Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hill A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8420640 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The devastating pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2 and the emergence of antigenic variants that jeopardize the efficacy of current vaccines create an urgent need for a comprehensive understanding of the pathophysiology of COVID-19, including the contribution of inflammation to disease. It also warrants for the search of immunomodulatory drugs that could improve disease outcome. Here, we show that standard doses of ivermectin (IVM), an anti-parasitic drug with potential immunomodulatory activities through the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, prevents clinical deterioration, reduces olfactory deficit and limits the inflammation of the upper and lower respiratory tracts in SARS-CoV-2-infected hamsters. Whereas it has no effect on viral load in the airways of infected animals, transcriptomic analyses of infected lungs reveal that IVM dampens type-I interferon responses and modulates several other inflammatory pathways. In particular, IVM dramatically reduces the Il-6/Il-10 ratio in lung tissue and promotes macrophage M2 polarization, which might account for the more favorable clinical presentation of IVM-treated animals. Altogether, this study supports the use of immunomodulatory drugs such as IVM, to improve the clinical condition of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients.
| S-SCDT-EMM-2021-14122 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundVarious modalities of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), based on different platforms and immunization procedures, have been successively approved for marketing worldwide. A comprehensive review for clinical trials assessing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is urgently needed to make an accurate judgment for mass vaccination.Main textA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the safety of COVID-19 vaccine candidates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Scopus, Web of Science, and MedRxiv. Included articles were limited to RCTs on COVID-19 vaccines. A total of 73,633 subjects from 14 articles were included to compare the risks of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) after vaccinating different COVID-19 vaccines. Pooled risk ratios (RR) of total AEFI for inactivated vaccine, viral-vectored vaccine, and mRNA vaccine were 1.34 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.61, P < 0.001], 1.65 (95% CI 1.31-2.07, P < 0.001), and 2.01 (95% CI 1.78-2.26, P < 0.001), respectively. No significant differences on local and systemic AEFI were found between the first dose and second dose. In addition, people aged ≤ 55 years were at significantly higher risk of AEFI than people aged ≥ 56 years, with a pooled RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.15-1.35, P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe safety and tolerance of current COVID-19 vaccine candidates are acceptable for mass vaccination, with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines candidates having the lowest reported AEFI. Long-term surveillance of vaccine safety is required, especially among elderly people with underlying medical conditions.
| S-EPMC8256217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHydroxycloroquine (HCQ) has been extensively studied for treatment and prevention of coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) from the start of the pandemic. Conflicting evidence about its usefulness has begun to accrue.MethodsIn the face of controversial results about clinical efficacy of HCQ, we performed a rapid systematic review to assess its safety in the framework of COVID-19 randomized clinical trials.ResultsFive studies investigating 2291 subjects were included. The use of HCQ was associated with higher risk of adverse event compared with placebo or standard of care: odds ratio 4.57, 95% confidence interval 2.14-9.45.ConclusionSafety profile of HCQ appears to be unsatisfactory when used to treat or prevent COVID-19, especially in the light of unproved clinical benefit.
| S-EPMC7753686 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPublished and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing IVM effects on COVID-19 adult patients were searched until March 22, 2021 in five engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, length of stay (LOS), and adverse events (AE). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2·0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology.ResultsTen RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI -0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM.ConclusionsIn comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8394824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The devastating pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2 and the emergence of antigenic variants that jeopardize the efficacy of current vaccines create an urgent need for a comprehensive understanding of the pathophysiology of COVID-19, including the contribution of inflammation to disease. It also warrants for the search of immunomodulatory drugs that could improve disease outcome. Here, we show that standard doses of ivermectin (IVM), an anti-parasitic drug with potential immunomodulatory activities through the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, prevent clinical deterioration, reduce olfactory deficit, and limit the inflammation of the upper and lower respiratory tracts in SARS-CoV-2-infected hamsters. Whereas it has no effect on viral load in the airways of infected animals, transcriptomic analyses of infected lungs reveal that IVM dampens type I interferon responses and modulates several other inflammatory pathways. In particular, IVM dramatically reduces the Il-6/Il-10 ratio in lung tissue and promotes macrophage M2 polarization, which might account for the more favorable clinical presentation of IVM-treated animals. Altogether, this study supports the use of immunomodulatory drugs such as IVM, to improve the clinical condition of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients.
| S-EPMC8350903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dysregulated immune responses contribute to the excessive and uncontrolled inflammation observed in severe COVID-19. However, how immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is induced and regulated remains unclear. Here we uncover a role of the complement system in the induction of innate and adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Complement rapidly opsonizes SARS-CoV-2 particles via the lectin pathway. Complement-opsonized SARS-CoV-2 efficiently induces type-I interferon and pro-inflammatory cytokine responses via activation of dendritic cells, which are inhibited by antibodies against the complement receptors (CR) 3 and 4. Serum from COVID-19 patients, or monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, attenuate innate and adaptive immunity induced by complement-opsonized SARS-CoV-2. Blocking of CD32, the FcγRII antibody receptor of dendritic cells, restores complement-induced immunity. These results suggest that opsonization of SARS-CoV-2 by complement is involved in the induction of innate and adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in the acute phase of infection. Subsequent antibody responses limit inflammation and restore immune homeostasis. These findings suggest that dysregulation of the complement system and FcγRII signaling may contribute to severe COVID-19.
| S-SCDT-10_1038-S44318-024-00061-0 | biostudies-other
Project description:Clinical trials evaluating the safety and antibody response of strategies to manipulate prophylactic and therapeutic immunity have been launched. We aim to evaluate strategies for augmentation of host immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We searched clinical trials registered at the National Institutes of Health by 25 May 2021 and conducted analyses on inoculated populations, involved immunological processes, source of injected components, and trial phases. We then searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for their corresponding reports published by 25 May 2021. A bivariate, random-effects meta-analysis was used to derive the pooled estimate of seroconversion and adverse events (AEs). A total of 929,359 participants were enrolled in 389 identified trials. The working mechanisms included heterologous immunity, active immunity, passive immunity, and immunotherapy, with 62.4% of the trials on vaccines. A total of 9072 healthy adults from 27 publications for 22 clinical trials on active immunity implementing vaccination were included for meta-analyses. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) of seroconversion were 13.94, 84.86, 106.03, and 451.04 (all p < 0.01) for vaccines based on protein, RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus, compared with that of respective placebo/control treatment or pre-vaccination sera. The pooled ORs for safety, as defined by the inverse of systemic adverse events (AEs) were 0.53 (95% CI = 0.27-1.05; p = 0.07), 0.35 (95% CI = 0.16-0.75; p = 0.007), 0.32 (95% CI = 0.19-0.55; p < 0.0001), and 1.00 (95% CI = 0.73-1.36; p = 0.98) for vaccines based on protein, RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus, compared with that of placebo/control treatment. A paradigm shift from all four immune-augmentative interventions to active immunity implementing vaccination was observed through clinical trials. The efficacy of immune responses to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 for these vaccines was promising, although systemic AEs were still evident for RNA-based and viral vector-based vaccines.
| S-EPMC8706687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are three main surgical techniques to treat humeral shaft fractures: open reduction and plate fixation (ORPF), intramedullary nail (IMN) fixation, and minimally invasive percutaneous osteosynthesis (MIPO). We performed a network meta-analysis to compare three surgical procedures, including ORPF, IMN fixation, and MIPO, to provide the optimum treatment for humerus shaft fractures.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, and Cochrane library were researched for reports published up to May 2016. We only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more of the three surgical procedures, including the ORPF, IMN, and MIPO techniques, for humeral shaft fractures in adults. The methodological quality was evaluated based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used WinBUGS1.4 to conduct this Bayesian network meta-analysis. We used the odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to calculate the dichotomous outcomes and analyzed the percentages of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.ResultsSeventeen eligible publications reporting 16 RCTs were included in this study. Eight hundred and thirty-two participants were randomized to receive one of three surgical procedures. The results showed that shoulder impingement occurred more commonly in the IMN group than with either ORPF (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.37) or MIPO fixation (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.69). Iatrogenic radial nerve injury occurred more commonly in the ORPF group than in the MIPO group (OR, 11.09; 95% CI, 1.80-124.20). There were no significant differences among the three procedures in nonunion, delayed union, and infection.ConclusionCompared with IMN and ORPF, MIPO technique is the preferred treatment method for humeral shaft fractures.
| S-EPMC5363833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The emergence of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 made imperative the need for diagnostic tests that can identify the infection. Although Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is considered to be the gold standard, serological tests based on antibodies could be very helpful. However, individual studies are usually inconclusive, thus, a comparison of different tests is needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. We used the bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities. We evaluated IgM and IgG tests based on Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassays (CLIA), Fluorescence Immunoassays (FIA), and the Lateral Flow Immunoassays (LFIA). We identified 38 studies containing data from 7848 individuals. Tests using the S antigen are more sensitive than N antigen-based tests. IgG tests perform better compared to IgM ones and show better sensitivity when the samples were taken longer after the onset of symptoms. Moreover, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody alone. All methods yield high specificity with some of them (ELISA and LFIA) reaching levels around 99%. ELISA- and CLIA-based methods perform better in terms of sensitivity (90%-94%) followed by LFIA and FIA with sensitivities ranging from 80% to 89%. ELISA tests could be a safer choice at this stage of the pandemic. LFIA tests are more attractive for large seroprevalence studies but show lower sensitivity, and this should be taken into account when designing and performing seroprevalence studies.
| S-EPMC7278002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported silent infections at the time of testing, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Index cases were removed to minimize representational bias that would result in overestimation of symptomaticity. By analyzing over 350 studies, we estimate that the percentage of infections that never developed clinical symptoms, and thus were truly asymptomatic, was 35.1% (95% CI: 30.7 to 39.9%). At the time of testing, 42.8% (95% prediction interval: 5.2 to 91.1%) of cases exhibited no symptoms, a group comprising both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. Asymptomaticity was significantly lower among the elderly, at 19.7% (95% CI: 12.7 to 29.4%) compared with children at 46.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 62.0%). We also found that cases with comorbidities had significantly lower asymptomaticity compared to cases with no underlying medical conditions. Without proactive policies to detect asymptomatic infections, such as rapid contact tracing, prolonged efforts for pandemic control may be needed even in the presence of vaccination.
| S-EPMC8403749 | biostudies-literature