Clinical study evaluating the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment: A randomized controlled study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Abd-Elsalam S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242425 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe emergent outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emphasized the requirement for therapeutic opportunities to overcome this pandemic. Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that has shown effectiveness against various agents, including SARS-CoV-2. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of ivermectin treatment compared with the standard of care (SOC) among people with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-center, parallel-arm, superiority trial among adult hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, 72 patients (mean age 48.57 ± 14.80 years) were randomly assigned to either the ivermectin (n=36) or placebo (n=36) group, along with receiving standard care. We aimed to compare the negativity of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) result at days 7 and 14 of enrolment as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were duration of hospitalization, frequency of clinical worsening, survival on day 28, and adverse events.ResultsAt days 7 and 14, no differences were observed in the proportion of PCR-positive patients (RR 0.97 at day 7 (p=0.759) and 0.95 at day 14 (p=0.813). No significant differences were found between the groups for any of the secondary endpoints, and no adverse events were reported.ConclusionNo difference was found in the proportion of PCR-positive cases after treatment with ivermectin compared with standard care among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. However, early symptomatic recovery was observed without side effects.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05076253. Registered on 8 October 2021, prospectively.
| S-EPMC9412770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RETRACTED ARTICLE: To date, no antiviral therapy has shown proven clinical effectiveness in treating patients with COVID-19. We assessed the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized Egyptian patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive either remdesivir (200 mg on the first day followed by 100 mg daily for the next 9 days intravenously infused over 30-60 minutes) in addition to standard care or standard care alone. The primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay and mortality rate. The need for mechanical ventilation was assessed as a secondary outcome. Two hundred patients (100 in each group) completed the study and were included in the final analysis. The remdesivir group showed a significantly lower median duration of hospital stay (10 days) than the control group (16 days; P < 0.001). Eleven of the patients in the remdesivir group needed mechanical ventilation compared with eight patients in the control group (P = 0.469). The mortality rate was comparable between the two groups (P = 0.602). Mortality was significantly associated with older age, elevated C-reactive protein levels, elevated D-dimer, and the need for mechanical ventilation (P = 0.039, 0.003, 0.001, and < 0.001 respectively). Remdesivir had a positive influence on length of hospital stay, but it had no mortality benefit in Egyptian patients with COVID-19. Its use, in addition to standard care including dexamethasone, should be considered, particularly in low- and middle-income countries when other effective options are scarce.
| S-EPMC8922517 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIvermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19. Evidence-based data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin are needed.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsThe Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients' symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.InterventionsPatients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events.ResultsAmong 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04920942.
| S-EPMC8980926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has revealed a severe need for effective antiviral treatment. The objectives of this study were to assess if pre-emptive treatment with amantadine for COVID-19 in non-hospitalized persons ≥40 years or adults with comorbidities was able to prevent disease progression and hospitalization. Primary outcomes were clinical status on day 14.MethodsBetween 9 June 2021 and 27 January 2022, this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, single-centre clinical trial included 242 subjects with a follow-up period of 90 days. Subjects were randomly assigned 1:1 to either amantadine 100 mg or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The inclusion criteria were confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least one of (a) age ≥40 years, age ≥18 years and (b) at least one comorbidity, or (c) body mass index ≥30. The study protocol was published at www.Clinicaltrialsgov (unique protocol #02032021) and at www.clinicaltrialregister.eu (EudraCT-number 2021-001177-22).ResultsWith 121 participants in each arm, we found no difference in the primary endpoint with 82 participants in the amantadine arm, and 92 participants in the placebo arm with no limitations to activities, respectively, and 25 and 37 with limitations to activities in the amantadine arm and the placebo arm, respectively. No participants in either group were admitted to hospital or died. The OR of having state severity increased by 1 in the amantadine group versus placebo was 1.8 (CI 1.0-3.3, [p 0.051]). On day 7, one participant was hospitalized in each group; throughout the study, this increased to five and three participants for amantadine versus placebo treatment (p 0.72). Similarly, on day 7, there was no difference in the status of oropharyngeal swabs. Most participants (108 in each group) were SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive (p 0.84).ConclusionWe found no effect of amantadine on disease progression of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
| S-EPMC10284620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSpecific treatment for COVID-19 is still an unmet need. Outcomes of clinical trials on repurposed drugs have not been yielding success. Therefore, it is necessary to include complementary approaches of medicine against COVID-19.PurposeThis study was designed to evaluate the impact of traditional Indian Ayurvedic treatment regime on asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 infection.Study designIt is a placebo controlled randomized double-blind pilot clinical trial.MethodsThe study was registered with Clinical Trial Registry-India (vide Registration No. CTRI/2020/05/025273) and conducted at the Department of Medicine in National Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Jaipur, India. 1 g of Giloy Ghanvati (Tinospora cordifolia) and 2 g of Swasari Ras (traditional herbo-mineral formulation) and 0.5 g each of Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) and Tulsi Ghanvati (Ocimum sanctum) were given orally to the patients in treatment group twice per day for 7 days. Medicines were given in the form of tablets and each tablet weighed 500 mg. While, Swasari Ras was administered in powdered form, 30 min before breakfasts and dinners, rest were scheduled for 30 min post-meals. Patients in the treatment group also received 4 drops of Anu taila (traditional nasal drop) in each nostril every day 1 h before breakfast. Patients in the placebo group received identical-looking tablets and drops, post randomization and double blinded assortments. RT-qPCR test was used for the detection of viral load in the nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab samples of study participants during the study. Chemiluminescent immunometric assay was used to quantify serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) on day 1 and day 7 of the study.ResultsBy day 3, 71.1 % and 50.0 % patients recovered in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively. Treatment group witnessed 100 % recovery by day 7, while it was 60.0 % in the placebo group. Average fold changes in serum levels of hs-CRP, IL-6 and TNF-α in treatment group were respectively, 12.4, 2.5 and 20 times lesser than those in the placebo group at day 7. There was 40 % absolute reduction in the risk of delayed recovery from infection in the treatment group.ConclusionsAyurvedic treatment can expedite virological clearance, help in faster recovery and concomitantly reduce the risk of viral dissemination. Reduced inflammation markers suggested less severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the treatment group. Moreover, there was no adverse effect observed to be associated with this treatment.
| S-EPMC7857981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe current endpoints for therapeutic trials of hospitalized COVID-19 patients capture only part of the clinical course of a patient and have limited statistical power and robustness.MethodsWe specify proportional odds models for repeated measures of clinical status, with a common odds ratio of lower severity over time. We also specify the proportional hazards model for time to each level of improvement or deterioration of clinical status, with a common hazard ratio for overall treatment benefit. We apply these methods to Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trials.ResultsFor remdesivir versus placebo, the common odds ratio was 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.23-1.79; p < 0.001), and the common hazard ratio was 1.27 (95% CI = 1.09-1.47; p = 0.002). For baricitinib plus remdesivir versus remdesivir alone, the common odds ratio was 1.32 (95% CI = 1.10-1.57; p = 0.002), and the common hazard ratio was 1.30 (95% CI = 1.13-1.49; p < 0.001). For interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir versus remdesivir alone, the common odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.79-1.14; p = 0.56), and the common hazard ratio was 0.98 (95% CI = 0.85-1.12; p = 0.74).ConclusionsThe proposed methods comprehensively characterize the treatment effects on the entire clinical course of a hospitalized COVID-19 patient.
| S-EPMC11304635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several vaccine candidates to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have entered or will soon enter large-scale, phase 3, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. To facilitate harmonized evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of these vaccines, a general set of clinical endpoints is proposed, along with considerations to guide the selection of the primary endpoints on the basis of clinical and statistical reasoning. The plausibility that vaccine protection against symptomatic COVID-19 could be accompanied by a shift toward more SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic is highlighted, as well as the potential implications of such a shift.
| S-EPMC7596738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite several studies designed to evaluate the efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is still doubt about the effects of these drugs, especially in patients with severe forms of the disease. This randomized, open-label, controlled, phase III trial assessed the efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for five days in combination with standard care compared to standard care alone in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Chloroquine 450 mg BID on day 1 and 450 mg once daily from days 2 to 5 or hydroxychloroquine 400 mg BID on day 1 and 400 mg once daily from days 2 to 5 were administered in the intervention group. Patients were enrolled from April 16 to August 06, 2020, in 6 hospitals in southern Brazil. The primary outcome was the clinical status measured on day 14 after randomization with a 9-point ordinal scale. The main secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality; invasive mechanical ventilation use; the incidence of acute renal dysfunction in 28 days; and the clinical status of patients on days 5, 7, 10 and 28. All patients with a positive RT-PCR result for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were analyzed (modified intention to treat (mITT) population). Arrythmias and cardiovascular complications were assessed as safety outcomes. A total of 105 patients were enrolled and followed for 28 days. The trial was stopped before reaching the planned sample size due to harmful effects. Patients in the intervention group had a worse clinical outcome on the 14th day (odds ratio (OR) 2.45 [1.17 to 4.93], p = 0.016) and on the 28th day (OR 2.47 [1.15 to 5.30], p = 0.020). Moreover, the intervention group had higher incidences of invasive mechanical ventilation use (risk ratio (RR) 2.15 [1.05 to 4.40], p = 0.030) and severe renal dysfunction (KDIGO stage 3) (RR 2.24 [1.01 to 4.99], p = 0.042) until the 28th day of follow-up. No significant arrythmia was noted. In patients with severe COVID-19, the use of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine added to standard treatment resulted in a significant worsening of clinical status, an increased risk of renal dysfunction and an increased need for invasive mechanical ventilation.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04420247. Registered 09 June 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04420247 .
| S-EPMC8079411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLianhua Qingke (LH) tablets is an effective traditional Chinese medicine against various viral infections, especially in relieving coughing. However, its effects on COVID-19 are unknown.MethodsTo examine the therapeutic effectiveness of LH tablets in COVID-19 patients with mild and common types, a randomized, multicenter, controlled study was carried out. COVID-19 cases were randomized to undergo routine treatment with or without LH tablets (4 tablets, three times a day) for 14 days. The primary endpoints were the rate of achieving clinical symptom resolution and the corresponding time.ResultsThere were 144 participants in the full analysis set (72 each in the LH and control groups). The LH group participants had elevated symptom alleviation rate at 14 days compared with control cases (FAS: 98.61% vs. 84.72%, p = 0.0026). In comparison with control group participants, the LH group participants had reduced median time to clinical symptom alleviation (median: 4 vs. 7 days, p < 0.0001). Higher resolution rates of coughing (98.44% vs. 84.51%, p = 0.0045) and expectoration (100% vs. 82.35%, p = 0.0268) were observed in the LH group. Times to recovery of fever (median: 2 vs. 3 days, p = 0.0007), coughing (median: 4 vs. 7 days, p < 0.0001), and expectoration (median: 3 vs. 6 days, p < 0.0001) were also notably shorter in the LH group. Moreover, the LH group had elevated improvement rates in chest computed tomography signs (FAS: 86.11% vs. 72.22%, p = 0.0402) and clinical cure at day 28 (FAS: 83.33% vs. 68.06%, p = 0.0326). However, no differences were found in the laboratory test and viral assay. Serious adverse events were not detected.ConclusionThese preliminary findings indicate LH tablets may be effective in symptomatic COVID-19, especially in relieving coughing. This trial was registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100042069).
| S-EPMC8853799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConvalescent plasma (CP) has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under study. However, the variability in the current clinical trials has averted its wide use in the current pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CP in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the early stages of the disease.MethodsA randomized controlled clinical study was conducted on 101 patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed severe COVID-19. Most participants had less than 14 days from symptoms onset and less than seven days from hospitalization. Fifty patients were assigned to receive CP plus standard therapy (ST), and 51 were assigned to receive ST alone. Participants in the CP arm received two doses of 250 mL each, transfused 24 h apart. All transfused plasma was obtained from "super donors" that fulfilled the following criteria: titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG ≥ 1:3200 and IgA ≥ 1:800 antibodies. The effect of transfused anti-IFN antibodies and the SARS-CoV-2 variants at the entry of the study on the overall CP efficacy was evaluated. The primary outcomes were the reduction in viral load and the increase in IgG and IgA antibodies at 28 days of follow-up. The per-protocol analysis included 91 patients.ResultsAn early but transient increase in IgG anti-S1-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels at day 4 post-transfusion was observed (Estimated difference [ED], - 1.36; 95% CI, - 2.33 to - 0.39; P = 0.04). However, CP was not associated with viral load reduction in any of the points evaluated. Analysis of secondary outcomes revealed that those patients in the CP arm disclosed a shorter time to discharge (ED adjusted for mortality, 3.1 days; 95% CI, 0.20 to 5.94; P = 0.0361) or a reduction of 2 points on the WHO scale when compared with the ST group (HR adjusted for mortality, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.5; P = 0.0376). There were no benefits from CP on the rates of intensive care unit admission (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.9; P = 0.6399), mechanical ventilation (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.7; P = 0.4039), or mortality (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.64 to 16; P = 0.1584). Anti-IFN antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 variants did not influence these results.ConclusionCP was not associated with viral load reduction, despite the early increase in IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, CP is safe and could be a therapeutic option to reduce the hospital length of stay. Trial registration NCT04332835.
| S-EPMC9235185 | biostudies-literature