Dataset Information

Safety and Efficacy of Ivermectin and Doxycycline Monotherapy and in Combination in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction and objective

Ivermectin (IVM) and doxycycline (DOXY) have demonstrated in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and have a reasonable safety profile. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the evidence in the literature on the safety and efficacy of their use as monotherapy and combination therapy in COVID-19 management.

Methods

After prospectively registering the study protocol with the Open Science Framework, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, various pre-print servers and reference lists for relevant records published until 16 February, 2021 using appropriate search strategies. Baseline features and data pertaining to efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted separately for IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy, and IVM + DOXY combination therapy. Methodological quality was assessed based on the study design.

Results

Out of 200 articles screened, 19 studies (six retrospective cohort studies, seven randomised controlled trials, five non-randomised trials, one case series) with 8754 unique patients with multiple stages of COVID-19 were included; four were pre-prints and one was an unpublished clinicaltrials.gov document. The comparator was standard care and 'hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin' in seven and three studies respectively, and two studies were placebo controlled; six studies did not have a comparator. IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy and IVM + DOXY were explored in eight, five and five studies, respectively; one study compared IVM monotherapy and IVM + DOXY with placebo. While all studies described efficacy, the safety profile was described in only six studies. Efficacy outcomes were mixed with some studies concluding in favour of the intervention and some studies displaying no significant benefit; barring one study that described 9/183 patients with erosive esophagitis and non-ulcer dyspepsia with IVM + DOXY (without causality assessment details), there were no new safety signals of concern with any of the three interventions considered. The quality of studies varied widely, with five studies having a 'good' methodological quality.

Conclusions

Evidence is not sufficiently strong to either promote or refute the efficacy of IVM, DOXY, or their combination in COVID-19 management.

Systematic review protocol registration details

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/n7r2j .

SUBMITTER: Bhowmick S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8051548 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesAn effective treatment option is not yet available for SARS-CoV2, which causes the COVID-19 pandemic and whose effects are felt more and more every day. Ivermectin is among the drugs whose effectiveness in treatment has been investigated. In this study; it was aimed to investigate the presence of gene mutations that alter ivermectin metabolism and cause toxic effects in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, and to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ivermectin use in the treatment of patients without mutation.Materials and methodsPatients with severe COVID19 pneumonia were included in the study, which was planned as a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind phase 3 study. Two groups, the study group and the control group, took part in the study. Ivermectin 200 mcg/kg/day for 5 days in the form of a solution prepared for enteral use added to the reference treatment protocol -hydroxychloroquine + favipiravir + azithromycin- of patients included in the study group. Patients in the control group were given only reference treatment with 3 other drugs without ivermectin. The presence of mutations was investigated by performing sequence analysis in the mdr1/abcab1 gene with the Sanger method in patients included in the study group according to randomization. Patients with mutations were excluded from the study and ivermectin treatment was not continued. Patients were followed for 5 days after treatment. At the end of the treatment and follow-up period, clinical response and changes in laboratory parameters were evaluated.ResultsA total of 66 patients, 36 in the study group and 30 in the control group were included in the study. Mutations affecting ivermectin metabolism was detected in genetic tests of six (16.7%) patients in the study group and they were excluded from the study. At the end of the 5-day follow-up period, the rate of clinical improvement was 73.3% (22/30) in the study group and was 53.3% (16/30) in the control group (p = 0.10). At the end of the study, mortality developed in 6 patients (20%) in the study group and in 9 (30%) patients in the control group (p = 0.37). At the end of the follow-up period, the average peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) values of the study and control groups were found to be 93.5 and 93.0%, respectively. Partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/FiO2 ratios were determined as 236.3 ± 85.7 and 220.8 ± 127.3 in the study and control groups, respectively. While the blood lymphocyte count was higher in the study group compared to the control group (1698 ± 1438 and 1256 ± 710, respectively) at the end of the follow-up period (p = 0.24); reduction in serum C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin and D-dimer levels was more pronounced in the study group (p = 0.02, p = 0.005 and p = 0.03, respectively).ConclusionsAccording to the findings obtained, ivermectin can provide an increase in clinical recovery, improvement in prognostic laboratory parameters and a decrease in mortality rates even when used in patients with severe COVID-19. Consequently, ivermectin should be considered as an alternative drug that can be used in the treatment of COVID-19 disease or as an additional option to existing protocols.

Project description:Coronavirus virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), actually considered as a global pandemic. The entry-point for SARS-CoV-2 is angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4), which are highly expressed in the lung. Among other complications, COVID-19leads to fatal pneumonia, acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to development of cytokine storm (CS). The pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection depends on the viral load and human innate/adaptive immune response that are required for viral elimination in the first phase of COVID-19. However, an exaggerated immune response in the second phase of COVID-19 results in immune overreaction and CS-induced ALI and ARDS. Thus, in view of these considerations, we report here a series of five patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who developed ALI. In addition to the supportive therapy, the patients received doxycycline in the first week and doxycycline plus colchicine in the second week. Following sequential therapy with doxycycline and/or colchicine in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, the patients had reduction of disease severity and symptoms with better clinical and radiological outcomes. However, it is tough to confirm the link between this therapeutic combination and recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia, as it is a small case-series report. Nevertheless, this study gives a rational for large-scale prospective studies to evaluate the dual sequential effect of doxycycline and colchicine on the COVID-19 severity. This case-series illustrated that use of colchicine: doxycycline combination is linked with marked improvements in the clinical, laboratory and radiological outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. However, we cannot sketch any definitive conclusion from our observation, despite we hypothesize that this combination therapeutic regimen may attenuate and treat COVID-19. Further, namely prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical studies are recommended in this regard.

Project description:BackgroundAfter COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents were used empirically and studied within clinical trials.Areas of uncertaintyThe majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses.Data sourcesData were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.Therapeutic advancesA large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large "natural experiments" occurred in regions that initiated "ivermectin distribution" campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.ConclusionsMeta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

Project description:IntroductionIvermectin is a drug with antiviral properties and has been proposed as an alternative treatment for patients with COVID-19, in some countries; however, there is limited evidence to support its clinical use. Accordingly, the aim of this review and meta-analysis is to obtain superior evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ivermectin in treatment of COVID-19.Methods and analysisWe will search in the medical databases and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases for randomised clinical trials and quasi-randomised trials published from December 2019. The criteria for inclusion are that infection needs to be confirmed by a real-time PCR or serology test, and the effect of ivermectin has been compared with placebo, symptomatic treatment or no treatment. We will exclude observational studies and clinical trials that involved patients with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, but without a laboratorial diagnosis. Outcomes of interest include mortality, time to symptom resolution, time of hospitalisation, frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome, admission to intensive care unit, viral load, PCR-negative status, percentage of infection after prophylactic use, and total incidence of adverse and side effects. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two reviewers will independently select the studies and assess their eligibility. Two other reviewers will independently extract data from each study. Meta-analysis will then be carried out using fixed-effects or random-effects model, using the mean difference for continuous outcomes and the relative risk for dichotomous outcomes. Bias risk will be assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The quality of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. Review Manager V.5.3.5 will be used for synthesis and subgroup analysis.Ethics and disseminationOwing to the nature of the review, ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.Prospero registration numberCRD42020197395.