Azithromycin Has Been Flying Off the Shelves: The Italian Lesson Learnt from Improper Use of Antibiotics against COVID-19

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.

Outpatient antibiotic prescribing during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic: A nationwide register-based time series analysis

The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed an enormous burden on health care systems around the world. Simultaneously, many countries have reported a decrease in the incidence of other infectious diseases, such as acute respiratory infections, leading to a decline in outpatient antibiotic use. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient antibiotic prescribing in Finland during the first 2 years of the pandemic. We used nationwide register data, applied descriptive methods, and conducted an interrupted time series analysis (ITSA) using ARIMA modelling. Results from the ARIMA modelling showed that at the baseline, before the pandemic, the level of monthly number of antibiotic prescriptions was 248,560 (95% CI: 224,261 to 272,856; p<0.001) and there was a decreasing trend of 1,202 in monthly number of prescriptions (95% CI: -2,107 to -262; p<0.01). After the COVID-19 pandemic began, there was a statistically significant decline of 48,470 (95% CI: -76,404 to -20,535, p<0.001) prescriptions (-19.5% from the baseline level). The greatest decrease in antibiotic prescribing was observed among children aged 0-17 years. While antibiotic prescribing declined in all antibiotic groups associated with respiratory tract infections, the decrease from 2019 to 2020 was the largest with azithromycin (52.6%), amoxicillin (44.8%), and doxycycline (43.8%). Future studies should continue exploring antibiotic prescribing trends during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Crippling of Klebsiella pneumoniae virulence by metformin, N-acetylcysteine and secnidazole

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in hospitals represents a serious threat to public health. Infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae are widespread in healthcare institutions, mainly pneumonia, bloodstream infections, and infections affecting neonates in intensive care units; so, it is necessary to combat this pathogen with new strategies. Targeting virulence factors necessary to induce host damage and disease is a new paradigm for antimicrobial therapy with several potential benefits that could lead to decreased resistance.

BACKGROUND

The influence of metformin, N-acetylcysteine, and secnidazole on Klebsiella pneumoniae virulence factors production was tested. The production of Klebsiella pneumoniae virulence factors such as biofilm formation, urease, proteases, hemolysins, and tolerance to oxidative stress was evaluated phenotypically using sub-inhibitory concentration (1/8 MIC) of metformin, N-acetylcysteine, and secnidazole. For more confirmation, qRT-PCR was used to assess the relative expression level of rmpA, wcaG, fimH-1, mrkD, ureA, and khe genes regulating virulence factors production.

RESULTS

Metformin, N-acetylcysteine, and secnidazole were all found to have a powerful inhibitory effect on the production of virulence factors phenotypically. Our results showed a significant reduction in the expression level of rmpA, wcaG, fimH-1, mrkD, ureA, and khe genes. Furthermore, the tested drugs were investigated in vivo to inform their ability to protect mice against Klebsiella pneumoniae pathogenesis.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin, N-acetylcysteine, and secnidazole inhibited the virulence of Klebsiella pneumoniae. Besides combating resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, the tested drugs could also serve as an adjuvant to traditional antibiotics.

Time-Varying Effect of Hybrid Immunity on the Risk of Breakthrough Infection after Booster Dose of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: The MOSAICO Study

This longitudinal observational study investigated the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 6 months after a booster dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in infection-naïve vs. previously infected healthcare workers (HCWs), and whether this difference varied over time. A Cox proportional hazard regression model with Aalen’s additive analysis was fitted to examine the association between the risk of infections and predictor variables. Overall, we observed an incidence rate of 2.5 cases per 1000 person-days (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0–3.0), which dropped at 0.8 per 1000 person-days (95% CI 0.3–2.0) in recipients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The fitted analysis indicated an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.32 (95% CI 0.13–0.80; p-value = 0.01) for those with hybrid immunity with a slope that became steeply negative roughly starting from day 90. No difference was seen according to participants’ smoking habits. Characteristics of infected HCWs were also described. Our study quantifies the time-varying effects of vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity after the booster dose (during the Omicron variant predominance in Italy) and observed that the protection waned more rapidly in infection-naïve recipients starting from the third month. The results add important evidence that can be used to inform COVID-19 vaccination strategies.