ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE Assess the correlation between the sales of two drugs with no proven efficacy against covid-19, ivermectin and chloroquine, and other relevant variables, such as Google® searches, number of tweets related to these drugs, number of cases and deaths resulting from covid-19. METHODS The methodology adopted in this study has four stages: data collection, data processing, exploratory data analysis, and correlation analysis. Spearman's method was used to obtain cross-correlations between each pair of variables. RESULTS The results show similar behaviors between variables. Peaks occurred in the same or near periods. The exploratory data analysis showed shortage of chloroquine in the period corresponding to the beginning of advertising for the application of these drugs against covid-19. Both drugs showed a high and statistically significant correlation with the other variables. Also, some of them showed a higher correlation with drug sales when we employed a one-month lag. In the case of chloroquine, this was observed for the number of deaths. In the case of ivermectin, this was observed for the number of tweets, cases, and deaths. CONCLUSIONS The results contribute to decision making in crisis management by governments, industries, and stores. In times of crisis, as observed during the covid-19 pandemic, some variables can help sales forecasting, especially Google® and tweets, which provide a real-time analysis of the situation. Monitoring social media platforms and search engines would allow the determination of drug use by the population and better prediction of potential peaks in the demand for these drugs.

SCOPE:

In January 2021, the ESCMID Executive Committee (EC) decided to launch a new initiative to develop ESCMID guidelines on several COVID19-related issues, including treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS:

An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search with a third panelist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the GRADE approach.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

A synthesis of the available evidence and recommendations are provided for each of the 15 PICOs, which cover use of hydroxychloroquine, bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab, casirivimab combined with imdevimab, ivermectin, azithromycin and empirical antibiotics, colchicine, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma, favipiravir, remdesivir, tocilizumab, and interferon β-1a, as well as the utility of antifungal prophylaxis and enoxaparin. In general, the panel recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, colchicine, and interferon β-1a. Conditional recommendations were given for the use of monoclonal antibodies in high-risk outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19, and remdesivir. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of favipiravir and antifungal prophylaxis, and it was recommended that antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in patients with COVID-19 unless bacterial coinfection or secondary infection is suspected or confirmed. Tocilizumab and corticosteroids was recommended for treatment of severe COVID-19 but not in outpatients with non-severe COVID-19.

The aim of this rapid review was to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions (excluding vaccines) to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) or reduce the severity of disease. A systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and non-peer-reviewed pre-prints was undertaken from 1 January 2020 to 17 August 2021. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-RCT were included; three trials (two RCTs and one non-RCT) tested ivermectin with or without carrageenan. While all reported some potential protective effect of ivermectin, these trials had a high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was deemed to be 'very low'. One RCT tested bamlanivimab compared to placebo and reported a significantly reduced incidence of Covid-19 in the intervention group; this trial had a low risk of bias however the certainty of evidence was deemed 'very low'. The fifth RCT tested casirivimab plus imdevimab versus placebo and reported that the combination of monoclonal antibodies significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral load, duration of symptomatic disease and the duration of a high viral load; this trial was deemed to have a low risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was 'low'. The designations 'low' and 'very low' regarding the certainty of evidence indicate that the estimate of effect is uncertain and therefore is unsuitable for informing decision-making. At the time of writing, there is insufficient high quality evidence to support the use of pharmacological interventions to prevent Covid-19.

PURPOSE:

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has affected millions all over the world and has been declared pandemic, as of 11 March 2020. In addition to the ongoing research and development of vaccines, there is still a dire need for safe and effective drugs for the control and treatment against the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. Numerous repurposed drugs are under clinical investigations whose reported adverse events can raise worries about their safety. The aim of this review is to illuminate the associated adverse events related to the drugs used in a real COVID-19 setting along with their relevant mechanism(s).

METHOD:

Through a literature search conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar database, various adverse events suspected to be induced by eight drugs, including dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, remdesivir, favipiravir, lopinavir/ritonavir, ivermectin, and tocilizumab, administered in COVID-19 patients in clinical practice and studies were identified in 30 case reports, 3 case series, and 10 randomized clinical trials.

RESULTS:

Mild, moderate, or severe adverse events of numerous repurposed and investigational drugs caused by various factors and mechanisms were observed. Gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and vomiting were the most frequently followed by cardiovascular, cutaneous, and hepatic adverse events. Few other rare adverse drug reactions were also observed.

CONCLUSION:

In light of their ineffectiveness against COVID-19 as evident in large clinical studies, drugs including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ivermectin should neither be used routinely nor in clinical studies. While lack of sufficient data, it creates doubt regarding the reliability of chloroquine and favipiravir use in COVID-19 patients. Hence, these two drugs can only be used in clinical studies. In contrast, ample well-conducted studies have approved the use of remdesivir, tocilizumab, and dexamethasone under certain conditions in COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is significant to establish a strong surveillance system in order to monitor the proper safety and toxicity profile of the potential anti-COVID-19 drugs with good clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND:

Evidence-based medicine (EBM), as originally conceived, used all types of peer-reviewed evidence to guide medical practice and decision-making. During the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the standard usage of EBM, modeled by the Evidence-Based Medicine Pyramid, undermined EBM by incorrectly using pyramid levels to assign relative quality. The resulting pyramid-based thinking is biased against reports both in levels beneath randomized control trials (RCTs) and those omitted from the pyramid entirely. Thus, much of the evidence was ignored. Our desire for a more encompassing and effective medical decision-making process to apply to repurposed drugs led us to develop an alternative to the EBM Pyramid for EBM. Herein, we propose the totality of evidence (T-EBM) wheel.

OBJECTIVES:

To create an easily understood graphic that models EBM by incorporating all peer-reviewed evidence that applies to both new and repurposed medicines, and to demonstrate its potential utility using ivermectin as a case study.

METHODS:

The graphics were produced using Microsoft Office Visio Professional 2003 except for part of the T-EBM wheel sunburst chart, which was produced using Microsoft 365 Excel. For the case study, PubMed® was used by searching for peer-reviewed reports containing "ivermectin" and either "covid" or "sars" in the title. Reports were filtered for those using ivermectin-based protocols in the treatment of COVID-19. The resulting 265 reports were evaluated for their study design types and treatment outcomes. The three-ringed graphical T-EBM wheel was composed of two inner rings showing all types of reports and an outer ring showing outcomes for each type.

FINDINGS-CONCLUSIONS:

The T-EBM wheel avoids the biases of the EBM Pyramid and includes all types of reports in the pyramid along with reports such as population and mechanistic studies. In both early and late stages of medical emergencies, pyramid-based thinking may overlook indications of efficacy in regions of the T-EBM wheel beyond RCTs. This is especially true when searching for ways to prevent and treat a novel disease with repurposed therapeutics before RCTs, safety assessments, and mechanisms of action of novel therapeutics are established. As such, T-EBM Wheels should replace the EBM Pyramids in medical decision-making and education. T-EBM Wheels can be expanded upon by implementing multiple outer rings, one for each different kind of outcome (efficacy, safety, etc.). A T-EBM Wheel can be created for any proprietary or generic medicine. The ivermectin (IVM) T-EBM Wheel displays the efficacy of IVM-based treatments of COVID-19 in a color-coded graphic, visualizing each type of evidence and the proportions of each of their outcomes (positive, inconclusive, negative).

This article has no abstract

There is no specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19. However, knowledge acquired during the SARS and MERS outbreaks, together with the information obtained with COVID-19, have allowed the detection of various therapeutic targets in the virus replication cycle, and in its pathogenesis. The current evidence regarding the leading treatments proposed for COVID-19, reused or experimental, is included through a review of the scientific literature to date. Due to the lack of randomized controlled trials, the following were involved: case reports, case series and review articles. Globally, multiple studies are being carried out in order to identify agents that are effective against COVID-19, upon the following strategic objectives: inhibition of viral entry/fusion (neutralizing antibodies, transmembrane serine protease 2 inhibitors, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and umifenovir); interruption of viral replication (remdesivir, favipiravir, lopinavir/ritonavir and ivermectin), and suppression of excessive inflammatory response (corticosteroids, tocilizumab, and immunoglobulin). There is still no effective and safe treatment against COVID-19; the medications described in this review are given as compassionate drug use, or as part of a clinical trial. Support therapy continues to be COVID-19 management cornerstone.(AU)

INTRODUCTION:

During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, there was a widespread public misconception regarding ivermectin use in managing the disease. There is no approval of ivermectin as COVID-19 treatment by the Food and Drug Administration, and the adverse effects of the drug are alarming. This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge and attitude towards and prevalence of ivermectin use as COVID-19 treatment among the Malaysian population.

METHODS:

This cross-sectional study was conducted among 391 Malaysians aged ≥18 years. A validated online self-administered questionnaire disseminated via Google Forms was used to evaluate the knowledge and attitude towards and prevalence of ivermectin use as COVID-19 treatment. The socio-demographic characteristics and knowledge and attitude towards and prevalence of ivermectin use among the respondents were evaluated through descriptive analysis. The chi-square test was used to identify the association between the variables.

RESULTS:

The respondents had moderate levels of knowledge and attitude towards ivermectin use, while the prevalence of ivermectin use was 3.58%. The respondents' sex (P=0.014), age (P=0.012) and monthly income (P=0.049) were significantly associated with their level of knowledge. The respondents' sex (P=0.04) was significantly associated with their level of attitude. Conversely, no socio-demographic characteristics were significantly associated with the prevalence of ivermectin use as COVID-19 treatment.

CONCLUSION:

The majority of Malaysians have moderate levels of knowledge and attitude towards ivermectin use as COVID-19 treatment, with a low prevalence of actual use.

INTERVENTION:

1:placebo;2:USE OF IVERMECTIN (IVR);

CONDITION:

Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (COVID‐19)

PRIMARY OUTCOME:

Reduction of viral load and treating COVID‐19 infection;

INCLUSION CRITERIA:

1. Adults with positive PCR for COVID‐19 (asymptomatic for the Pilot intervention); 2. Body weight more than 45kg; 3. Consent for voluntary participation.

INTRODUCTION:

Pregnant women are at higher risk of severe illness from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than non-pregnant women of a similar age. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that evidenced-based guidance was needed, and that it would need to be updated rapidly. The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce provided a resource to guide care for people with COVID-19, including during pregnancy. Care for pregnant and breastfeeding women and their babies was included as a priority when the Taskforce was set up, with a Pregnancy and Perinatal Care Panel convened to guide clinical practice.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS:

As of May 2022, the Taskforce has made seven specific recommendations on care for pregnant women and those who have recently given birth. This includes supporting usual practices for the mode of birth, umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, and using antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate as clinically indicated. There are 11 recommendations for COVID-19-specific treatments, including conditional recommendations for using remdesivir, tocilizumab and sotrovimab. Finally, there are recommendations not to use several disease-modifying treatments for the treatment of COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The recommendations are continually updated to reflect new evidence, and the most up-to-date guidance is available online (https://covid19evidence.net.au).

CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINES:

The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been a critical component of the infrastructure to support Australian maternity care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Taskforce has shown that a rapid living guidelines approach is feasible and acceptable.