Nonspecific membrane bilayer perturbations by ivermectin underlie SARS-CoV-2 in vitro activity (preprint)

Since it was proposed as a potential host-directed antiviral agent for SARS-CoV-2, the antiparasitic drug ivermectin has been investigated thoroughly in clinical trials, which have provided insufficient support for its clinical efficacy. To examine the potential for ivermectin to be repurposed as an antiviral agent, we therefore undertook a series of preclinical studies. Consistent with early reports, ivermectin decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral burden in in vitro models at low micromolar concentrations, five- to ten-fold higher than the reported toxic clinical concentration. At similar concentrations, ivermectin also decreased cell viability and increased biomarkers of cytotoxicity and apoptosis. Further mechanistic and profiling studies revealed that ivermectin nonspecifically perturbs membrane bilayers at the same concentrations where it decreases the SARS-CoV-2 viral burden, resulting in nonspecific modulation of membrane-based targets such as G-protein coupled receptors and ion channels. These results suggest that a primary molecular mechanism for the in vitro antiviral activity of ivermectin may be nonspecific membrane perturbation, indicating that ivermectin is unlikely to be translatable into a safe and effective antiviral agent. These results and experimental workflow provide a useful paradigm for performing preclinical studies on (pandemic-related) drug repurposing candidates.

Domain-based user embedding for competing events on social media (preprint)

Online social networks offer vast opportunities for computational social science, but effective user embedding is crucial for downstream tasks. Traditionally, researchers have used pre-defined network-based user features, such as degree, and centrality measures, and/or content-based features, such as posts and reposts. However, these measures may not capture the complex characteristics of social media users. In this study, we propose a user embedding method based on the URL domain co-occurrence network, which is simple but effective for representing social media users in competing events. We assessed the performance of this method in binary classification tasks using benchmark datasets that included Twitter users related to COVID-19 infodemic topics (QAnon, Biden, Ivermectin). Our results revealed that user embeddings generated directly from the retweet network, and those based on language, performed below expectations. In contrast, our domain-based embeddings outperformed these methods while reducing computation time. These findings suggest that the domain-based user embedding can serve as an effective tool to characterize social media users participating in competing events, such as political campaigns and public health crises.

Published benefits of ivermectin use in Itajai, Brazil for COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, and mortality are entirely explained by statistical artefacts (preprint)

Background Two recent publications by Kerr et al. (Cureus 14(1):e21272; Cureus 14(8): e28624) reported dramatic effects of prophylactic ivermectin use for both prevention of COVID-19 and reduction of COVID-19-related hospitalisation and mortality, including a dose-dependent effect of ivermectin prophylaxis. These papers have gained an unusually large public influence: they were incorporated into debates around COVID-19 policies and may have contributed to decreased trust in vaccine efficacy and public health authorities more broadly. Both studies were based on retrospective observational analysis of city-wide registry data from the city of Itajai, Brazil from July-December 2020. Methods Starting with initially identified sources of error, we conducted a revised statistical analysis of available data, including data made available with the original papers and public data from the Brazil Ministry of Health. We identified additional uncorrected sources of bias and errors from the original analysis, including incorrect subject exclusion and missing subjects, an enrolment time bias, and multiple sources of immortal time bias. In models assuming no actual effect from ivermectin use, we conducted Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the contribution of these biases to any observed effect. Results Untreated statistical artefacts and methodological errors alone lead to dramatic apparent risk reduction associated with ivermectin use in both studies. The magnitude of apparent risk reduction from these artefacts is comparable to the results reported by the studies themselves, including apparent protection from infection, hospitalisation, and death, and including the reported apparent dose-response relationship. Conclusions The inference of ivermectin efficacy reported in both papers is unsupported, as the observed effects are entirely explained by untreated statistical artefacts and methodological errors. Our re-analysis calls for caution in interpreting highly publicised observational studies and highlights the importance of common sources of bias in clinical research.

Ivermectin to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Hospitalisation in Subjects Over 50

Clinical manifestations and mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Tanzania, 2021-2022. (preprint)

Abstract Background There have been differential mortality rates from Corona Virus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in different parts of the world. It is not clear whether the clinical presentation does also differ, thus the need for this study in a Sub-Saharan African country. The aim of this study was to describe clinical manifestations and outcome of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in selected tertiary hospitals in Tanzania. Methods and Findings A retrospective analysis of archived data from 26th March, 2021 to 30th September, 2022 was done for adults aged ≥18 years who were admitted in five tertiary-level   hospitals in Tanzania.  Information collected included socio-demographic, radiological and clinical characteristics of the patients as well as outcome of the admission (discharge vs death). Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and proportions and compared using Chi square test. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between COVID-19 mortality and the collected variables. Out of 1387 COVID-19 patients, approximately 52% were males.  The median age was 60 years [ (IQR)= (19-102)). The most common symptoms were dyspnea (943,68%), cough (889, 64%), fever (597,43%) and fatigue (570, 41%). In-hospital mortality was (476, 34%). Mortality significantly increased with increasing age, being the most in age >90 years [aOR (95% CI) =6.72 (1.94-20.81), P<0.001. Other predictors of death were not possessing a health insurance, [aOR (95% CI) = 2.78 (2.09-3.70), P<0. 001],  dyspnea [aOR (95% CI) = 1.40(1.02-2.06), P=0.03]; chest pain, [aOR (95% CI) = 1.78 (1.12-3.21), P=0.03]; HIV positivity, [aOR (95% CI) = 4.62 (2.51-8.73), P<0.001]; neutrophilia, [aOR (95% CI) = 1.02 (1.01 – 1.03), P=0.02]; none use of ivermectin, [aOR (95% CI) = 1.46 (1.09 – 2.22), P=0.02] and non-use of steroid, [aOR (95% CI) = 1.40 (1.2 – 2.5), P=0.04]. Retrospective nature of this study which based on documented patients records, with a large number of patients left out of the analysis due to missed data, this might in a way affect the results of the present study. Conclusions The most common presenting symptoms were dyspnea, cough and fever, just as what was common elsewhere in the world.  Mortality increased significantly with age, in HIV-infected patients, in those without a health insurance, those presenting with dyspnea, chest pain, or neutrophilia and those who did not use steroid or ivermectin. Clinicians should actively look for the predictors of mortality and take appropriate management to reduce mortality.

Role of Ivermectin and Colchicine in Treatment of COVID-19: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

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

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

Marginalizing Misinformation - The Fast-and-Frugal Way

What is the evidence for a consensus among the relevant scientific community? [...]if the source proves credible, ask yourself, "Do they exhibit relevant expertise?" Namely, does the person have the depth of knowledge to vouch for this claim? [...]if you have a credible and expert source, is there evidence that the majority of scientists concur? (Time will vary depending on the depth and complexity of the issue.) Possible scientific claims for students to evaluate include * Do cell phones or 5G communication towers cause cancer? * Can ivermectin prevent COVID-19? * Can earthquakes be precisely predicted? * Are GMO foods safe to eat? * Are recent extreme weather events (hurricanes, droughts, floods) related to climate change? *

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.

Ivermectin drug induced liver injury.

Ivermectin remains a popular, albeit unproven, therapy used in both the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. We discuss a patient who developed jaundice and a liver injury 3 weeks after initiating ivermectin for COVID prevention.  Liver histology demonstrated a pattern of injury that was both portal and lobular, with a bile ductulitis as well with marked cholesasis. She was managed with low dose corticosteroids, later tapered and withdrawn. She remains well a year after presenting.

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.

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.

Theoretical study of chemical reactivity descriptors of some repurposed drugs for COVID-19.

This study focuses on computational studies of chemical reactivity descriptors of some proposed drugs for COVID-19. Density functional theory calculations were used to optimize the structure and investigate the frontier orbitals and the chemical reactivity descriptors of these drugs. The frontier orbitals, which include both the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO), play an essential role in molecular interactions and chemical reactivity of molecule. Polarizability, which determines the response of the susceptibility of a molecule to an approaching charge, is higher in the more complex drugs such as Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, and Ivermectin compare to the smaller drugs. The HOMO and LUMO orbital energies were calculated to obtain the energy gap of the studied drugs, which is in the following order: Favipiravir < Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir < Ivermectin < Artesunate < Artemether < Artemisinin. Generally, molecules with a larger energy gap have lower chemical reactivity and higher kinetic stability.

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.

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 and incidence of post-COVID-19 condition over 10 months (COVID-OUT): a multicentre, randomised, quadruple-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is an emerging chronic illness potentially affecting millions of people. We aimed to evaluate whether outpatient COVID-19 treatment with metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection could reduce the risk of long COVID. METHODS: We conducted a decentralised, randomised, quadruple-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial (COVID-OUT) at six sites in the USA. We included adults aged 30-85 years with overweight or obesity who had COVID-19 symptoms for fewer than 7 days and a documented SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR or antigen test within 3 days before enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned via 2 × 3 parallel factorial randomisation (1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive metformin plus ivermectin, metformin plus fluvoxamine, metformin plus placebo, ivermectin plus placebo, fluvoxamine plus placebo, or placebo plus placebo. Participants, investigators, care providers, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was severe COVID-19 by day 14, and those data have been published previously. Because the trial was delivered remotely nationwide, the a priori primary sample was a modified intention-to-treat sample, meaning that participants who did not receive any dose of study treatment were excluded. Long COVID diagnosis by a medical provider was a prespecified, long-term secondary outcome. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510194. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2020, and Jan 28, 2022, 6602 people were assessed for eligibility and 1431 were enrolled and randomly assigned. Of 1323 participants who received a dose of study treatment and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, 1126 consented for long-term follow-up and completed at least one survey after the assessment for long COVID at day 180 (564 received metformin and 562 received matched placebo; a subset of participants in the metformin vs placebo trial were also randomly assigned to receive ivermectin or fluvoxamine). 1074 (95%) of 1126 participants completed at least 9 months of follow-up. 632 (56·1%) of 1126 participants were female and 494 (43·9%) were male; 44 (7·0%) of 632 women were pregnant. The median age was 45 years (IQR 37-54) and median BMI was 29·8 kg/m2 (IQR 27·0-34·2). Overall, 93 (8·3%) of 1126 participants reported receipt of a long COVID diagnosis by day 300. The cumulative incidence of long COVID by day 300 was 6·3% (95% CI 4·2-8·2) in participants who received metformin and 10·4% (7·8-12·9) in those who received identical metformin placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·39-0·89; p=0·012). The metformin beneficial effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups. When metformin was started within 3 days of symptom onset, the HR was 0·37 (95% CI 0·15-0·95). There was no effect on cumulative incidence of long COVID with ivermectin (HR 0·99, 95% CI 0·59-1·64) or fluvoxamine (1·36, 0·78-2·34) compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Outpatient treatment with metformin reduced long COVID incidence by about 41%, with an absolute reduction of 4·1%, compared with placebo. Metformin has clinical benefits when used as outpatient treatment for COVID-19 and is globally available, low-cost, and safe. FUNDING: Parsemus Foundation; Rainwater Charitable Foundation; Fast Grants; UnitedHealth Group Foundation; National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.