Ivermectin exposures reported to the Poisons Information Helpline in South Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that has shown in vitro activity against COVID­19. Clinical studies supporting ivermectin for COVID­19 prevention and treatment are conflicting, with important limitations. Public support for ivermectin is significant, with extensive off-label use despite the conflicting views on its efficacy. Ivermectin tablets and injectable formulations are not registered in South Africa for human use by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority. The National Department of Health does not currently recommend the use of ivermectin for COVID­19. OBJECTIVES: To describe cases of ivermectin exposure reported to the Poisons Information Helpline of the Western Cape (PIHWC) before and after publication of the drug's in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: In a retrospective review, ivermectin-related calls reported to the PIHWC from 1 June 2015 to 30 June 2020 (period 1) were compared with calls received from 1 July 2020 to 31 July 2021 (period 2), dichotomised according to the first publication indicating ivermectin activity against SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Seventy-one cases were screened, and 65 were included for analysis; 19 cases were reported during period 1 and 46 during period 2. During period 2, 25 ivermectin cases (54.3%) were related to COVID­19 use. Of these, 24 cases (52.2%) involved veterinary preparations, 3 (6.5%) human preparations and 19 (41.3%) unknown preparations. Fourteen cases (73.7%) during period 1 and 30 (65.2%) during period 2 were reported to be symptomatic. The most common organ systems involved were the central nervous (n=26 cases; 40.0%), gastrointestinal (n=18; 27.7%), ocular (n=9; 13.8%) and dermatological (n=5; 7.7%) systems. CONCLUSION: Ivermectin-related exposure calls increased during study period 2, probably as a result of ivermectin being used as preventive and definitive therapy for COVID­19 in the absence of robust evidence on efficacy, dosing recommendations or appropriate formulations.

Comparison of Trials Using Ivermectin for COVID-19 Between Regions With High and Low Prevalence of Strongyloidiasis: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: A widely cited meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials has claimed ivermectin as an effective treatment for prevention of mortality in COVID-19. However, an unrecognized interaction variable with the relative risk (RR) of mortality may substantially change the appropriate interpretation of this analysis. Objective: To evaluate the association between regional prevalence of strongyloidiasis and ivermectin trial results for the outcome of mortality by testing the hypothesis that strongyloidiasis prevalence interacts with the RR of mortality. Data Sources: Original meta-analysis as well as a manual review of all references in a dedicated ivermectin trial database (c19ivermectin) from January 1, 2019, to November 6, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials using ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 and reporting the outcome of mortality. Studies were excluded in the event of publications revealing suspected trial fraud and/or randomization failure. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study characteristics and RR estimates were extracted from each source. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Differences by strongyloidiasis prevalence were estimated using subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative risk of mortality in ivermectin trials in regions of high vs low strongyloidiasis prevalence and correlation coefficient of meta-regression analysis between RR of mortality and regional prevalence of strongyloidiasis. Results: A total of 12 trials comprising 3901 patients were included in the analysis. Four trials (33%) took place in regions of high strongyloidiasis prevalence and 8 (67%) trials took place in regions of low strongyloidiasis prevalence. Ivermectin trials that took place in areas of low regional strongyloidiasis prevalence were not associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of mortality (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.60-1.18]; P = .31). By contrast, ivermectin trials that took place in areas of high regional strongyloidiasis prevalence were associated with a significantly decreased risk of mortality (RR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.09-0.70]; P = .008). Testing for subgroup differences revealed a significant difference between the results of groups with low and high strongyloidiasis prevalence (χ21 = 4.79; P = .03). The estimate for τ2 (the variance of the study effect sizes) was 0 (95% CI, 0.0000-0.2786), and the estimate for I2 (percentage of variability that is explained by between-study heterogeneity) was 0 (95% CI, 0-43.7%). The meta-regression analysis revealed an RR decrease of 38.83% (95% CI, 0.87%-62.25%) for each 5% increase in strongyloidiasis prevalence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis of 12 trials including 3901 patients, strongyloidiasis prevalence was found to interact with the RR of mortality for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. No evidence was found to suggest ivermectin has any role in preventing mortality among patients with COVID-19 in regions where strongyloidiasis was not endemic.

Ivermectin: a mini-review.

Introduction: Avermectins are common antiparasitic drugs, derived from Streptomyces bacteria that exhibit activity against arthropods and nematodes. Ivermectin, an avermectin derivative, is used as a treatment for parasitic infections in humans and domesticated animals.Discussion: Ivermectin's mechanism of action involves binding to ligand-gated ion channel receptors including glutamate, GABA, and glycine, resulting in parasitic paralysis and death. Due to varying expression of these ion channel receptors in vertebrate species, ivermectin toxicity is rarely reported in mammals. Ivermectin is also a substrate for P-glycoprotein, which limits its neurological toxicity in humans. Genetic polymorphisms in P-glycoprotein or coadministration of P-glycoprotein inhibitors may increase the neurotoxicity of ivermectin. Other toxic effects of ivermectin after therapeutic oral use include edema, rash, headache, and ocular complaints. Most of these effects are mild and short in duration. Ivermectin exhibits antiviral effects in-vitro at very high concentrations. This has led to suggestions of ivermectin as a potential treatment for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, although the drug's pharmacokinetic parameters reduce the likelihood that high concentrations of the drug can be achieved in-vivo.Conclusion: Due to concern for adverse events, specifically neurotoxicity, as well as a paucity of supporting evidence, the use of ivermectin as a routine treatment or preventive measure for COVID-19 infection is not recommended at this time.

Repositioning Ivermectin for Covid-19 treatment: Molecular mechanisms of action against SARS-CoV-2 replication.

Ivermectin (IVM) is an FDA approved macrocyclic lactone compound traditionally used to treat parasitic infestations and has shown to have antiviral potential from previous in-vitro studies. Currently, IVM is commercially available as a veterinary drug but have also been applied in humans to treat onchocerciasis (river blindness - a parasitic worm infection) and strongyloidiasis (a roundworm/nematode infection). In light of the recent pandemic, the repurposing of IVM to combat SARS-CoV-2 has acquired significant attention. Recently, IVM has been proven effective in numerous in-silico and molecular biology experiments against the infection in mammalian cells and human cohort studies. One promising study had reported a marked reduction of 93% of released virion and 99.98% unreleased virion levels upon administration of IVM to Vero-hSLAM cells. IVM's mode of action centres around the inhibition of the cytoplasmic-nuclear shuttling of viral proteins by disrupting the Importin heterodimer complex (IMPα/ß1) and downregulating STAT3, thereby effectively reducing the cytokine storm. Furthermore, the ability of IVM to block the active sites of viral 3CLpro and S protein, disrupts important machinery such as viral replication and attachment. This review compiles all the molecular evidence to date, in review of the antiviral characteristics exhibited by IVM. Thereafter, we discuss IVM's mechanism and highlight the clinical advantages that could potentially contribute towards disabling the viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. In summary, the collective review of recent efforts suggests that IVM has a prophylactic effect and would be a strong candidate for clinical trials to treat SARS-CoV-2.

Implementation of mass drug administration for neglected tropical diseases in Guinea during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Guinea reported its first case of COVID-19 on March 12, 2020. Soon thereafter, a national state of emergency was declared, all land borders were closed, schools were shut down, and public gatherings were limited. Many health activities, including field-based activities targeting neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), were paused. The World Health Organization (WHO) issued updated guidance on the resumption of NTD field-based activities on July 27, 2020. In response, the Guinea Ministry of Health (MoH) and its partners planned and resumed mass drug administration (MDA) in mid-August to September 2020 in 19 health districts. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A risk-benefit assessment was conducted to identify potential risks associated with the MDA in the COVID-19 context. Following this assessment, a risk mitigation plan with barrier measures was developed to guide MDA implementation. These measures included COVID-19 testing for all national staff leaving Conakry, mask wearing, social distancing of two meters, and hand washing/sanitizing. A checklist was developed and used to monitor compliance to risk mitigation measures. Data on adherence to risk mitigation measures were collected electronically during the MDA. A total of 120 checklists, representing 120 community drug distributor (CDD) teams (two CDDs per team) and 120 households, were completed. Results indicated that washing or disinfecting hands was practiced by 68.3% of CDD teams, compared to 45.0% among households. Face masks to cover the mouth and nose were worn by 79.2% of CDD teams, while this was low among households (23.3%). In 87.5% of households, participants did not touch the dose pole and in 88.3% of CDD teams, CDDs did not touch the hands of the participants while giving the drugs. A large majority of CDD teams (94.2%) and household members (94.2%) were willing to participate in the MDA despite the pandemic. The epidemiological coverage was ≥65% for lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis and soil-transmitted helminths in 10 out of 19 HDs and ≥75% for schistosomiasis for school-aged children in 7 out of 11 HDs. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Guinea was one of the first countries in Africa to resume MDA activities during the COVID-19 pandemic without causing an observed increase of transmission. The development of a risk mitigation plan and a method to monitor adherence to barrier measures was critical to this unprecedented effort. The rapid incorporation of COVID-19 barrier measures and their acceptance by CDDs and household members demonstrated both the adaptability of the National NTD Program to respond to emerging issues and the commitment of the MoH to implement NTD programs.

The burden of skin disease and eye disease due to onchocerciasis in countries formerly under the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control mandate for 1990, 2020, and 2030.

BACKGROUND: Onchocerciasis ("river blindness") can cause severe morbidity, including vision loss and various skin manifestations, and is targeted for elimination using ivermectin mass drug administration (MDA). We calculated the number of people with Onchocerca volvulus infection and onchocercal skin and eye disease as well as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost from 1990 through to 2030 in areas formerly covered by the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control. METHODS: Per MDA implementation unit, we collated data on the pre-control distribution of microfilariae (mf) prevalence and the history of control. Next, we predicted trends in infection and morbidity over time using the ONCHOSIM simulation model. DALY estimates were calculated using disability weights from the Global Burden of Disease Study. RESULTS: In 1990, prior to MDA implementation, the total population at risk was 79.8 million with 26.0 million (32.5%) mf-positive individuals, of whom 17.5 million (21.9%) had some form of onchocercal skin or eye disease (2.5 million DALYs lost). By 2030, the total population was predicted to increase to 236.1 million, while the number of mf-positive cases (about 6.8 million, 2.9%), people with skin or eye morbidity (4.2 million, 1.8%), and DALYs lost (0.7 million) were predicted to decline. CONCLUSIONS: MDA has had a remarkable impact on the onchocerciasis burden in countries previously under the APOC mandate. In the few countries where we predict continued transmission between now and 2030, intensified MDA could be combined with local vector control efforts, or the introduction of new drugs for mopping up residual cases of infection and morbidity.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in the early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), medRxiv, and Research Square, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 26 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity, treated in inpatient or outpatient settings, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  We excluded studies comparing ivermectin to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. The primary analysis excluded studies with high risk of bias. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes 1. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, adverse events, quality of life, duration of hospitalization, and viral clearance; 2. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, admission to hospital, adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance; (3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, adverse events, mortality, admission to hospital, and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID-19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eight studies had an open-label design, six were double-blind and placebo-controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.  Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for inpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to day 28 assessed as need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.59; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or need for supplemental oxygen (0 participants required supplemental oxygen; 1 study, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence), adverse events within 28 days (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.97; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and viral clearance at day seven (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.48; 2 studies, 159 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on clinical improvement up to 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 study; 73 participants; low-certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) -0.10 days, 95% CI -2.43 to 2.23; 1 study; 45 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for outpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality up to 28 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to 14 days assessed as need for IMV (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.47; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or non-IMV or high flow oxygen requirement (0 participants required non-IMV or high flow; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo reduces or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on the number of participants with symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 1 study, 398 participants; low-certainty evidence) and adverse events within 28 days (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for primary analysis. No study reported hospital admission or quality of life up to 14 days. Ivermectin compared to no treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection We found one study. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID-19 symptoms and adverse events up to 14 days that were included in a secondary analysis due to high risk of bias. No study reported SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.

Ivermectin and mortality in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the effect of ivermectin on mortality in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov from the inception of databases up until April 9, 2021. The intervention group was ivermectin and the control group was standard of care or placebo. The primary outcome was mortality reported as risk ratio (RR). RESULTS: There were 9 RCTs comprising of 1788 patients included in this meta-analysis. Ivermectin was associated with decreased mortality (RR 0.39 [95% 0.20-0.74], p = 0.004; I2: 58.2%, p = 0.051). Subgroup analysis in patients with severe COVID-19 showed borderline statistical significance towards mortality reduction (RR 0.42 [95% 0.18-1.00], p = 0.052; I2: 68.3, p = 0.013). The benefit of ivermectin and mortality was reduced by hypertension (RR 1.08 [95% CI 1.03-1.13], p = 0.001); but was not influenced by age (p = 0.657), sex (p = 0.466), diabetes (p = 0.429). Sensitivity analysis using fixed-effect model showed that ivermectin decreased mortality in general (RR 0.43 [95% CI 0.29-0.62], p < 0.001) and severe COVID-19 subgroup (RR 0.48 [95% CI 0.32-0.72], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ivermectin was associated with decreased mortality in COVID-19 with a low certainty of evidence. Further adequately powered double-blinded placebo-controlled RCTs are required for definite conclusion.

Effect of a combination of nitazoxanide, ribavirin, and ivermectin plus zinc supplement (MANS.NRIZ study) on the clearance of mild COVID-19.

This trial compared the rate and time of viral clearance in subjects receiving a combination of nitazoxanide, ribavirin, and ivermectin plus Zinc versus those receiving supportive treatment. This non-randomized controlled trial included 62 patients on the triple combination treatment versus 51 age- and sex-matched patients on routine supportive treatment. all of them confirmed cases by positive reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction of a nasopharyngeal swab. Trial results showed that the clearance rates were 0% and 58.1% on the 7th day and 13.7% and 73.1% on the 15th day in the supportive treatment and combined antiviral groups, respectively. The cumulative clearance rates on the 15th day are 13.7% and 88.7% in the supportive treatment and combined antiviral groups, respectively. This trial concluded by stating that the combined use of nitazoxanide, ribavirin, and ivermectin plus zinc supplement effectively cleared the SARS-COV2 from the nasopharynx in a shorter time than symptomatic therapy.