ABSTRACT
Background The unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods and Findings We develop a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care to explore the potential public-health impact of a range of different potential therapeutics, under a range of different scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. We find the impact of drugs like dexamethasone (which are delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalisation) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. Conclusions There is a global asymmetry in who is likely to benefit from advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date, which have been focussed on hospitalised-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics that can feasibly be delivered to those earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: The unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of current and proposed treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods: First, we used a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care pathways to explore the potential impact of dexamethasone - the main treatment currently for hospitalised COVID-19 patients - under scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) the efficacy of dexamethasone in the absence of supportive care. We then fit the model to the observed epidemic trajectory to-date in 165 countries and analysed the potential future impact of dexamethasone in different countries, regions, and country-income strata. Finally, we constructed hypothetical profiles of novel therapeutics based on current trials, and compared the potential impact of each under different circumstances. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. Findings: We find the potential benefit dexamethasone is severely limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). However, therapeutics for different patient populations (in particular, those not in hospital and early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (in particular, reducing disease severity or infectiousness) could have much greater benefits. Such therapeutics would have particular value in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics, even if the efficacy or achievable coverage of such therapeutics is lower in comparison to other types. Interpretation: People in low-income countries will benefit the least from advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date, which have focussed on hospitalised-patients with adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics that can feasibly be delivered to those earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have much greater impact. Such therapeutics may be feasible and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority. Funding: None to declare. Declaration of Interest: None to declare.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug being investigated for repurposing to SARS-CoV-2. In-vitro, ivermectin showed limited antiviral activity and a COVID-19 animal model demonstrated pathological benefits but no effect on viral RNA. This meta-analysis investigated ivermectin in 18 randomized clinical trials (2282 patients) identified through systematic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, MedRxiv and trial registries. Ivermectin was associated with reduced inflammatory markers (C-Reactive Protein, d-dimer and ferritin) and faster viral clearance by PCR. Viral clearance was treatment dose- and duration-dependent. In six randomized trials of moderate or severe infection, there was a 75% reduction in mortality (Relative Risk=0.25 [95%CI 0.12-0.52]; p=0.0002); 14/650 (2.1%) deaths on ivermectin; 57/597 (9.5%) deaths in controls) with favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization. Many studies included were not peer reviewed and meta-analyses are prone to confounding issues. Ivermectin should be validated in larger, appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Data from molecular docking, in-vitro experiments and 2 published small clinical studies suggested a potential therapeutic benefit for the anti-hepatitis C drugs, sofosbuvir (SOF) and daclatasvir (DCV), to repurpose for the treatment of COVID-19. We planned this study to evaluate efficacy and safety of dual SOF/DCV as add-on treatment to the standard of care (SOC) in patients with COVID-19, initially hospitalized to a non-intensive care setting.METHODS: Eighty nine consecutive eligible patients presenting to a single center in Cairo were included in the study and randomly assigned to two treatment groups. The experimental group was treated with the SOC therapy (as per the Egyptian ministry of health protocol) in addition to one 400 mg tablet SOF and one 60 mg DCV daily for 10 days; while the control group was treated with the SOC therapy alone. Baseline clinical, laboratory and imaging data were measured and followed up for 21 days. Data were compared between the two treatment groups.FINDINGS: The proportion of cumulative clinical recovery in the experimental group at day 21 was numerically greater than the control group (40/44 (91%; CI: 78.8-96.4%) versus 35/45 (77.8%; 63.7-87.5%)). The Hazard Ratio (HR) for time to clinical recovery adjusted for baseline severity by a Cox-regression model was statistically significant: HR: 1.59 (CI: 1.001-2.5), signifying nearly 1.6 times higher probability of clinical recovery in the experimental group than the control at any time point during the study. Concordantly, the experimental group also showed trends to greater numerical improvement in other efficacy endpoints including the mean 8 points ordinal scale score, the mean severity of lung lesions score and the case fatality rate (4.5% versus 11.1%) than the control group. All these effects, though did not reach statistical significance at the study sample size, but being all concordant with the HR, they support the study concept. No serious or severe adverse events were reported in both groups and the treatment was well tolerated.INTERPRETATION: This study provides support to the potential benefits and safety of sofosbuvir combined with daclatasvir in the treatment of COVID-19. It is hoped to encourage further large sized multinational studies to confirm these encouraging results.Trial Registration: The study protocol was registered in the German clinical trial database repository (DRKS00022203) before the study initiation.Funding Statement: This study was funded by Pharco Corporate.Declaration of Interests: SH and OE are employees of Pharco, SH holds stock in Pharco. MY, AH conducted clinical studies and provided consultations for Pharco. Others have nothing to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University (IRB00007555) and the Central Egyptian Ministry of Health and People Research Ethics Committee according to the Declaration of Helsinki. All subjects gave written informed consent before any treatment interventions were performed.