Abstract Background Ivermectin 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. Objectives To 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. Methods We 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. Results Four 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. Conclusions In 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.
Participants randomized to first-line tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine (FTC)+dolutegravir (DTG), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/FTC + DTG, or TDF/FTC/efavirenz (EFV) for 192 weeks were then switched to TDF/lamivudine (3TC)/DTG for 52 weeks. Participants switching either TAF/FTC + DTG or TDF/FTC/EFV to TDF/3TC/DTG showed statistically significant reductions in weight, low-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, glucose and glycated hemoglobin.
Abstract Ivermectin has become a controversial potential medicine for COVID-19. Some early studies suggested clinical benefits in treatment and prevention of infection. However, the body of evidence includes studies of varying quality. Furthermore, some trials have now been identified as potentially fraudulent. We present a sub-group analysis, to assess the effects of stratifying by trial quality on the overall results. The stratification is based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias measures (RoB 2) and analysis of raw data where possible. The results suggest that the significant effect of ivermectin on survival was dependent on largely poor quality and potentially fraudulent studies. This highlights the need for rigorous quality assessments, the need for authors to share patient level data and efforts to continue to avoid publication bias for registered studies. These steps are vital to facilitate accurate conclusions on any clinical treatment.
Ivermectin has become a controversial potential medicine for coronavirus disease 2019. Some early studies suggested clinical benefits in treatment of infection. However, the body of evidence includes studies of varying quality. Furthermore, some trials have now been identified as potentially fraudulent. We present a subgroup meta-analysis to assess the effects of stratifying by trial quality on the overall results. The stratification is based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias measures and raw data analysis where possible. The results suggest that the significant effect of ivermectin on survival was dependent on largely poor-quality studies. According to the potentially fraudulent study (risk ratio [RR], 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02-0.35), ivermectin improved survival ~12 times more in comparison with low-risk studies (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66). This highlights the need for rigorous quality assessments, for authors to share patient-level data, and for efforts to avoid publication bias for registered studies. These steps are vital to facilitate accurate conclusions on clinical treatments.
In high-risk individuals in Johannesburg, during the Delta coronavirus disease 2019 wave, 22% (125/561) were positive, with 33% symptomatic (2 hospitalizations; 1 death). During Omicron, 56% (232/411) were infected, with 24% symptomatic (no hospitalizations or deaths). The remarkable speed of infection of Omicron over Delta poses challenges to conventional severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 control measures.
Introduction The ADVANCE and NAMSAL trials evaluating antiretroviral drugs have both reported substantial levels of clinical obesity in participants. As one of the main risk factors for metabolic syndrome, growing rates of obesity may drive metabolic syndrome development. This study aims to evaluate the risk of metabolic syndrome in the ADVANCE and NAMSAL trials. Methods The number of participants with metabolic syndrome was calculated at baseline and week 192 as central obesity and any of the following two factors: raised triglycerides, reduced HDL-cholesterol, raised blood pressure and raised fasting glucose. Differences between the treatment arms were calculated using the χ 2 test. Results Across all visits to week 192, treatment-emergent metabolic syndrome was 15% (TAF/FTC + DTG), 10% (TDF/FTC + DTG) and 7% (TDF/FTC/EFV) in ADVANCE. The results were significantly higher in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm compared to the TDF/FTC/EFV arm ( p < 0.001), and the TDF/FTC + DTG vs. the TDF/FTC/EFV arms ( p < 0.05) in all patients, and in females. In NAMSAL, the incidence of treatment-emergent metabolic syndrome at any time point was 14% (TDF/3TC + DTG) and 5% (TDF/3TC + EFV) ( p < 0.001). This incidence was significantly greater in the TDF/3TC/DTG arm compared to the TDF/3TC/EFV arm in all patients ( p < 0.001), and in males ( p < 0.001) Conclusion In this analysis, we highlight treatment-emergent metabolic syndrome associated with dolutegravir, likely driven by obesity. Clinicians initiating or monitoring patients on INSTI-based ART must counsel for lifestyle optimisation to prevent these effects.
Abstract Background Ivermectin 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. Objectives To conduct a meta-analysis with randomised controlled trials of ivermectin for the prevention of COVID-19, while controlling for the quality of data. Methods We conducted a sub-group analysis based on the quality of randomised 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. Results Four 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. Conclusions This meta-analysis demonstrates that the currently available randomised trials evaluating ivermectin for the prevention of COVID-19 are insufficient and of poor quality.
Abstract In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) acquired the global licensing rights for the antiviral molnupiravir, promising affordable access via licensing deals. Numerous Indian pharmaceutical companies subsequently conducted trials of the drug. Registered trials of molnupiravir were searched on the Clinical Trials Registry–India (CTRI) and efforts made to detect resulting public data. Per the CTRI, 12 randomized trials of molnupiravir were conducted in 13 694 Indian patients, from mid-2021. By August 2022, only a preprint and medical conference presentation had resulted. Additionally, two trials were mentioned in press releases suggesting failure of treatment. The available data contain unexplained results that differ significantly from both the PANORAMIC and MSD MOVe-OUT trials. Approximately one-third of the global data on molnupiravir remain unpublished. We conducted a meta-analysis with four studies that provided results and observed that molnupiravir does not have a significant benefit for hospitalizations.
Abstract Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) acquired the global licensing rights for molnupiravir. MSD allowed Indian manufacturers to produce the drug under voluntary license. Indian companies conducted local clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir. Methods Searches of the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) were conducted to find registered trials of molnupiravir in India. Subsequent investigations were performed to assess which clinical trials had been presented or published. Results According to the CTRI, 12 randomised trials of molnupiravir were conducted in India, in 13,694 patients, starting in late May 2021. By July 2022, none of the 12 trials has been published, one was presented at a medical conference, and two were announced in press releases suggesting failure of treatment. Results from three trials were shared with the World Health Organisation. One of these three trials had many unexplained results, with effects of treatment significantly different from the MSD MOVE-OUT trial in a similar population. Discussion The lack of results runs counter to established practices and leaves a situation where approximately 90% of the global data on molnupiravir has not been published in any form. Access to patient-level databases is required to investigate risks of bias or medical fraud.
'%3e%3cg id='e'%3e%3cg id='c' fill='none' stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='2'%3e%3cpath id='b' d='M0 1h26M1 10V5h8v4h8V5h-5M4 9h2m20 0h-5V5h8m0-5v9h8V0m-4 0v9' transform='scale(1.4)'/%3e%3cpath id='a' d='M0 7h9m1 0h9' transform='scale(2.8)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' y='120'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b' y='145.2'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cg id='d'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23c' x='56'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23c' x='112'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23c' x='168'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='168'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='392'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cg fill='%23da0000' transform='matrix(45 0 0 45 315 180)'%3e%3cg id='f'%3e%3cpath d='M-.548.836A.912.912 0 0 0 .329-.722 1 1 0 0 1-.548.836'/%3e%3cpath d='M.618.661A.764.764 0 0 0 .422-.74 1 1 0 0 1 .618.661M0 1l-.05-1L0-.787a.31.31 0 0 0 .118.099V-.1l-.04.993zM-.02-.85 0-.831a.144.144 0 0 0 .252-.137A.136.136 0 0 1 0-.925'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23f' transform='scale(-1 1)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23001489' d='M0 0v6h9V0z'/%3e%3cpath fill='%23e03c31' d='M0 0v3h9V0z'/%3e%3cg stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='2'%3e%3cpath id='d' d='m0 0 4.5 3L0 6m4.5-3H9'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b' stroke='%23ffb81c' clip-path='url(%23c)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' fill='none' stroke='%23007749' stroke-width='1.2'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)