results: Twenty-three RCTs (n = 12,345) were included, with twenty-one studies on ivermectin and two on mebendazole. The pooled analysis suggested no statistically significant improvement in viral clearance (p = 0.39), hospitalization duration (p = 0.15), or symptom resolution (p = 0.08) with ivermectin or mebendazole. However, individual studies indicated potential benefits, particularly for mebendazole, in reducing viral load and inflammation. Both drugs exhibited favorable safety profiles, with no significant increase in adverse events. Conclusions: The promising propensities observed in selected studies underscore the potential of ivermectin and mebendazole as adjunct therapies for COVID-19. With well-established safety profiles, immunomodulatory effects, and affordability, these drugs present strong candidates for further exploration. Advancing research through well-designed, large-scale RCTs will help unlock their full therapeutic potential and expand treatment options in the fight against COVID-19.

Trial sequential analysis involving same-year studies requires careful temporal ordering

Trial sequential analysis (TSA) is an increasingly used tool in systematic reviews to monitor synthesized evidence. However, the current practice of TSAs often overlooks the order of same-year studies, which are typically ordered alphabetically based on the last names of the studies' authors by default in the widely used TSA software application. This practice is inappropriate and contrary to the TSA's definition. This issue is particularly concerning in systematic reviews on time-sensitive topics, such as COVID-19, where reviews include many studies within a short period. In this article, we use a case study to illustrate the impact of the order of same-year studies on TSA conclusions. It shows dramatically different patterns of evidence accumulation when same-year studies are ordered alphabetically vs in their actual temporal order. This article offers suggestions for authors to pay attention to study ordering in future TSAs.

Sabry S, Mansour SMG, El-Nahas HM, Ayoub MM. Experimental Investigation into the Design, Optimization, Toxicity, and Anti-Viral Efficacy of Proliposomes Loaded with Ivermectin Against Infectious Bronchitis Virus Using an Embryonated Chicken Egg Model

Background: Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) causes a significant illness in birds, making it a leading source of financial loss in the poultry business. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of proliposomes (PLs) containing ivermectin (IVM) against IBV using embryonated chicken eggs (ECEs). Methods: A three-factor, two-level (23) full factorial design was employed; carrier/lipid phase ratio (A), stearyl glycyrrhetinate amount (B), and phospholipid type (C) were studied as independent variables, while product yield (PY), entrapment efficiency (EE), particle size (PS), polydispersity index (PDI), zeta potential (ZP), and cumulative percentage of drug released after 6 h (Q6h) were characterized. The selected formulations (PL2 and PL6) were subjected to further characterizations, including IVM toxicity and anti-viral activity. Results: The PY% ranged from 88.6 ± 2.19% to 98.8 ± 0.45%, EE% was from 71.8 ± 2.01% to 96.1 ± 0.51%, PS was from 330.1 ± 55.65 nm to 1801.6 ± 45.61 nm, PDI was from 0.205 ± 0.06 to 0.603 ± 0.03, ZP was from -18.2 ± 0.60 mV to -50.1 ± 1.80 mV, and Q6h was from 80.95 ± 1.36% to 88.79 ± 2.03%. IVM-loaded PLs had lower toxicity in ECEs than pure IVM; the mortality rate was substantially reduced in IBV-infected ECEs injected with PL2 rather than pure IVM. As further evidence of IVM's anti-viral action against IBV, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) revealed that the PL2-treated group exhibited further reduction in IBV's copies in comparison with the pure IVM-treated group. Conclusions: PLs loaded with IVM are an innovative and potentially effective way to inhibit IBV.

The Ivermectin Related Compound Moxidectin Can Target Apicomplexan Importin α and Limit Growth of Malarial Parasites

Signal-dependent transport into and out of the nucleus mediated by members of the importin (IMP) superfamily is crucial for eukaryotic function, with inhibitors targeting IMPα being of key interest as anti-infectious agents, including against the apicomplexan Plasmodium species and Toxoplasma gondii, causative agents of malaria and toxoplasmosis, respectively. We recently showed that the FDA-approved macrocyclic lactone ivermectin, as well as several other different small molecule inhibitors, can specifically bind to and inhibit P. falciparum and T. gondii IMPα functions, as well as limit parasite growth. Here we focus on the FDA-approved antiparasitic moxidectin, a structural analogue of ivermectin, for its IMPα-targeting and anti-apicomplexan properties for the first time. We use circular dichroism and intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence measurements to show that moxidectin can bind directly to apicomplexan IMPαs, thereby inhibiting their key binding functions at low μM concentrations, as well as possessing anti-parasitic activity against P. falciparum in culture. The results imply a class effect in terms of IMPα's ability to be targeted by macrocyclic lactone compounds. Importantly, in the face of rising global emergence of resistance to approved anti-parasitic agents, the findings highlight the potential of moxidectin and possibly other macrocyclic lactone compounds as antimalarial agents.

The dual role of toll-like receptors in COVID-19: Balancing protective immunity and immunopathogenesis

Toll-like receptors (TLRs) of human are considered as the most critical immunological mediators of inflammatory pathogenesis of COVID-19. These immunoregulatory glycoproteins are located on the surface and/or intracellular compartment act as innate immune sensors. Upon binding with distinct SARS-CoV-2 ligand(s), TLRs signal activation of different transcription factors that induce expression of the proinflammatory mediators that collectively induce 'cytokine storm'. Similarly, TLR activation is also pivotal in conferring protection to infection and invasion as well as upregulating the tissue repair pathways. This dual role of the human TLRs in deciding the fate of SARS-CoV-2 has made these receptor proteins as the critical mediators of immunoprotective and immunopathogenic consequences associated with COVID-19. Herein, pathbreaking discoveries exploring the immunobiological importance of the TLRs in COVID-19 and developing TLR-directed therapeutic intervention have been reviewed by accessing the up-to-date literatures available in the public domain/databases. In accordance with our knowledge in association with the importance of TLRs' role against viruses and identification of viral particles, they have been recognized as suitable candidates with high potential as vaccine adjuvants. In this regard, the agonists of TLR4 and TLR9 have effective potential in vaccine technology while the others need further investigations. This comprehensive review suggests that basal level expression of TLRs can act as friends to keep our body safe from strangers but act as a foe via overexpression. Therefore, selective inhibition of the overexpressed TLRs appears to be a solution to counteract the cytokine storm while TLR-agonists as vaccine adjuvants could lessen the risk of infection in the naïve population.

Ivermectin as a Treatment Modality in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Up-To-Date RCTs

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 disease. Literature search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, and google scholar. Clinical trial registries (clinical trail.gov) and preprint servers (Medrxiv) were also searched for registered and preprint data respectively. Mortality, Clinical recovery, Clinical worsening, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events were considered as primary outcomes while viral clearance is considered as a secondary outcome. Revised Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Random effect meta-analysis was carried out for all the outcomes. GRADE was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A total of 19 RCTs with 1111 patients were included in the analysis. Ivermectin use did was not associated with a reduction in the incidence of mortality, duration of hospitalization, clinical worsening, and incidence of adverse events nor it was associated with an increase in clinical improvement compared to either placebo or standard of care. Ivermectin also did not show any reduction in viral clearance compared to both placebo or standard of care and this was associated with substantial inconsistency. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low to low. Based on the very low to low certainty of the evidence, we consider Ivermectin ineffective in the management of COVID-19 disease, both as treatment and prophylaxis.

Medical Ethics and Informed Consent to Treatment: Past, Present and Future

It has been asserted that there was an erosion of medical ethics during the Covid-19 pandemic and a departure from the principle of obtaining fully informed consent from patients before treatment. In light of these assertions, this article reviews the historical development of medical ethics and the approach to obtaining informed consent and critiques the consent practices before and during the pandemic. It then describes a new tool for displaying key statistics on the benefits and risks of interventions to help explain them to patients and suggests a more rigorous process for seeking fully informed consent in the future.

COVID 19: Prevention and treatment through the Indian perspective

The most destructive period the world has experienced seems to be behind us. Not a single nation was spared by this disease, and many continue to struggle today. Even after recovering from COVID, patient may continue to experience some post-COVID effects, such as heart irregularities or a decline in lung vitality. In the past three years (2019-2022), the world has witnessed the power of a small entity, a single peculiar virus. Science initially appeared to be helpless in this regard, but due to the emergence of disease, pharmaceutics (the development of anti-covid drugs), immunology (the rapid antigen test), microbiology (the isolation of viruses from infected people), biotechnology (the development of recombinant vaccines), biochemistry (the blood profile, the D-dimer test), and biochemistry (blood profile, D-dimer test), biophysics (PCR, RT-PCR, CT Scan, MRI) had worked together to fight the disease. The results of these efforts are the development of new diagnostic techniques, possible treatment and finally the availability of vaccines against COVID-19. However, it is not proven that the treatment through the traditional medical system is directly active on SARS-CoV-2 but is instead indirectly acting on SARS-CoV-2 effects by improving symptoms derived from the viral disease. In India, the traditional system of medicine and tradition knowledge together worked in the pandemic and proved effective strategies in prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2. The use of effective masks, PPE kits, plasma therapy, yoga, lockdowns and social seclusion, use of modern antiviral drugs, monoclonal antibodies, herbal remedies, homoeopathy, hygienic practice, as well as the willpower of people, are all contributing to the fight against COVID. Which methods or practices will be effective against COVID nobody is aware since medical professionals who wear PPE kits do not live longer, and some people in India who remained unprotected and roamed freely were not susceptible to infection. The focus of this review is on the mode of transmission, diagnosis, preventive measures, vaccines currently under development, modern medicine developed against SARS-CoV-2, ayurvedic medicine used during pandemic, homoeopathic medicine used during pandemic, and specific yoga poses that can be used to lessen COVID-related symptoms.

Clinical Experience With Ivermectin and Nitazoxanide in the Management of COVID-19 Among Mexican Out- and Inpatients

Background and objective The use of ivermectin and nitazoxanide in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a subject of controversy. In this study, we aimed to describe our clinical experience in treating COVID-19 patients with these drugs in Mexico. Material and methods The study involved out- and inpatient clinical assessments of COVID-19 patients conducted in Mexico City from September 2020 to November 2021. Outpatients were treated with either ivermectin, nitazoxanide, or both drugs, while all inpatients received both. Clinical and laboratory analyses were used to assess the results. Results Of the 228 subjects in the outpatient group, 26.8% received ivermectin, 25.4% nitazoxanide, and 47.8% both. The proportion of negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was highest in patients treated late with ivermectin (≥5 days after symptom onset; p=0.004), followed by those receiving late treatment with nitazoxanide, and those with the combination at any time. The inpatient group had 179 subjects. A significant increase was seen in neutrophil, lymphocyte, monocyte, ferritin, and D-dimer levels, while an opposite trend was observed for C-reactive protein (CRP) and fibrinogen levels. Mechanical ventilation requirement was 15.5%, and 5% died during hospitalization. Conclusions Despite the limitations of our study, based on its findings, ivermectin and nitazoxanide could be useful in reducing the viral load, the requirement for mechanical ventilation, proinflammatory and procoagulant parameters, and the fatality rate in COVID-19 patients. Controlled clinical trials evaluating this combination should be carried out to determine its true usefulness and safety profile.

Repositioning of Antibiotics in the Treatment of Viral Infections

Drug repurposing, also known as drug repositioning, is a currently tested approach by which new uses are being assigned for already tested drugs. In this case there are antibiotics that are used to combat bacterial infections. However, antibiotics are among the drugs that have been studied for possible antiviral activities. Therefore, the aim of this work is to carry out a review of the studies of antibiotics that could be repositioned for the treatment of viral infections. Among the main antibiotics that have demonstrated antiviral activity are macrolides and glycopeptides. In addition, several antibiotics from the group of tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones, cephalosporins and aminoglycosides have also been studied for their antiviral activity. These antibiotics have demonstrated antiviral activity against both RNA and DNA viruses, including the recent pandemic virus SARS-CoV-2. Some of these antibiotics were selected in addition to its antiviral activity for their immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties. Of the antibiotics that present antiviral activity, in many cases the mechanisms of action are not exactly known. The use of these antibiotics to combat viral infections remains controversial and is not generally accepted, since clinical trials are required to prove its effectiveness. Therefore, there is currently no antibiotic approved as antiviral therapy. Hence is necessary to present the studies carried out on antibiotics that can be repositioned in the future as antiviral drugs.

Unveiling the Interplay-Vitamin D and ACE-2 Molecular Interactions in Mitigating Complications and Deaths from SARS-CoV-2

The interaction of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein with membrane-bound angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptors in epithelial cells facilitates viral entry into human cells. Despite this, ACE-2 exerts significant protective effects against coronaviruses by neutralizing viruses in circulation and mitigating inflammation. While SARS-CoV-2 reduces ACE-2 expression, vitamin D increases it, counteracting the virus's harmful effects. Vitamin D's beneficial actions are mediated through complex molecular mechanisms involving innate and adaptive immune systems. Meanwhile, vitamin D status [25(OH)D concentration] is inversely correlated with severity, complications, and mortality rates from COVID-19. This study explores mechanisms through which vitamin D inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication, including the suppression of transcription enzymes, reduced inflammation and oxidative stress, and increased expression of neutralizing antibodies and antimicrobial peptides. Both hypovitaminosis D and SARS-CoV-2 elevate renin levels, the rate-limiting step in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAS); it increases ACE-1 but reduces ACE-2 expression. This imbalance leads to elevated levels of the pro-inflammatory, pro-coagulatory, and vasoconstricting peptide angiotensin-II (Ang-II), leading to widespread inflammation. It also causes increased membrane permeability, allowing fluid and viruses to infiltrate soft tissues, lungs, and the vascular system. In contrast, sufficient vitamin D levels suppress renin expression, reducing RAS activity, lowering ACE-1, and increasing ACE-2 levels. ACE-2 cleaves Ang-II to generate Ang(1-7), a vasodilatory, anti-inflammatory, and anti-thrombotic peptide that mitigates oxidative stress and counteracts the harmful effects of SARS-CoV-2. Excess ACE-2 molecules spill into the bloodstream as soluble receptors, neutralizing and facilitating the destruction of the virus. These combined mechanisms reduce viral replication, load, and spread. Hence, vitamin D facilitates rapid recovery and minimizes transmission to others. Overall, vitamin D enhances the immune response and counteracts the pathological effects of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, data suggests that widely used anti-hypertensive agents-angiotensin receptor blockers and ACE inhibitors-may lessen the adverse impacts of SARS-CoV-2, although they are less potent than vitamin D.

Efficacy of Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin in Managing COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Phase III Clinical Trials

Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic several drugs were used to manage the patients mainly those with a severe phenotype. Potential drugs were used off-label and major concerns arose from their applicability to managing the health crisis highlighting the importance of clinical trials. In this context, we described the mechanisms of the three repurposed drugs [Ivermectin-antiparasitic drug, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine-antimalarial drugs, and Azithromycin-antimicrobial drug]; and, based on this description, the study evaluated the clinical efficacy of those drugs published in clinical trials. The use of these drugs reflects the period of uncertainty that marked the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which made them a possible treatment for COVID-19. Methods: In our review, we evaluated phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the efficacy of these drugs published from the COVID-19 pandemic onset to 2023. We included eight RCTs published for Ivermectin, 11 RCTs for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and three RCTs for Azithromycin. The research question (PICOT) accounted for P-hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19; I-use of oral or intravenous Ivermectin OR Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine OR Azithromycin; C-placebo or no placebo (standard of care); O-mortality OR hospitalization OR viral clearance OR need for mechanical ventilation OR clinical improvement; and T-phase III RCTs. Results: While studying these drugs' respective mechanisms of action, the reasons for which they were thought to be useful became apparent and are as follows: Ivermectin binds to insulin-like growth factor and prevents nuclear transportation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), therefore preventing cell entrance, induces apoptosis, and osmotic cell death and disrupts viral replication. Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine blocks the movement of SARS-CoV-2 from early endosomes to lysosomes inside the cell, also, this drug blocks the binding between SARS-CoV-2 and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE)-2 inhibiting the interaction between the virus spike proteins and the cell membrane and this drug can also inhibit SARS-CoV-2 viral replication causing, ultimately, the reduction in viral infection as well as the potential to progression for a higher severity phenotype culminating with a higher chance of death. Azithromycin exerts a down-regulating effect on the inflammatory cascade, attenuating the excessive production of cytokines and inducing phagocytic activity, and acts interfering with the viral replication cycle. Ivermectin, when compared to standard care or placebo, did not reduce the disease severity, need for mechanical ventilation, need for intensive care unit, or in-hospital mortality. Only one study demonstrated that Ivermectin may improve viral clearance compared to placebo. Individuals who received Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine did not present a lower incidence of death, improved clinical status, or higher chance of respiratory deterioration compared to those who received usual care or placebo. Also, some studies demonstrated that Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine resulted in worse outcomes and side-effects included severe ones. Adding Azithromycin to a standard of care did not result in clinical improvement in hospitalized COVID-19 participants. In brief, COVID-19 was one of the deadliest pandemics in modern human history. Due to the potential health catastrophe caused by SARS-CoV-2, a global effort was made to evaluate treatments for COVID-19 to attenuate its impact on the human species. Unfortunately, several countries prematurely justified the emergency use of drugs that showed only in vitro effects against SARS-CoV-2, with a dearth of evidence supporting efficacy in humans. In this context, we reviewed the mechanisms of several drugs proposed to treat COVID-19, including Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin, as well as the phase III clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of these drugs for treating patients with this respiratory disease. Conclusions: As the main finding, although Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin might have mechanistic effects against SARS-CoV-2 infection, most phase III clinical trials observed no treatment benefit in patients with COVID-19, underscoring the need for robust phase III clinical trials.

Following the Science in the Age of COVID-19

This article discusses the complexity of the relationship between "law," "science," and "clinical practice" in the age of COVID-19.

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

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

Repurposing Drugs to Treat Novel Infections: A Proposal for a Decision-Making Framework for Clinicians

PURPOSE

Global fears regarding future epidemics of new and re-emerging infections will prompt clinicians to try out unconventional treatments based on limited evidence, including the repurposing of existing drugs. The dilemma involves balancing clinical intuition with the need to rely on low-quality information because of the scarcity of definitive evidence. An example was ivermectin; with its potential antiviral properties, it was promoted for its efficacy in treating coronavirus disease 2019 despite conflicting outcomes in clinical trials and varying expert opinions. This article describes the development of a decision-making framework to resolve such dilemmas.

METHODS

The case study from Sri Lanka illustrates multiple challenges faced by clinicians. As the horrific details of deaths in countries such as Italy spread on social media, there was panic and an unprecedented demand for clinicians and health services to provide effective treatment. This led to the popularity of drugs such as ivermectin and several herbal cures. However, there was no consensus among experts on the efficacy of ivermectin, which eventually led to the authorities to recommend limited approval for use under physician supervision.

FINDINGS

The situation lent itself to a framework with 4 elements: prerequisites, applying an appropriate decision-making tool (eg, multiple criteria decision-making methods), ethical considerations, and sensitive communication.

IMPLICATIONS

We propose this framework for clinicians when they face similar situations with demands to repurpose medicines with inconclusive evidence of efficacy to combat devastating infections from new or re-emerging infections.

Toxicologic Pathology Forum: mRNA Vaccine Safety-Separating Fact From Fiction

SARS-CoV-2 spread rapidly across the globe, contributing to the death of millions of individuals from 2019 to 2023, and has continued to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality after the pandemic. At the start of the pandemic, no vaccines or anti-viral treatments were available to reduce the burden of disease associated with this virus, as it was a novel SARS coronavirus. Because of the tremendous need, the development of vaccines to protect against COVID-19 was critically important. The flexibility and ease of manufacture of nucleic acid-based vaccines, specifically mRNA-based products, allowed the accelerated development of COVID-19 vaccines. Although mRNA-based vaccines and therapeutics had been in clinical trials for over a decade, there were no licensed mRNA vaccines on the market at the start of the pandemic. The rapid development of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines reduced serious complications and death from the virus but also engendered significant public concerns, which continue now, years after emergency-use authorization and subsequent licensure of these vaccines. This article summarizes and addresses some of the safety concerns that continue to be expressed about these vaccines and their underlying technology.

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.).

Chinese herbal medicine Shufeng Jiedu capsule for mild to moderate COVID-19: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound global impact, although the majority of recently infected cases have presented with mild to moderate symptoms. Previous clinical studies have demonstrated that Shufeng Jiedu (SFJD) capsule, a Chinese herbal patent medicine, effectively alleviates symptoms associated with the common cold, H1N1 influenza, and COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of SFJD capsules in managing symptoms of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted from May to December 2022 at two hospitals in China. Mild and moderate COVID-19-infected patients presenting respiratory symptoms within 3 days from onset were randomly assigned to either the SFJD or placebo groups in a 1:1 ratio. Individuals received SFJD capsules or a placebo three times daily for five consecutive days. Participants were followed up for more than 14 days after their RT-PCR nucleoid acid test for SARS-CoV-2 turned negative. The primary outcome measure was time to alleviate COVID-19 symptoms from baseline until the end of follow-up. Results: A total of 478 participants were screened; ultimately, 407 completed the trial after randomization (SFJD, n = 203; placebo, n = 204). No statistically significant difference in baseline parameters was observed between the two groups. The median time to alleviate all symptoms was 7 days in the SFJD group compared to 8 days in the placebo group (p = 0.037). Notably, the SFJD group significantly attenuated fever/chills (p = 0.04) and headache (p = 0.016) compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, the median time taken to reach normal body temperature within 24 h was reduced by 7 hours in the SFJD group compared to the placebo group (p = 0.033). No deaths or instances of serious or critical conditions occurred during this trial period; moreover, no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: The trial was conducted in a unique controlled hospital setting, and the 5-day treatment with SFJD capsules resulted in a 1-day reduction in overall symptoms, particularly headache and fever/chills, among COVID-19-infected participants with mild or moderate symptoms. Compared to placebo, SFJD capsules were found to be safe with fewer side effects. SFJD capsules could potentially serve as an effective treatment for alleviating mild to moderate symptoms of COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.isrctn.com/, identifier ISRCTN14236594.

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.

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: ways to minimise inappropriate citation and use of retracted data

The incorporation of publications that have been retracted is a risk in reliable evidence synthesis. Retraction is an important mechanism for correcting the literature and protecting its integrity. Within the medical literature, the continued citation of retracted publications occurs for a variety of reasons. Recent evidence suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses often unwittingly cite retracted publications which, at least in some cases, may significantly impact quantitative effect estimates in meta-analyses. There is strong evidence that authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be unaware of the retracted status of publications and treat them as if they are not retracted. These problems are difficult to address for several reasons: identifying retracted publications is important but logistically challenging; publications may be retracted while a review is in preparation or in press and problems with a publication may also be discovered after the evidence synthesis is published. We propose a set of concrete actions that stakeholders (eg, scientists, peer-reviewers, journal editors) might take in the near-term, and that research funders, citation management systems, and databases and search engines might take in the longer term to limit the impact of retracted primary studies on evidence syntheses.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

Lack of antiviral activity of probenecid in vitro and in Syrian golden hamsters

OBJECTIVES

Antiviral interventions are required to complement vaccination programmes and reduce the global burden of COVID-19. Prior to initiation of large-scale clinical trials, robust preclinical data to support candidate plausibility are required. This work sought to further investigate the putative antiviral activity of probenecid against SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Vero E6 cells were preincubated with probenecid, or control media for 2 h before infection (SARS-CoV-2/Human/Liverpool/REMRQ0001/2020). Probenecid or control media was reapplied, plates reincubated and cytopathic activity quantified by spectrophotometry after 48 h. In vitro human airway epithelial cell (HAEC) assays were performed for probenecid against SARS-CoV-2-VoC-B.1.1.7 (hCoV-19/Belgium/rega-12211513/2020; EPI_ISL_791333, 2020-12-21) using an optimized cell model for antiviral testing. Syrian golden hamsters were intranasally inoculated (SARS-CoV-2 Delta B.1.617.2) 24 h prior to treatment with probenecid or vehicle for four twice-daily doses.

RESULTS

No observable antiviral activity for probenecid was evident in Vero E6 or HAEC assays. No reduction in total or subgenomic RNA was observed in terminal lung samples (P > 0.05) from hamsters. Body weight of uninfected hamsters remained stable whereas both probenecid- and vehicle-treated infected hamsters lost body weight (P > 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

These data do not support probenecid as a SARS-CoV-2 antiviral drug.

Potential Drugs in COVID-19 Management

The SARS-CoV-2 virus first emerged in China in December 2019 and quickly spread worldwide. Despite the absence of a vaccination or authorized drug specifically developed to combat this infection, certain medications recommended for other diseases have shown potential effectiveness in treating COVID-19, although without definitive confirmation. This review aims to evaluate the existing literature on the efficacy of these medications against COVID-19. The review encompasses various potential treatments, including antiviral medications, anti-malaria and anti-rheumatic drugs, vaccines, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antipyretic and analgesic medicines, antiparasitic drugs, and statins. The analysis also addresses the potential benefits and drawbacks of these medications, as well as their effects on hypertension and diabetes. Although these therapies hold promise against COVID-19, further research, including suitable product production or clinical testing, is needed to establish their therapeutic efficacy.

Ivermectin as a possible treatment for COVID-19: a review of the 2022 protocols

Abstract Ivermectin is a safe and effective drug in humans and has been approved for use in numerous parasitic infections for over 50 years. In addition, many studies have already shown its antiviral activity. Ivermectin is generally well tolerated, with no indication of central nervous system-associated toxicity at doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 200 µg/kg. The in vitro results of ivermectin for reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load are promising and show that Ivermectin kills SARS-CoV-2 within 48 hours. A hypothesized mechanism of action for this drug is a likely inhibition of IMPα/β1-mediated nuclear import of viral proteins as demonstrated for other RNA viruses. However, controlled and randomized studies are needed to prove its effectiveness in COVID-19 in humans. In a single in vivo study with published results, patients confirmed to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 received at least one dose of ivermectin at any time during hospitalization. The use of ivermectin was associated with lower mortality during treatment with COVID-19, especially in patients who required increased inspired oxygen or ventilatory support. Additionally, 81 studies with the clinical use of ivermectin in humans are being carried out worldwide according to ClinicalTrials.gov. However, none of these data has been published so far. However, private and public entities in Brazil have been adopting this drug in their protocols as prophylaxis and in the initial phase of the disease. In addition, ivermectin has been used in mass treatment to prevent onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis in sub-Saharan Africa for many years. Surprisingly, this region has the lowest proportional mortality rate among the continents, despite the increasing numbers of infected people released by the World Health Organization.

Ivermectin as a potential therapeutic strategy for glioma

Ivermectin (IVM), a semi-synthetic macrolide parasiticide, has demonstrated considerable effectiveness in combating internal and external parasites, particularly nematodes and arthropods. Its remarkable ability to control parasites has earned it significant recognition, culminating in Satoshi Omura and William C. Campbell's receipt of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their contributions to the development of IVM. In recent years, investigations have revealed that IVM possesses antitumor properties. It can suppress the growth of various cancer cells, including glioma, through a multitude of mechanisms such as selective targeting of tumor-specific proteins, inducing programmed cell death, and modulation of tumor-related signaling pathways. Hence, IVM holds tremendous potential as a novel anticancer drug. This review seeks to provide an overview of the underlying mechanisms that enable IVM's capacity to suppress glioma. Furthermore, it aims to elucidate the challenges and prospects associated with utilizing IVM as a new anticancer agent.

The Detrimental Effect of Pre-Treatment with Ivermectin on Myocardial Ischemia

INTRODUCTION

Ivermectin (IVM) is a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic agent with potential antibacterial, antiviral, and anti-cancer effects. There are limited studies on the effects of IVM on cardiovascular diseases, so the present study sought to determine the effects of pre-treatment with IVM on myocardial ischemia in both ex vivo and in vivo.

METHODS

In the ex vivo part, two groups of control and treated rats with IVM (0.2 mg/kg) were examined for cardiac function and arrhythmias by isolated heart perfusion. In the in vivo part, four groups, namely, control, IVM, Iso (MI), and Iso + IVM 0.2 mg/kg were used. Subcutaneous injection of isoproterenol (100 mg/kg/day) for 2 consecutive days was used for the induction of myocardial infarction (MI) in male Wistar rats. Then electrocardiogram, hemodynamic factors, cardiac hypertrophy, and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels were investigated.

RESULTS

The ex vivo results showed that administration of IVM induces cardiac arrhythmia and decreases the left ventricular maximal rate of pressure increase (contractility) and maximal rate of pressure decline (relaxation). The isoproterenol-induced MI model used as an in vivo model showed that cardiac hypertrophy were increased with no improvement in the hemodynamic and electrocardiogram pattern in the IVM-treated group in comparison to MI (Iso) group. However, the MDA level was lower in the IVM-treated group.

CONCLUSION

IVM pre-treatment demonstrates detrimental effects in cardiac ischemia through exacerbation of cardiac arrhythmia, myocardial dysfunction, and increased cardiac hypertrophy. Therefore, the use of IVM in ischemic heart patients should be done with great caution.

Potential Target Discovery and Drug Repurposing for Coronaviruses: Study Involving a Knowledge Graph-Based Approach

BACKGROUND

The global pandemics of severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and COVID-19 have caused unprecedented crises for public health. Coronaviruses are constantly evolving, and it is unknown which new coronavirus will emerge and when the next coronavirus will sweep across the world. Knowledge graphs are expected to help discover the pathogenicity and transmission mechanism of viruses.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to discover potential targets and candidate drugs to repurpose for coronaviruses through a knowledge graph-based approach.

METHODS

We propose a computational and evidence-based knowledge discovery approach to identify potential targets and candidate drugs for coronaviruses from biomedical literature and well-known knowledge bases. To organize the semantic triples extracted automatically from biomedical literature, a semantic conversion model was designed. The literature knowledge was associated and integrated with existing drug and gene knowledge through semantic mapping, and the coronavirus knowledge graph (CovKG) was constructed. We adopted both the knowledge graph embedding model and the semantic reasoning mechanism to discover unrecorded mechanisms of drug action as well as potential targets and drug candidates. Furthermore, we have provided evidence-based support with a scoring and backtracking mechanism.

RESULTS

The constructed CovKG contains 17,369,620 triples, of which 641,195 were extracted from biomedical literature, covering 13,065 concept unique identifiers, 209 semantic types, and 97 semantic relations of the Unified Medical Language System. Through multi-source knowledge integration, 475 drugs and 262 targets were mapped to existing knowledge, and 41 new drug mechanisms of action were found by semantic reasoning, which were not recorded in the existing knowledge base. Among the knowledge graph embedding models, TransR outperformed others (mean reciprocal rank=0.2510, Hits@10=0.3505). A total of 33 potential targets and 18 drug candidates were identified for coronaviruses. Among them, 7 novel drugs (ie, quinine, nelfinavir, ivermectin, asunaprevir, tylophorine, Artemisia annua extract, and resveratrol) and 3 highly ranked targets (ie, angiotensin converting enzyme 2, transmembrane serine protease 2, and M protein) were further discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

We showed the effectiveness of a knowledge graph-based approach in potential target discovery and drug repurposing for coronaviruses. Our approach can be extended to other viruses or diseases for biomedical knowledge discovery and relevant applications.

Cannulate, extubate, ambulate approach for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

We compared outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) managed using a dynamic, goal-driven approach to venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis of our institutional ECMO registry using data from 2017 to 2021. We used Kaplan-Meier plots, Cox proportional hazard models, and propensity score analyses to evaluate the association of COVID-19 status (COVID-19-related ARDS vs non-COVID-19 ARDS) and survival to decannulation, discharge, tracheostomy, and extubation. We also conducted subgroup analyses to compare outcomes with the use of extracorporeal cytoreductive techniques (CytoSorb [CytoSorbents Corp] and plasmapheresis).

RESULTS

The sample comprised 128 patients, 50 with COVID-19 and 78 with non-COVID-19 ARDS. Advancing age was associated with decreased probability of survival to decannulation (P = .04). Compared with the non-COVID-19 ARDS group, patients with COVID-19 had a greater probability of survival to extubation (P < .01) and comparable survival to discharge (P = .14).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with COVID-19 managed with ECMO had comparable outcomes as patients with non-COVID ARDS. A strategy of early extubation and ambulation might be a safe and effective strategy to improve outcomes and survival, even for patients with severe COVID-19.

The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations-whether they were critical or supportive-and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction.

METHODS

Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson's chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment.

RESULTS

Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted.

CONCLUSION

The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication's retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications.

Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of early studies on ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 infection

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been repurposed for COVID-19 treatment during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Although its antiviral efficacy was confirmed early in vitro and in preclinical studies, its clinical efficacy remained ambiguous. Our purpose was to assess the efficacy of ivermectin in terms of time to viral clearance based on the meta-analysis of available clinical trials at the closing date of the data search period, one year after the start of the pandemic. This meta-analysis was reported by following the PRISMA guidelines and by using the PICO format for formulating the question. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Embase, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), bioRvix, and medRvix were searched for human studies of patients receiving ivermectin therapy with control groups. No language or publication status restrictions were applied. The search ended on 1/31/2021 exactly one year after WHO declared the public health emergency on novel coronavirus. The meta-analysis of three trials involving 382 patients revealed that the mean time to viral clearance was 5.74 days shorter in case of ivermectin treatment compared to the control groups [WMD = -5.74, 95% CI (-11.1, -0.39), p = 0.036]. Ivermectin has significantly reduced the time to viral clearance in mild to moderate COVID-19 diseases compared to control groups. However, more eligible studies are needed for analysis to increase the quality of evidence of ivermectin use in COVID-19.

Repurposed drug studies on the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Current evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically evaluate published studies on repurposed drugs for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 among healthy adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

ELIGIBILITY

Quantitative experimental and observational intervention studies that evaluated the effectiveness of repurposed drugs for the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 disease.

DATA SOURCE

PubMed and Embase (1 January 2020-28 September 2022).

RISK OF BIAS

Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were applied to assess the quality of studies.

DATA ANALYSIS

Meta-analyses for each eligible drug were performed if ≥2 similar study designs were available.

RESULTS

In all, 65 (25 trials, 40 observational) and 29 publications were eligible for review and meta-analyses, respectively. Most studies pertained to hydroxychloroquine (32), ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (11), statin (8), and ivermectin (8). In trials, hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis reduced laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90), I2=48%), a result largely driven by one clinical trial (weight: 60.5%). Such beneficial effects were not observed in observational studies, nor for prognostic clinical outcomes. Ivermectin did not significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR: 0.35 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.26), I2=96%) and findings for clinical outcomes were inconsistent. Neither ACEi or ARB were beneficial in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of the evidence from clinical trials was of moderate quality and of lower quality in observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from our analysis are insufficient to support an evidence-based repurposed drug policy for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis because of inconsistency. In the view of scarce supportive evidence on repurposing drugs for COVID-19, alternative strategies such as immunisation of vulnerable people are warranted to prevent the future waves of infection.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021292797.

Inhaled corticosteroids' effect on COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

More than six million people died due to COVID-19, and 10-15% of infected individuals suffer from post-covid syndrome. Corticosteroids are widely used in the management of severe COVID-19 and post-acute COVID-19 symptoms. This study synthesizes current evidence of the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on mortality, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), and improvement of smell scores in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

We searched Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus until Aug 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of studies. We evaluated the effectiveness of ICS in COVID-19 patients through measures of mortality, LOS, alleviation of post-acute COVID-19 symptoms, time to sustained self-reported cure, and sense of smell (visual analog scale (VAS)).

Results

Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. Our study showed a significant decrease in the LOS in ICS patients over placebo (MD = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.77 to -0.28], p-value = 0.02). Patients treated with intranasal corticosteroids (INC) showed a significant improvement in VAS smell scores from week three to week four (MD =1.52, 95% CI [0.27 to 2.78], p-value = 0.02), and alleviation of COVID-related symptoms after 14 days (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.09 to 1.26], p-value < 0.0001). No significant differences were detected in mortality (RR= 0.69, 95% CI [0.36 to 1.35], p-value = 0.28) and time to sustained self-reported cure (MD = -1.28, 95% CI [-6.77 to 4.20], p-value = 0.65).

Conclusion

We concluded that the use of ICS decreased patient LOS and improved COVID-19-related symptoms. INC may have a role in improving the smell score. Therefore, using INC and ICS for two weeks or more may prove beneficial. Current data do not demonstrate an effect on mortality or time to sustained self-reported cure. However, the evidence is inconclusive, and more studies are needed for more precise data.

Strategies for the Management of Spike Protein-Related Pathology

In the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, a need has arisen to prevent and treat two related conditions, COVID-19 vaccine injury and long COVID-19, both of which can trace at least part of their aetiology to the spike protein, which can cause harm through several mechanisms. One significant mechanism of harm is vascular, and it is mediated by the spike protein, a common element of the COVID-19 illness, and it is related to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Given the significant number of people experiencing these two related conditions, it is imperative to develop treatment protocols, as well as to consider the diversity of people experiencing long COVID-19 and vaccine injury. This review summarizes the known treatment options for long COVID-19 and vaccine injury, their mechanisms, and their evidentiary basis.

Discontinuation of Antihypertensive Drug Use Compared to Continuation in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 related mortality is about 2%, and it increases with comorbidities, like hypertension. Regarding management, there is debatable evidence about the benefits of continuation vs. discontinuation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB).

AIM

We performed a systematic review to assess the effects and safety of in-hospital discontinuation compared to continuation of ACEI/ARB in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched on PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE from inception to June 19, 2021. We included observational studies and trials that compared the effects and safety of continuing ACEI/ARB compared to discontinuing it in COVID-19 patients. Effects sizes for dichotomous variables were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals. For continuous variables, effects were expressed as mean difference (MD). We used random effect models with the inverse variance method. We assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included three open-label randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies. We found that the continuation group had lower risk of death compared with the discontinuation group only in the cohort group (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.24-0.90), but not in the RCT group (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.75-2.00). The ICU admission rate was significantly lower in the continuation group (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.68) in the cohort group, but not in RCT group (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.67-1.59). We did not find significant differences between groups regarding hospitalization length, hypotension, AKI needing renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, new or worsening heart failure, myocarditis, renal replacement therapy, arrhythmias, thromboembolic events and SOFA AUC. The GRADE approach revealed that the certainty ranged from moderate to high level.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference in mortality and other outcomes between continuation and discontinuation groups.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis

Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a research integrity assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing "Risk of Bias" aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies.

Quality of clinical evidence and political justifications of ivermectin mass distribution of COVID-19 kits in eight Latin American countries

BACKGROUND

Several countries in Latin America conducted mass distribution of COVID-19 kits intended to treat mild COVID-19, thereby preventing excess hospitalisations. Many of the kits contained ivermectin, an antiparasitic medicine that was not approved at the time for the treatment of COVID-19. The study objective was to compare the timing of the publication of scientific evidence about the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 with the timeline of distribution of COVID-19 kits in eight Latin American countries and to analyse whether evidence was used to justify ivermectin distribution.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published on the efficacy of ivermectin or ivermectin as adjuvant therapy on mortality from, or as prevention for, COVID-19. Each RCT was assessed using the Cochrane Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Information on the timing and justification of government decisions was collected through a systematic search of leading newspapers and government press releases.

RESULTS

After removing the duplicates and abstracts without full text, 33 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. According to GRADE, the majority had a substantial risk of bias. Many government officials made claims that ivermectin was effective and safe in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19, despite the lack of published evidence.

CONCLUSION

All eight governments distributed COVID-19 kits to their populations despite the absence of high-quality evidence on the efficacy of ivermectin for prevention, hospitalisation and mortality in COVID-19 patients. Lessons learnt from this situation could be used to strengthen government institutions' capacities to implement evidence-informed public health policies.

A Systematic Review of the Role of Purinergic Signalling Pathway in the Treatment of COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a global health concern. Three years since its origin, despite the approval of vaccines and specific treatments against this new coronavirus, there are still high rates of infection, hospitalization, and mortality in some countries. COVID-19 is characterised by a high inflammatory state and coagulation disturbances that may be linked to purinergic signalling molecules such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP), adenosine diphosphate (ADP), adenosine (ADO), and purinergic receptors (P1 and P2). These nucleotides/nucleosides play important roles in cellular processes, such as immunomodulation, blood clot formation, and vasodilation, which are affected during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, drugs targeting this purinergic pathway, currently used for other pathologies, are being evaluated in preclinical and clinical trials for COVID-19. In this review, we focus on the potential of these drugs to control the release, degradation, and reuptake of these extracellular nucleotides and nucleosides to treat COVID-19. Drugs targeting the P1 receptors could have therapeutic efficacy due to their capacity to modulate the cytokine storm and the immune response. Those acting in P2X7, which is linked to NLRP3 inflammasome activation, are also valuable candidates as they can reduce the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. However, according to the available preclinical and clinical data, the most promising medications to be used for COVID-19 treatment are those that modulate platelets behaviour and blood coagulation factors, mainly through the P2Y12 receptor.

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.

The dangers of non-randomized, observational studies: experience from the COVID-19 epidemic

In regulatory evaluations, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for assessing the efficacy of medical interventions. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgent need for treatment options led to regulatory approvals being made based on evidence from non-randomized, observational studies. In this study we contrast results from observational studies and RCTs of six drugs to treat COVID-19 infection. Across a range of studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, ivermectin, aspirin, molnupiravir and tenofovir for COVID-19, there was statistically significant evidence of benefit from non-randomized observational studies, which was then not seen in RCTs. We propose that all observational studies need to be labelled as 'non-randomized' in the title. This should indicate that they are not as reliable for evaluating the efficacy of a drug and should not be used independently for regulatory approval decisions.

A survey of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 23 countries in 2022

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continued to mutate and spread in 2022 despite the introduction of safe, effective vaccines and medications. Vaccine hesitancy remains substantial, fueled in part by misinformation. Our third study of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among 23,000 respondents in 23 countries (Brazil, Canada, China, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States), surveyed from 29 June to 10 July 2022, found willingness to accept vaccination at 79.1%, up 5.2% from June 2021. Hesitancy increased in eight countries, however, ranging from 1.0% (United Kingdom) to 21.1% (South Africa). Almost one in eight (12.1%) vaccinated respondents are hesitant about booster doses. Overall support for vaccinating children under 18 years of age increased slightly but declined among parents who were personally hesitant. Almost two in five (38.6%) respondents reported paying less attention to new COVID-19 information than previously, and support for vaccination mandates decreased. Almost a quarter (24%) of those who became ill reported taking medications to combat COVID-19 symptoms. Vaccination remains a cornerstone of the COVID-19 pandemic response, but broad public support remains elusive. These data can be used by health system decisionmakers, practitioners, advocates and researchers to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy more effectively.

Favipiravir in the Treatment of Outpatient COVID-19: A Multicenter, Randomized, Triple-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Finding effective outpatient treatments to prevent COVID-19 progression and hospitalization is necessary and is helpful in managing limited hospital resources. Repurposing previously existing treatments is highly desirable. In this study, we evaluate the efficacy of Favipiravir in the prevention of hospitalization in symptomatic COVID-19 patients who were not eligible for hospitalization.

METHODS

This study was a triple-blind randomized controlled trial conducted between 5 December 2020 and 31 March 2021 in three outpatient centers in Isfahan, Iran. Patients in the intervention group received Favipiravir 1600 mg daily for five days, and the control group received a placebo. Our primary outcome was the proportion of hospitalized participants from day 0 to day 28. The outcome was assessed on days 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 through phone calls.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were randomly allocated to Favipiravir and placebo groups. There was no significant difference between groups considering baseline characteristics. During the study period, 10.5% of patients in the Favipiravir group and 5.1% of patients in the placebo group were hospitalized, but there was no significant difference between them (p-value = 0.3). No adverse event was reported in the treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that Favipiravir did not reduce the hospitalization rate of mild to moderate COVID-19 patients in outpatient settings.

COVID-19-related liver injury: Focus on genetic and drug-induced perspectives

BACKGROUND

Empirical use of potentially hepatotoxic drugs in the management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is considered as one of the major etiopathogenetic factors for liver injury. Recent evidence has shown that an underlying genetic factor may also occur. Hence, it is important to understand the host genetics and iatrogenic-based mechanisms for liver dysfunction to make timely remedial measures.

AIM

To investigate drug-induced and genetic perspectives for the development of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related liver injury.

METHODS

Reference Citation Analysis, PubMed, Google Scholar and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched by employing the relevant MeSH keywords and pertaining data of the duration, site and type of study, sample size with any subgroups and drug-induced liver injury outcome. Genetic aspects were extracted from the most current pertinent publications.

RESULTS

In all studies, the hepatic specific aminotransferase and other biochemical indices were more than their prescribed upper normal limit in COVID-19 patients and were found to be significantly related with the gravity of disease, hospital stay, number of COVID-19 treatment drugs and worse clinical outcomes. In addition, membrane bound O-acyltransferase domain containing 7 rs641738, rs11385942 G>GA at chromosome 3 gene cluster and rs657152 C>A at ABO blood locus was significantly associated with severity of livery injury in admitted SARS-CoV-2 patients.

CONCLUSION

Hepatic dysfunction in SARS-CoV-2 infection could be the result of individual drugs or due to drug-drug interactions and may be in a subset of patients with a genetic propensity. Thus, serial estimation of hepatic indices in hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 patients should be done to make timely corrective actions for iatrogenic causes to avoid clinical deterioration. Additional molecular and translational research is warranted in this regard.

Prevalence of Ivermectin use to prevent COVID-19 during the pandemic in Mato Grosso: cross-sectional home-based study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the use of ivermectin as COVID-19 prevention method by the population of Mato Grosso in 2020.

METHODS

This is a home-based survey, carried out between September and October 2020, in 10 pole cities of the socioeconomic regions of State. The use of ivermectin was evaluated through the question: "Did you take ivermectin to prevent COVID-19?". Sociodemographic variables (sex, age group, education, family income), current work situation, being benefitted by government financial programs, as well as symptoms, seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and previous diagnosis of COVID-19 were evaluated. Prevalence and their associations were estimated using the chi-square test.

RESULTS

4.206 individuals were evaluated for prevalence of ivermectin use; 58.3% of the individuals responded positively, this rate being higher in the municipalities of the western region of the state (66.6%). There was no significant difference between sexes, but the prevalence was higher among people aged 50-59 years (69.7%), who were white (66.5%), with complete higher education or more (68.8%) and higher family income (≥3 minimum wages-64.2%). The use of this drug was even higher among participants who considered their knowledge of the disease good or very good (65.0%), who reported having symptoms of COVID-19 (75.3%), and who had been previously diagnosed with the disease (91.2%).

CONCLUSION

There was a high prevalence of use of ivermectin as a method to prevent covid-19 by the population of Mato Grosso, indicating the need for strategies to inform the population about the risks of off-label use of drugs and to combat the advertising of drugs that are ineffective against COVID-19.

Comparative docking studies of drugs and phytocompounds for emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2

In the last three years, COVID-19 has impacted the world with back-to-back waves leading to devastating consequences. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, was first detected in 2019 and since then has spread to 228 countries. Even though the primary focus of research groups was diverted to fight against COVID-19, yet no dedicated drug has been developed to combat the emergent life-threatening medical conditions. In this study, 35 phytocompounds and 43 drugs were investigated for comparative docking analysis. Molecular docking and virtual screening were performed against SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein of 13 variants using AutoDock Vina tool 1.5.6 and Discovery Studio, respectively, to identify the most efficient drugs. Selection of the most suitable compounds with the best binding affinity was done after screening for toxicity, ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion) properties and drug-likeliness. The potential candidates were discovered to be Liquiritin (binding affinities ranging between -7.0 and -8.1 kcal/mol for the 13 variants) and Apigenin (binding affinities ranging between -6.8 and -7.3 kcal/mol for the 13 variants) based on their toxicity and consistent binding affinity with the Spike protein of all variants. The stability of the protein-ligand complex was determined using Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation of Apigenin with the Delta plus variant of SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, Liquiritin and Apigenin were also found to be less toxic than the presently used drugs and showed promising results based on in silico studies, though, confirmation using in vitro studies is required. This in-depth comparative investigation suggests potential drug candidates to fight against SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13205-022-03450-6.

COVID-19 Therapeutics: Use, Mechanism of Action, and Toxicity (Xenobiotics)

SARS-CoV-2 emerged in 2019 and led to the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts to develop therapeutics against SARS-Cov-2 led to both new treatments and attempts to repurpose existing medications. Here, we provide a narrative review of the xenobiotics and alternative remedies used or proposed to treat COVID-19. Most repositioned xenobiotics have had neither the feared toxicity nor the anticipated efficacy. Repurposed viral replication inhibitors are not efficacious and frequently associated with nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Antiviral medications designed specifically against SARS-CoV-2 may prevent progression to severe disease in at-risk individuals and appear to have a wide therapeutic index. Colloidal silver, zinc, and ivermectin have no demonstrated efficacy. Ivermectin has a wide therapeutic index but is not efficacious and acquiring it from veterinary sources poses additional danger. Chloroquine has a narrow therapeutic index and no efficacy. A companion review covers vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and immunotherapies. Together, these two reviews form an update to our 2020 review.