Dataset Information

Ivermectin in combination with doxycycline for treating COVID-19 symptoms: a randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We evaluated whether ivermectin combined with doxycycline reduced the clinical recovery time in adults with COVID-19 infection.

Methods

This was a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms randomly assigned to treatment (n = 200) and placebo (n = 200) groups. The primary outcome was duration from treatment to clinical recovery. Secondary outcomes were disease progression and persistent COVID-19 positivity by RT-PCR.

Results

Among 556 screened patients, 400 were enrolled and 363 completed follow-up. The mean patient age was 40 years, and 59% were men. The median recovery time was 7 (4-10, treatment group) and 9 (5-12, placebo group) days (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.90). The number of patients with a ≤7-day recovery was 61% (treatment group) and 44% (placebo groups) (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.09). The proportion of patients who remained RT-PCR positive on day 14 and whose disease did not progress was significantly lower in the treatment group than in the placebo group.

Conclusions

Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative by RT-PCR on day 14.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04523831.

Data repository id

Dryad. doi:10.5061/dryad.qjq2bvqf6.

SUBMITTER: Mahmud R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8127799 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction and objectiveIvermectin (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.MethodsAfter 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.ResultsOut 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.ConclusionsEvidence 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 detailsOpen Science Framework: https://osf.io/n7r2j .

Project description:ImportanceIvermectin is widely prescribed as a potential treatment for COVID-19 despite uncertainty about its clinical benefit.ObjectiveTo determine whether ivermectin is an efficacious treatment for mild COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsDouble-blind, randomized trial conducted at a single site in Cali, Colombia. Potential study participants were identified by simple random sampling from the state's health department electronic database of patients with symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. A total of 476 adult patients with mild disease and symptoms for 7 days or fewer (at home or hospitalized) were enrolled between July 15 and November 30, 2020, and followed up through December 21, 2020.InterventionPatients were randomized to receive ivermectin, 300 μg/kg of body weight per day for 5 days (n = 200) or placebo (n = 200).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was time to resolution of symptoms within a 21-day follow-up period. Solicited adverse events and serious adverse events were also collected.ResultsAmong 400 patients who were randomized in the primary analysis population (median age, 37 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 29-48]; 231 women [58%]), 398 (99.5%) completed the trial. The median time to resolution of symptoms was 10 days (IQR, 9-13) in the ivermectin group compared with 12 days (IQR, 9-13) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for resolution of symptoms, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.32]; P = .53 by log-rank test). By day 21, 82% in the ivermectin group and 79% in the placebo group had resolved symptoms. The most common solicited adverse event was headache, reported by 104 patients (52%) given ivermectin and 111 (56%) who received placebo. The most common serious adverse event was multiorgan failure, occurring in 4 patients (2 in each group).Conclusion and relevanceAmong adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04405843.

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:BackgroundThere are limited antiviral options for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Ivermectin (IVM), a macrocyclic lactone with a wide anti-parasitary spectrum, has shown potent activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. This study aimed at assessing the antiviral effect of IVM on viral load of respiratory secretions and its relationship with drug concentrations in plasma.MethodsProof-of-concept, pilot, randomized, controlled, outcome-assessor blinded trial to evaluate antiviral activity of high-dose IVM in 45 COVID-19 hospitalized patients randomized in a 2:1 ratio to standard of care plus oral IVM at 0·6 mg/kg/day for 5 days versus standard of care in 4 hospitals in Argentina. Eligible patients were adults with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days of symptoms onset. The primary endpoint was the difference in viral load in respiratory secretions between baseline and day-5, by quantitative RT-PCR. Concentrations of IVM in plasma were measured. Study registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04381884.Findings45 participants were recruited (30 to IVM and 15 controls) between May 18 and September 9, 2020. There was no difference in viral load reduction between groups but a significant difference was found in patients with higher median plasma IVM levels (72% IQR 59-77) versus untreated controls (42% IQR 31-73) (p = 0·004). Mean ivermectin plasma concentration levels correlated with viral decay rate (r: 0·47, p = 0·02). Adverse events were similar between groups. No differences in clinical evolution at day-7 and day-30 between groups were observed.InterpretationA concentration dependent antiviral activity of oral high-dose IVM was identified at a dosing regimen that was well tolerated. Large trials with clinical endpoints are necessary to determine the clinical utility of IVM in COVID-19.FundingThis work was supported by grant IP-COVID-19-625, Agencia Nacional de Promoción de la Investigación, el Desarrollo Tecnológico y la Innovación, Argentina and Laboratorio ELEA/Phoenix, Argentina.

Project description:BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 seems to affect the regulation of pulmonary perfusion. Hypoperfusion in areas of well-aerated lung parenchyma results in a ventilation-perfusion mismatch that can be characterized using subtraction computed tomography angiography (sCTA). This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of oral sildenafil in treating COVID-19 inpatients showing perfusion abnormalities in sCTA.MethodsTriple-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in Chile in a tertiary-care hospital able to provide on-site sCTA scans and ventilatory support when needed between August 2020 and March 2021. In total, 82 eligible adults were admitted to the ED with RT-PCR-confirmed or highly probable SARS-COV-2 infection and sCTA performed within 24 h of admission showing perfusion abnormalities in areas of well-aerated lung parenchyma; 42 were excluded and 40 participants were enrolled and randomized (1:1 ratio) once hospitalized. The active intervention group received sildenafil (25 mg orally three times a day for seven days), and the control group received identical placebo capsules in the same way. Primary outcomes were differences in oxygenation parameters measured daily during follow-up (PaO2/FiO2 ratio and A-a gradient). Secondary outcomes included admission to the ICU, requirement of non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and mortality rates. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.ResultsTotally, 40 participants were enrolled (20 in the placebo group and 20 in the sildenafil group); 33 [82.5%] were male; and median age was 57 [IQR 41-68] years. No significant differences in mean PaO2/FiO2 ratios and A-a gradients were found between groups (repeated-measures ANOVA p = 0.67 and p = 0.69). IMV was required in 4 patients who received placebo and none in the sildenafil arm (logrank p = 0.04). Patients in the sildenafil arm showed a significantly shorter median length of hospital stay than the placebo group (9 IQR 7-12 days vs. 12 IQR 9-21 days, p = 0.04).ConclusionsNo statistically significant differences were found in the oxygenation parameters. Sildenafil treatment could have a potential therapeutic role regarding the need for IMV in COVID-19 patients with specific perfusion patterns in sCTA. A large-scale study is needed to confirm these results.Trial registrationSildenafil for treating patients with COVID-19 and perfusion mismatch: a pilot randomized trial, NCT04489446, Registered 28 July 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04489446 .