Toxic Effects from Ivermectin Use Associated with Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Temple C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8552535 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesIn this randomized open-label trial pilot study we assessed the antiviral effects and safety of various doses of ivermectin in patients with mild clinical symptoms of COVID-19.MethodsPatients were randomly assigned to receive standard of care (SOC) treatment at hospital admission; SOC plus ivermectin 100 mcg/kg; SOC plus ivermectin 200 mcg/kg; or SOC plus ivermectin 400 mcg/kg. The primary assessed endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 RT PCR tests within 7 days of the start of the dosing period. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04431466).ResultsA total of 32 patients were enrolled and randomized to treatment. SOC treatment together with ivermectin did not result in any serious adverse events. All patients exhibited a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load within 7 days; however, those who received ivermectin had a more consistent decrease as compared to the SOC alone group, characterized by a shorter time for obtaining two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 RT PCR tests.ConclusionsIvermectin is safe in patients with SARS-CoV-2, reducing symptomatology and the SARS-CoV-2 viral load. This antiviral effect appears to depend on the dose used, and if confirmed in future studies, it suggests that ivermectin may be a useful adjuvant to the SOC treatment in patients with mild COVID-19 symptoms.
| S-EPMC7942165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has triggered unprecedented social, economic and health challenges. To control and reduce the infection rate, countries employed non-pharmaceutical measures such as social distancing, isolation, quarantine, and the use of masks, hand and surface sanitisation. Since 2021 a global race for COVID-19 vaccination ensued, mainly due to a lack of equitable vaccine production and distribution. To date, no treatments have been demonstrated to cure COVID-19. The scientific World is now considering the potential use of Ivermectin as a prophylactic and treatment for COVID-19. Against this background, the objective of this study is to review the literature to demystify the enigma or panacea in the use of Ivermectin. This paper intends to investigate literature which supports the existence or shows the nonexistence of a causal link between Ivermectin, COVID-19 mortality and recovery. There are inconsistent results on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Some studies have asserted that in a bid to slow down the transmission of COVID-19, ivermectin can be used to inhibit the in vitro replication of SARS-CoV-2. The pre-existing health system burdens can be alleviated as patients treated prophylactically would reduce hospital admissions and stem the spread of COVID-19. On a global scale, Ivermectin is currently used by about 28% of the world's population, and its adoption is presently about 44% of countries. However, the full administration of this drug would require further tests to establish its clinical effectiveness and efficacy.
| S-EPMC9174099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeru has reported one of the highest mortality rates from COVID-19 worldwide. The Chincha province has been one of the most affected regions in Peru and the leading promoter of the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the frequency of use and factors associated with the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 in Chincha.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted during the second wave of COVID-19 in Peru. For statistical analyses, frequencies and percentages were reported. Prevalence ratios (PR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), and a p-value of 0.05 were used to determine statistical significance. SPSS version 22 (IBM Corp) program was used for the analyses.ResultsA total of 432 participants were included in the study. A total of 67.6% (n = 292) of the participants used ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these, 20.20% (n=59) of the people used ivermectin for prophylactic purposes only, while 41.79% (n=122) used it as treatment for COVID-19 only, and 38.01% (n=111) used it for both reasons. The consumption of ivermectin was associated with being 50 years or older (PR:1.27, 95% CI:1.04-1.54), having a technical education level (PR:1.16, 95% CI:1.01-1.34), having had symptoms of COVID-19 with negative/no diagnosis (PR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07-1.53) or positive diagnosis (PR:1.38, 95% CI:1.18-1.61), or having had contact with infected people (PR:1.45, 95% CI:1.06-1.98).ConclusionsMost people in Chincha used ivermectin during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The main factors associated with the use of ivermectin for the prevention/treatment of COVID-19 were age ≥50 years, having a technical education level, having had symptoms with negative/no diagnosis or positive diagnosis, and contact with people infected with SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC10765097 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7321032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIvermectin is an antiparasitic drug being investigated in clinical trials for the prevention of COVID-19. However, there are concerns about the quality of some of these trials.ObjectivesTo conduct a meta-analysis with randomized controlled trials of ivermectin for the prevention of COVID-19, while controlling for the quality of data. The primary outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection. The secondary outcome was rate of symptomatic COVID-19 infection.MethodsWe conducted a subgroup analysis based on the quality of randomized controlled trials evaluating ivermectin for the prevention of COVID-19. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias measures (RoB 2) and additional checks on raw data, where possible.ResultsFour studies were included in the meta-analysis. One was rated as being potentially fraudulent, two as having a high risk of bias and one as having some concerns for bias. Ivermectin did not have a significant effect on preventing RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection. Ivermectin had a significant effect on preventing symptomatic COVID-19 infection in one trial with some concerns of bias, but this result was based on post hoc analysis of a multi-arm study.ConclusionsIn this meta-analysis, the use of ivermectin was not associated with the prevention of RT-PCR-confirmed or symptomatic COVID-19. The currently available randomized trials evaluating ivermectin for the prevention of COVID-19 are insufficient and of poor quality.
| S-EPMC9326581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has been notable for the widespread dissemination of misinformation regarding the virus and appropriate treatment.ObjectiveTo quantify the prevalence of non-evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 in the US and the association between such treatment and endorsement of misinformation as well as lack of trust in physicians and scientists.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-wave, population-based, nonprobability internet survey study was conducted between December 22, 2022, and January 16, 2023, in US residents 18 years or older who reported prior COVID-19 infection.Main outcome and measureSelf-reported use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, endorsing false statements related to COVID-19 vaccination, self-reported trust in various institutions, conspiratorial thinking measured by the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale, and news sources.ResultsA total of 13 438 individuals (mean [SD] age, 42.7 [16.1] years; 9150 [68.1%] female and 4288 [31.9%] male) who reported prior COVID-19 infection were included in this study. In this cohort, 799 (5.9%) reported prior use of hydroxychloroquine (527 [3.9%]) or ivermectin (440 [3.3%]). In regression models including sociodemographic features as well as political affiliation, those who endorsed at least 1 item of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation were more likely to receive non-evidence-based medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.86; 95% CI, 2.28-3.58). Those reporting trust in physicians and hospitals (adjusted OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98) and in scientists (adjusted OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) were less likely to receive non-evidence-based medication. Respondents reporting trust in social media (adjusted OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.00-2.87) and in Donald Trump (adjusted OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 2.34-3.78) were more likely to have taken non-evidence-based medication. Individuals with greater scores on the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale were more likely to have received non-evidence-based medications (unadjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; adjusted OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13).Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study of US adults, endorsement of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of trust in physicians or scientists, conspiracy-mindedness, and the nature of news sources were associated with receiving non-evidence-based treatment for COVID-19. These results suggest that the potential harms of misinformation may extend to the use of ineffective and potentially toxic treatments in addition to avoidance of health-promoting behaviors.
| S-EPMC10542734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 μg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.ResultsA total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.ConclusionsTreatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).
| S-EPMC9006771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medical care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is an evolving process. Most COVID-19 inpatients (58-95%) received empiric antibiotics to prevent the increased mortality due to ventilator-associated pneumonia and other secondary infections observed in COVID-19 patients. The expected consequences of increased antibiotic use include antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI). We reviewed the literature (January 2020-March 2021) to explore strategies to reduce these consequences. Antimicrobial stewardship programs were effective in controlling antibiotic use during past influenza epidemics and have also been shown to reduce healthcare-associated rates of CDI. Another potential strategy is the use of specific strains of probiotics shown to be effective for the prevention of AAD and CDI prior to the pandemic. During 2020, there was a paucity of published trials using these two strategies in COVID-19 patients, but trials are currently ongoing. A multi-strain probiotic mixture was found to be effective in reducing COVID-19-associated diarrhea in one trial. These strategies are promising but need further evidence from trials in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8070357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) continues to rapidly spread throughout the world, the incidence varies greatly among different countries. These differences raise the question whether nations with a lower incidence share any medical commonalities that could be used not only to explain that lower incidence but also to provide guidance for potential treatments elsewhere. Such a treatment would be particularly valuable if it could be used as a prophylactic against SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) transmission, thereby effectively slowing the spread of the disease while we await the wide availability of safe and effective vaccines. Here, we show that countries with routine mass drug administration of prophylactic chemotherapy including ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19. Prophylactic use of ivermectin against parasitic infections is most common in Africa and we hence show that the reported correlation is highly significant both when compared among African nations as well as in a worldwide context. We surmise that this may be connected to ivermectin's ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication, which likely leads to lower infection rates. However, other pathways must exist to explain the persistence of such an inhibitory effect after serum levels of ivermectin have declined. It is suggested that ivermectin be evaluated for potential off-label prophylactic use in certain cases to help bridge the time until a safe and effective vaccine becomes available.
| S-EPMC7698683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has brought major challenges to healthcare systems and public health policies globally, as it requires novel treatment and prevention strategies to adapt for the impact of the pandemic. Individuals with substance user disorders (SUD) are at risk population for contamination due to multiple factors-attributable to their clinical, psychological and psychosocial conditions. Moreover, social and economic changes caused by the pandemic, along with the traditional difficulties regarding treatment access and adherence-will certainly worsen during this period, therefore aggravate their condition. In addition, this population are potential vectors of transmission. In that sense, specific strategies for prevention and treatment must be discussed. health care professionals dealing with SUD must be aware of the risks and challenges they will meet during and after the COVID-19 outbreak. Addiction care must be reinforced, instead of postponed, in order to avoid complications of both SUD and COVID-19 and to prevent the transmission of coronavirus.
| S-EPMC7219362 | biostudies-literature