Dataset Information

Non-effectiveness of Ivermectin on Inpatients and Outpatients With COVID-19; Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Ivermectin which was widely considered as a potential treatment for COVID-19, showed uncertain clinical benefit in many clinical trials. Performing large-scale clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of this drug in the midst of the pandemic, while difficult, has been urgently needed.

Methods

We performed two large multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 infection. The intervention group received ivermectin, 0.4mg/kg of body weight per day for 3 days. In the control group, placebo tablets were used for 3 days.

Results

Data for 609 inpatients and 549 outpatients were analyzed. In hospitalized patients, complete recovery was significantly higher in the ivermectin group (37%) compared to placebo group (28%; RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.04-1.66]; p-value = 0.02). On the other hand, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the ivermectin group with a mean of 7.98 ± 4.4 days compared to the placebo receiving group with a mean of 7.16 ± 3.2 days (RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.15-1.45]; p-value = 0.02). In outpatients, the mean duration of fever was significantly shorter (2.02 ± 0.11 days) in the ivermectin group versus (2.41 ± 0.13 days) placebo group with p value = 0.020. On the day seventh of treatment, fever (p-value = 0.040), cough (p-value = 0.019), and weakness (p-value = 0.002) were significantly higher in the placebo group compared to the ivermectin group. Among all outpatients, 7% in ivermectin group and 5% in placebo group needed to be hospitalized (RR, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.65-2.84]; p-value = 0.41). Also, the result of RT-PCR on day five after treatment was negative for 26% of patients in the ivermectin group versus 32% in the placebo group (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.60-1.09]; p-value = 0.16).

Conclusion

Our data showed, ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not have a significant potential effect on clinical improvement, reduced admission in ICU, need for invasive ventilation, and death in hospitalized patients; likewise, no evidence was found to support the prescription of ivermectin on recovery, reduced hospitalization and increased negative RT-PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 5 days after treatment in outpatients. Our findings do not support the use of ivermectin to treat mild to severe forms of COVID-19.

Clinical trial registration

www.irct.ir IRCT20111224008507N5 and IRCT20111224008507N4.

SUBMITTER: Rezai MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9244711 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Intestinal bacteria may influence lung homeostasis via the gut-lung axis. We conducted a single-center, quadruple-blinded, randomized trial in adult symptomatic Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid19) outpatients. Subjects were allocated 1:1 to probiotic formula (strains Lactiplantibacillus plantarum KABP022, KABP023, and KAPB033, plus strain Pediococcus acidilactici KABP021, totaling 2 × 109 colony-forming units (CFU)) or placebo, for 30 days. Co-primary endpoints included: i) proportion of patients in complete symptomatic and viral remission; ii) proportion progressing to moderate or severe disease with hospitalization, or death; and iii) days on Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Three hundred subjects were randomized (median age 37.0 years [range 18 to 60], 161 [53.7%] women, 126 [42.0%] having known metabolic risk factors), and 293 completed the study (97.7%). Complete remission was achieved by 78 of 147 (53.1%) in probiotic group compared to 41 of 146 (28.1%) in placebo (RR: 1.89 [95 CI 1.40-2.55]; P < .001), significant after multiplicity correction. No hospitalizations or deaths occurred during the study, precluding the assessment of remaining co-primary outcomes. Probiotic supplementation was well-tolerated and reduced nasopharyngeal viral load, lung infiltrates and duration of both digestive and non-digestive symptoms, compared to placebo. No significant compositional changes were detected in fecal microbiota between probiotic and placebo, but probiotic supplementation significantly increased specific IgM and IgG against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) compared to placebo. It is thus hypothesized this probiotic primarily acts by interacting with the host's immune system rather than changing colonic microbiota composition. Future studies should replicate these findings and elucidate its mechanism of action (Registration: NCT04517422).Abbreviations: AE: Adverse Event; BMI: Body Mass Index; CONSORT: CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; CFU: Colony-Forming Units; eDRF: Electronic Daily Report Form; GLA: Gut-Lung Axis; GSRS: Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale; hsCRP: High-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein; HR: Hazard Ratio; ICU: Intensive Care Unit; OR: Odds Ratio; PCoA: Principal Coordinate Analysis; RR: Relative Risk; RT-qPCR: Real-Time Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction; SARS-CoV2: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SpO2: Peripheral Oxygen Saturation; WHO: World Health Organization.