Variation in Demographic Characteristics, Socioeconomic Status, Clinical Presentation and Selected Treatments in Mortality Among Patients with a Diagnosis of COVID-19 in the United States

Objectives: COVID-19 infected over 150 million people and caused over 1 million deaths in the US. This study evaluates several variables thought to be associated with mortality risk in the COVID-19 population. Method(s): The IQVIA longitudinal medical and pharmacy claims databases identified 17,682,111 patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis between 4/1/2020-4/30/2022 from a population of >277 million patients in the US. Patients were linked to Veritas Data Research fact-of-death records (90% complete compared to CDC reporting) and confirmed deaths were flagged. Confirmed mortality rates (CMR) were evaluated by age group, socioeconomic status (SES) using the Area Deprivation Index (v2.0, University of Wisconsin, 2015), co-morbidities and COVID-specific (approved and unapproved) treatments. Result(s): Of the 563,744 patients (3.2%) identified as dead (3.67% in men, 2.85% in women overall), CMR was lowest in patients aged 0-17 (0.08%), highest in age 65-75 (5.92%) and >75 (16.40%). Patients in the lowest 40% of SES had CMR of 4.43% while in the highest 20% was 1.56%. Respiratory failure, pneumonia and sepsis were the most common acute diagnoses accompanying COVID-19 deaths in all SES. In patients with comorbid dementia or Alzheimer's disease, CMR were 21.62% and 23.40% respectively. Additionally, congestive heart failure (15.79%), atrial fibrillation (15.50%), chronic kidney disease (15.30%) and COPD (12.19%) were associated with high CMR. Among patients receiving approved therapies, casirivimab/imdevimab and remdesivir had CMR of 1.41% and 12.63% respectively, while for those receiving unapproved therapies, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine had CMR of 2.54% and 2.45%. Conclusion(s): Compared to the 1.1% case-mortality rate (Johns Hopkins 2023) among US COVID-19 patients, we found CMR exceeded 3% among those with a medical claim for COVID-19. Advanced age, dementia, and cardio-renal disease were associated with mortality. Patients with the lowest SES had approximately 3 times the confirmed mortality rate compared to those in the highest SES group.Copyright © 2023

Self-medication among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparative analysis of different faculties

Self-medication is a widespread public health concern. University students are likely to be more prone to it since self-medication rates increase with educational level. Studies have shown that self-medication rates vary among academics belonging to different faculties, and medical students have the highest self-medication rates. However, it is unknown whether this holds in a vulnerable situation, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also unknown whether differences in technical knowledge of drugs influence self-medication rates among students. Thus, this study analyzes and compares prophylactic self-medication among graduate students of different faculties in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-sectional observational study was conducted at a private university in southern Brazil. Students from the medicine, law, life sciences, and fine arts faculties were surveyed, and their responses were compared using a chi-square test. Among 396 respondents, 29.5% reported using preventive medication for COVID-19, and medical students were the least likely to do so. The self-medication rate was 13.6% among respondents, and self-medication did not differ significantly between students of different faculties. Of the students who self-medicated 63% reported having studied the medication before using them. Furthermore, the media did not induce drug use among 81.8% respondents. These results show that medical students used fewer preventive medications during the pandemic and refute the assertion that self-medication rates are higher among medical students. They also show that self-medication rates during the pandemic were significantly lower than those before the pandemic. These revelations show a new aspect of self-medication.Copyright © 2021 Muslim OT et al.

Pilot Study Evaluating the Trends in Utilization of Compounded Products Pre- and Post- COVID-19 Pandemic

Objectives: To assess utilization differences in compounded products before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary objectives were to understand if there were changes in patient cost sharing and types of products compounded pre- and post- pandemic. Method(s): A cross-sectional study was completed using a large national claims database for patients who received at least one COVID-related vaccine, test, or treatment from October 2015 to July 2022. Claims included in the analysis are those identified as paid, listed as compounded, and were filled in 2019, 2020, or 2021. Chi-Square and T-Tests were used to determine if there are differences between each year. Result(s): The prevalence of paid claims for compounded products was 0.00055% (14,101) in 2019, 0.00042% (11,551) in 2020, and 0.00048% (14,005) in 2021. In each year, most claims for compounded products were through commercial insurance 70% in 2019, 62% in 2020, and 65% in 2021. On average there were approximately 2 claims per patient. The most frequently compounded product was lidocaine hydrochloride 20mg/ML topical solution. In 2020 there was an increase in utilization of naltrexone hydrochloride, a treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Between 2019 and 2020 the number of compounded claims decreased 17.6% while the number of total claims increased by 9.01%. From 2020 to 2021 the number of claims for compounded products returned to pre-pandemic levels with a 21.24% increase. In the same period, the total number of claims increased 5.86%. The average patient cost sharing for compounded products was $42.57 (SD: $60.02) in 2019, $40.07 ($80.36) in 2020, and $42.61 ($60.02) in 2021. Conclusion(s): We found that there were fewer patients receiving compounded products following the COVID-19 pandemic. We found no change in the number of compounded claims for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, though in 2020, there was a notable increase in the number of claims for naltrexone hydrochloride.Copyright © 2023

Effectiveness of ivermectin and atazanavir on time to resolution from COVID-19 symptoms: a prospective cohort

Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of Ivermectin and Atazanavir compared to placebo in the time to resolution of symptoms and duration of illness due to COVID-19. Method: observational, prospective, longitudinal, descriptive and analytical cohort study with symptomatic outpatients, followed for 06 months in two Basic Health Units for COVID-19 care in Teresina-Piaui, Brazil, from November to April 2021 identified by 1:1:1 random sampling. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests were performed for laboratory confirmation of suspected infection with the new coronavirus and sociodemographic and clinical evaluation. Results: of the 87 randomized patients, 62.1% (n=54) were male, with a mean age of 35.1 years, had a partner (53.9%), low income (50.6%), eutrophic (40.7%) and without health comorbidities (78.2%). There was no difference between the median time to resolution of symptoms, which was 21 days (IQR, 8-30) in the atazanavir group, 30 days (IQR, 5-90) in the ivermectin group compared with 14 days (IQR, 9-21) in the control group. At day 180, there was resolution of symptoms in 100% in the placebo group, 93.9% in the atazanavir group, and 95% in the ivermectin group. The median duration of illness was 8 days in all study arms. Conclusion: Treatment with atazanavir (6 days) and ivermectin (3 days) did not reduce the time to symptom resolution or the duration of illness among outpatients with mild COVID-19 compared to the placebo group. The results do not support the use of ivermectin and atazanavir for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19.

Regional Variation in Patient Characteristics and Treatment Patterns for over 17 Million COVID-19 Patients in the United States

Objectives: According to the CDC, as of December 2022, almost one in three Americans had confirmed COVID-19 infection;yet only a small portion generated healthcare claims related to COVID-19. Higher burden of COVID-19 cases in Northeastern states compared to other US regions has been documented. This study examined the regional variation in demographic characteristics and treatment patterns among patients with a claim for COVID-19 in a nationwide US claims database. Method(s): Analysis of data from over 277 million patients in IQVIA's longitudinal medical and pharmacy claims databases resulted in a cohort of 17,682,111 patients with COVID-19 diagnosis between 4/1/2020 and 4/30/2022. Demographic characteristics and treatment rates for key approved and un-approved COVID-19 therapies were assessed and stratified by region. Result(s): Among patients in the database, 6.4% had a COVID-19 diagnosis. The proportion was higher in the Northeast (7.1%) and South (6.9%) compared with the West (4.8%). The highest proportion of patients were aged 18-44 years (32.7% in South to 35.2% in West). Over a fifth of the patients were >= 65 years old (US overall= 23.7%;22.5% in Northeast to 25.8% in Midwest). Approximately 57% of the patients nationally and within each region were women. For approved medications, utilization ranged from 1.7% in Northeast to 2.7% in Midwest (overall:2.2%) for remdesivir;0.7% in Northeast to 2.2% in South (overall: 1.5%) for casirivimab/imdevimab. For unapproved medications, utilization ranged from 0.9% in Northeast to 1.6% in South (overall:1.3%) for hydroxychloroquine and 0.4% in Northeast to 1.8% in South (overall:1.1%) for ivermectin. Conclusion(s): Less than one in five US cases of COVID-19 had a claim with diagnosis of COVID-19. Use of COVID-19 specific medications remained low throughout the pandemic. Despite the higher disease burden, proportion of patients with claims and receiving COVID-19 treatment were low nationally, particularly in the northeast US region.Copyright © 2023

Use of ivermectin and atazanavir in the treatment of Covid-19: a scoping review / Uso de ivermectina e atazanavir no tratamento da Covid-19: uma revisão de escopo / Uso de ivermectina y atazanavir en el tratamiento de Covid-19: una revisión de alcance

Objetivo: Examinar e mapear as evidências científicas sobre a eficácia do uso de ivermectina e atazanavir no tratamento de COVID-19. Metodologia: Scoping Review, baseado nos procedimentos recomendados pelo Instituto Joanna Briggs. Estabeleceu-se a pergunta norteadora: "Quais são as evidências científicas sobre o uso de ivermectina e atazanavir no tratamento de pacientes com sintomas leves de COVID-19?". Foram realizadas buscas em seis bases de dados nacionais e internacionais, sobre trabalhos publicados até dezembro de 2022. Dos 357 estudos encontrados, 22 foram selecionados para leitura na íntegra, resultando em uma amostra final de 11 estudos analisados. Resultados: As 11 publicações analisadas foram publicadas de 2020 a 2022 durante período pandêmico, de âmbito nacional e internacional com delineamento de estudos experimentais, do tipo ensaio clínico com randomização. Apenas 03 estudos (25%) testaram o atazanavir como intervenção conjugada a outras drogas, não evidenciando melhorias significativas em relação ao seu uso. Já no tratamento com Ivermectina, dos oito (75%) estudos que a testaram, apenas três (37,5%) recomendaram seu uso e cinco (62,5%) não suportam seu uso para tratamento de COVID-19 leve. O tempo de resolução dos sintomas variou de 8 a 10 dias nos braços tratados com ivermectina e em média 07 dias no tratamento com atazanavir. Não se detectou eventos adversos graves relacionados ao uso das duas drogas. Conclusão: As evidências que recomendavam o uso de ivermectina datam do início do período pandêmico, 2020, mas posteriormente, com a realização de ensaios clínicos robustos e controlados, novas evidências não suportam o uso de ivermectina e atazanavir no tratamento de COVID-19 leve mostrando que não houve diferença no tempo de resolução dos sintomas, na taxa de mortalidade, taxa de internação na UTI e tempo de hospitalização.

Objective: To examine and map the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of using ivermectin and atazanavir in the treatment of COVID-19. Methodology: Scoping Review, based on the procedures recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The guiding question was established, "What is the scientific evidence on the use of ivermectin and atazanavir in the treatment of patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19?" Searches were conducted in six national and international databases on papers published until December 2022. Of the 357 studies found, 22 were selected for reading in full, resulting in a final sample of 11 studies analyzed. Results: The 11 publications analyzed were published from 2020 to 2022 during pandemic period, of national and international scope with experimental study design, of clinical trial type with randomization. Only 03 studies (25%) tested atazanavir as a combined intervention with other drugs, showing no significant improvements in relation to its use. As for the treatment with Ivermectin, of the eight (75%) studies that tested it, only three (37.5%) recommended its use and five (62.5%) did not support its use for treating mild COVID-19. The time to symptom resolution ranged from 8 to 10 days in the ivermectin-treated arms and on average 07 days in the atazanavir treatment. No serious adverse events related to the use of the two drugs were detected. Conclusion: evidence recommending the use of ivermectin dates back to the beginning of the pandemic period, 2020, but subsequently, with robust controlled clinical trials, new evidence does not support the use of ivermectin and atazanavir in the treatment of mild COVID-19 showing that there was no difference in time to symptom resolution, mortality rate, ICU admission rate, and length of hospital stay.

Objetivo: Examinar y mapear la evidencia científica sobre la eficacia del uso de ivermectina y atazanavir en el tratamiento de COVID-19. Metodología: Scoping Review, basada en los procedimientos recomendados por el Instituto Joanna Briggs. La pregunta guía era: "¿Cuál es la evidencia científica sobre el uso de ivermectina y atazanavir en el tratamiento de pacientes con síntomas leves de COVID-19? Se realizaron búsquedas en seis bases de datos nacionales e internacionales, en artículos publicados hasta diciembre de 2022. De los 357 estudios encontrados, se seleccionaron 22 para su lectura completa, lo que dio lugar a una muestra final de 11 estudios analizados. Resultados: Las 11 publicaciones analizadas fueron publicadas entre 2020 y 2022 durante el periodo pandémico, de ámbito nacional e internacional con diseño de estudio experimental, de tipo ensayo clínico con aleatorización. Apenas 03 estudios (25%) probaron el atazanavir como intervención combinada con otras drogas, sin evidenciar mejoras significativas en relación con su uso. En cuanto al tratamiento con Ivermectina, de los ocho (75%) estudios que la probaron, sólo tres (37,5%) recomendaron su uso y cinco (62,5%) no apoyaron su uso para tratar la COVID-19 leve. El tiempo transcurrido hasta la resolución de los síntomas osciló entre 8 y 10 días en los brazos tratados con ivermectina y una media de 07 días en el tratamiento con atazanavir. No se detectaron acontecimientos adversos graves relacionados con el uso de los dos fármacos. Conclusión: las pruebas que recomiendan el uso de ivermectina se remontan al inicio del periodo pandémico, 2020, pero posteriormente, con ensayos clínicos controlados sólidos, las nuevas pruebas no apoyan el uso de ivermectina y atazanavir en el tratamiento de la COVID-19 leve, lo que demuestra que no hubo diferencias en el tiempo hasta la resolución de los síntomas, la tasa de mortalidad, la tasa de ingreso en la UCI y la duración de la estancia hospitalaria.

Efficacy and safety of single-dose ivermectin in mild-to-moderate COVID-19: the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled CORVETTE-01 trial.

Background: To investigate whether ivermectin inhibits SARS-CoV-2 proliferation in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 using time to a negative COVID-19 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. Methods: CORVETTE-01 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (August 2020-October 2021) conducted in Japan. Overall, 248 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 using RT-PCR were assessed for eligibility. A single oral dose of ivermectin (200 µg/kg) or placebo was administered under fasting. The primary outcome was time to a negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid, assessed using stratified log-rank test and Cox regression models. Results: Overall, 112 and 109 patients were randomized to ivermectin and placebo, respectively; 106 patients from each group were included in the full analysis set (male [%], mean age: 68.9%, 47.9 years [ivermectin]; 62.3%, 47.5 years [placebo]). No significant difference was observed in the occurrence of negative RT-PCR tests between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.32; p = 0.785). Median (95% CI) time to a negative RT-PCR test was 14.0 (13.0-16.0) and 14.0 (12.0-16.0) days for ivermectin and placebo, respectively; 82.1% and 84% of patients achieved negative RT-PCR tests, respectively. Conclusion: In patients with COVID-19, single-dose ivermectin was ineffective in decreasing the time to a negative RT-PCR test. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04703205.

When Characteristics of Clinical Trials Require Per-Protocol as Well as Intention-to-Treat Outcomes to Draw Reliable Conclusions: Three Examples.

Under exceptional circumstances, including high rates of protocol non-compliance, per-protocol (PP) analysis can better indicate the real-world benefits of a medical intervention than intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Exemplifying this, the first randomized clinical trial (RCT) considered found that colonoscopy screenings were marginally beneficial, based upon ITT analysis, with only 42% of the intervention group actually undergoing the procedure. However, the study authors themselves concluded that the medical efficacy of that screening was a 50% reduction in colorectal cancer deaths among that 42% PP group. The second RCT found a ten-fold reduction in mortality for a COVID-19 treatment drug vs. placebo by PP analysis, but only a minor benefit by ITT analysis. The third RCT, conducted as an arm of the same platform trial as the second RCT, tested another COVID-19 treatment drug and reported no significant benefit by ITT analysis. Inconsistencies and irregularities in the reporting of protocol compliance for this study required consideration of PP outcomes for deaths and hospitalizations, yet the study coauthors refused to disclose them, instead directing inquiring scientists to a data repository which never held the study's data. These three RCTs illustrate conditions under which PP outcomes may differ significantly from ITT outcomes and the need for data transparency when these reported or indicated discrepancies arise.

Nanovectorization of Ivermectin to avoid overdose of drugs.

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that results in the death of the targeted parasites using several mechanical actions. While very well supported, it can induce in rare cases, adverse effects including coma and respiratory failure in case of overdose. This problem should be solved especially in an emergency situation. For instance, the first pandemic of the 21th century was officially declared in early 2020, and while several vaccines around the worlds have been used, an effective treatment against this new strain of coronavirus, better known as SARS-CoV-2, should also be considered, especially given the massive appearance of variants. From all the tested therapies, Ivermectin showed a potential reduction of the viral portability, but sparked significant debate around the dose needed to achieve these positive results. To answer this general question, we propose, using simulations, to show that the nanovectorization of Ivermectin on BN oxide nanosheets can increase the transfer of the drug to its target and thus decrease the quantity of drug necessary to cope with the disease. This first application could help science to develop such nanocargo to avoid adverse effects.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

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.

Sars-CoV-2 and human strongyloidiasis

The Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), is highly transmissible and of rapid dissemination, and transmitted by respiratory droplets and by direct contact, which can cause respiratory failure and reach multiple organs. Although there is still no effective treatment for the disease, the use of corticosteroids has shown positive results in patients with severe Covid-19, such as dexamethasone, which acts as an immunosuppressant to control cytokine storm syndrome (CSS). In this review, we will abroad the challenge of establishing a balance between risk and benefit in corticosteroid therapy in severe cases of the disease, since corticosteroids can activate the latent infection by Strongyloides stercoralis and develop the critical form of strongyloidiasis, the Strongyloides stercoralis hyperinflation syndrome (SHS). For these circumstances, screening and empirical treatment with ivermectin is recommended for those patients at moderate to high risk of hyperinfection. The keywords used were "Strongyloides" AND "Covid" and the searched databases were PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The selected articles were published from 2020 to 2021 and without language restriction.Copyright © 2022 Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia. All rights reserved.

Audiovestibular and vaccination complications of COVID-19

Objectives: Since its first appearance in Wuhan December 2019, SARS-CoV2 virus received great attention due to its severe symptoms and high spread causing COVID-19 disease which spread all over the world like a pandemic. The causative virus is capable of human-to-human transmission via droplet and direct contact suggesting that upper respiratory tract is the main site to virus manifestations. There is a great diversity in its clinical picture, although the severe respiratory and neurological symptoms are commonly present;however, other symptoms are present. Although otological manifestations are reported in many COVID-19 patients even in asymptomatic cases, they did not receive much attention compared with other critical manifestations. In this article, we paid our attention specifically to the otological manifestations of COVID-19 and their relevance either to the virus infection, treatment, or vaccination through literature review. Conclusion(s): COVID-19 disease has a deleterious effect on the inner ear. This effect is not only due to SARS-Cov-2 infection, but it could be also due to the ototoxic drugs used for treatment. The COVID-19 vaccinations are found to be implicated in the otological symptoms in some cases.Copyright © 2022, The Author(s).

A Case Report of Ivermectin-Induced Liver Failure

Introduction: Ivermectin is an antiparasitic medication that is primarily metabolized by the liver. During the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers demonstrated that Ivermectin successfully inhibited the replication of SARS-COV-2 in vivo, but current research has failed to demonstrate clinical benefit for treatment of COVID-19. Despite this, misinformation campaigns have misled patients to ingest Ivermectin at concentrations meant for domestic animals. Here, we present a case of acute liver failure secondary to the use of Ivermectin. Case Description/Methods: A 61-year-old man with medical history of ischemic cardiomyopathy with last echocardiogram showing ejection fraction at 21%, atrial fibrillation on warfarin for oral anticoagulation, and previously treated Hepatitis C presented with generalized weakness and yellowish discoloration of the skin worsening over the last two weeks. The patient denied significant alcohol use, acetaminophen use, or illicit drugs. He admitted to injecting himself with two doses of weight-based horse ivermectin, for COVID prophylaxis, two weeks prior to his presentation. Physical exam was pertinent for scleral icterus and hepatomegaly with no abdominal tenderness. Initial labs revealed elevated liver chemistries in a mixed pattern (Figure 1). Acute hepatitis panel, HSV, and CMV were negative. Hepatitis C antibodies were positive, but the patient was in sustained virologic response. Full workup for chronic liver disease was unremarkable. Ultrasound revealed hepatosplenomegaly with patent portal and hepatic vasculature. Subsequently, the patient developed hepatic encephalopathy along with his coagulopathy, raising concern for acute hepatic failure. The patient was transferred to the ICU and started on NAcetylcysteine, rifaximin, and supportive care. The patient recovered well and fortunately did not require liver transplant. Discussion(s): While the FDA recommends against the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19, many continue to inappropriately consume it. Ivermectin-induced liver failure is a rare but deadly side effect. Given our patient's rapid onset of symptoms post-self injection of Ivermectin, his liver injury was presumed to be related to Ivermectin. The drug interaction between Ivermectin and warfarin had worsened the patients coagulopathy. Physicians should be aware of the ways Ivermectin overdose may clinically present to avoid delayed treatment. This case demonstrates the detriments of perpetuation of medical misinformation to care.

A Randomized Trial of Ivermectin 600 Mcg/Kg Vs Placebo in Mild/ Moderate Covid-19

Background: Whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 mug/ kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin, maximum targeted dose of 600 mug/kg, daily for 6 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Method(s): ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants age >=30 years with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing >=2 symptoms of acute infection for <=7 days, were enrolled from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022, at 93 sites in the US. Participants were randomized to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 mug/kg (n=602), daily vs placebo daily (n=604) for 6 days. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Result(s): Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, median (interquartile range) age was 48 (38-58) years;713 (59%) were women;and 1008 (84%) reported >=2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. Median time to recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (HR) (95% credible interval [CrI], posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (0.92-1.13;P[HR >1]=0.68). In those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (HR 1.0, 0.6-1.5;P[HR< 1]=0.53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%);2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusion(s): Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 mug/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Primary and secondary outcomes.

Utilization of prophylactic drugs for covid-19 infection among health care workers at government medical college Srinagar-a retrospective observational study

Introduction: Corona virus disease (COVID-19) was declared as a Pandemic by WHO on March 11, 2020. Since health care workers play an important role in providing care to infected patients, they are exposed to unprecedented levels of risk. At the initial phase of this pandemic, no definitive treatment was available, the only way to combat this disease was prevention. A number of prophylactic drugs were being studied during that time for use by health care workers. On 23rd March 2020, Government of India issued recommendation through National Task Force for Covid-19, for using Hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for SARS COV-2. Preclinical studies of Azithromycin have shown immunomodulation and in vitro activity against SARS-COV-2, that has led to its widespread usage during COVID-19. Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug was reported to have an in vitro activity against SARS-COV-2. This orally administered drug was included in India's revised National COVID-19 treatment protocol for people with mild infection. Vitamin C, a water soluble vitamin has been considered for potential beneficial effects in COVID-19 disease. Many animal studies have indicated that a daily intake of vitamin C may prevent infections. Aim(s): To evaluate the pattern of drugs (HCQ, AZITHROMYCIN, IVERMECTIN,and VITAMIN C) used for COVID-19 prophylaxis among health care workers at GMC, Srinagar. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is being conducted by using a survey questionnaire. A survey questionnaire in English has been developed after literature review. The responses will be analyzed using descriptive statistics of frequency and percentage.

METFORMIN REDUCED SARS-CoV-2 VIRAL LOAD IN A PHASE 3 RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

Background: Metformin has in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. In a published phase 3, quadruple-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial of outpatient COVID-19 therapy, metformin resulted in a 42% reduction in ER visits/hospitalizations/deaths by day 14, 58% reduction in hospitalizations/ death by day 28, and 42% reduction in Long Covid through 10 months. This analysis presents the results of viral load sampling performed during that clinical trial. Method(s): Covid-Out trial (NCT04510194) enrolled adults aged 30 to 85 within 3 days of a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection and < 7 days after symptom onset. The trial randomized 1323 participants to metformin (1000mg/day days 2-5;1500mg/day days 6 to 14), ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and/or exact-matching placebo in a 2x3 factorial trial design. Nasal swabs for viral load were an optional component, self-collected from the anterior nares on day 1, 5, and 10. Viral loads were measured via RT-qPCR using N1 and N2 targets in the SARSCoV- 2 nucleocapsid protein, with relative Ct values converted to absolute copy number via calibration to droplet digital PCR. A linear Tobit regression model was used to assess change over time while accounting for left censoring due to the viral load limit of detection. Results were adjusted for other treatment allocations within the factorial design, vaccination status, and baseline viral load. Repeated measures were accounted for using clustered standard errors within participants. Result(s): Samples were available from n = 945, 871, and 775 participants on days 1, 5, and 10, respectively. The mean change from baseline to followup was -0.64 log10 copies/mL (95%CI, -1.16 to -0.13) for metformin versus placebo, which equates to a 4.4-fold greater decrease. The mean change in SARS-CoV-2 from baseline to day 5 was -0.48 log10 copies/mL, and was -0.81 log10 copies/mL from baseline to day 10. The anti-viral effect increased with increased metformin dosing days 6-14. The antiviral effect was larger in those unvaccinated (mean -0.95 log copies/mL) than vaccinated (mean -0.39 log copies/mL). There was no change in viral load vs. placebo for ivermectin or fluvoxamine. Conclusion(s): Metformin lowered SARS-CoV-2 viral load in this quadrupleblinded, randomized clinical trial. The temporal relationship to dose titration suggests a dose-dependent effect. The magnitude of antiviral effect was similar to nirmatrelvir at day 5, greater than nirmatrelvir at day 10. Metformin is safe, widely available, and has few contraindications.

REPOSITIONING IVERMECTIN: A BEACON IN COVID-19 PANDEMIC

COVID19 has emerged out as a most pandemic global threatening disease. Current research finding has brought into consideration about the repositioning of ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. This information augments the knowledge of present and past findings of ivermectin in antiviral research field. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results is the property of ResearchTrentz and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Forging Ahead the Repositioning of Multitargeted Drug Ivermectin.

With the advent of ivermectin, tremendous improvement in public health has been observed, especially in the treatment of onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis that created chaos mostly in rural, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin American countries. The discovery of ivermectin became a boon to millions of people that had suffered in the pandemic and still hold its pharmacological potential against these. Ivermectin continued to surprise scientists because of its notable role in the treatment of various other tropical diseases (Chagas, leishmaniasis, worm infections, etc.) and is viewed as the safest drug with the least toxic effects. The current review highlights its role in unexplored avenues towards forging ahead of the repositioning of this multitargeted drug in cancer, viral (the evaluation of the efficacy of ivermectin against SARS-Cov-2 is under investigation) and bacterial infection and malaria. This article also provides a glimpse of regulatory considerations of drug repurposing and current formulation strategies. Due to its broad-spectrum activity, multitargeted nature and promising efforts are put towards the repurposing of this drug throughout the field of medicine. This single drug originated from a microbe, changed the face of global health by proving its unmatched success and progressive efforts continue in maintaining its bequestnin the management of global health by decreasing the burden of various diseases worldwide.