Systematic review and meta-analysis of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19: evidence beyond the hype.

BACKGROUND: The role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is still under debate, yet the drug has been widely used in some parts of the world, as shown by impressive market data. The available body of evidence may have changed over the last months, as studies have been retracted and "standards of care" (SOC) used in control groups have changed with rapidly evolving knowledge on COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin, assessing clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: RCTs evaluating the effects of ivermectin in adult patients with COVID-19 were searched through June 22, 2022, in four databases, L.OVE platform, clinical trial registries and pre-prints platforms. Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and invasive ventilation requirement. Secondary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis included only studies which compared ivermectin to placebo or SOC. Random-effects were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of individual trials. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The protocol was register in PROSPERO (CRD42021257471). RESULTS: Twenty-five RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria (n = 6310). Of those, 14 compared ivermectin with placebo, in night ivermectin associated with SOC was compared to SOC and two studies compared ivermectin to an active comparator. Most RCTs had some concerns or high risk of bias, mostly due to lack of concealment of the randomization sequence and allocation, lack of blinding and high number of missing cases. Ivermectin did not show an effect in reducing mortality (RR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.52-1.11) or mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.48-1.16). This effect was consistent when comparing ivermectin vs. placebo, and ivermectin associated with SOC vs. SOC, as well as in sensitivity analysis. Additionally, there was very low quality of evidence regarding adverse effects (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.84-1.35). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.

Implementation of a text messaging intervention to patients on warfarin therapy in Brazilian primary care units: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin remains the most affordable oral anticoagulant in many countries. However, it may have serious side effects, and the success of the therapy depends on the patient's understanding of the medication and their adherence to treatment. The use of short messages services (SMS) is a strategy that can be used to educate patients, but there are no studies evaluating this intervention in patients taking warfarin. Therefore, we aimed to develop, implement, and assess the feasibility of an intervention using SMS to primary care patients taking warfarin in a medium-sized Brazilian city. METHODS: A bank of 79 SMS was drafted and validated by an expert panel. During 6 months, three times a week, patients received messages about anticoagulation with warfarin. At baseline and after 3 months, we assessed their knowledge and adherence with validated instruments. At the end of the follow-up, participants answered a satisfaction questionnaire. Subsequently, a scale-up phase was conducted, with another round of the intervention including 82 participants (29 from the first phase and 53 newly recruited). Seven months after the end of the scale-up, we asked the patients for their insights about the long-term effects of this program. All patients signed informed consent. The study was approved by the Research and Ethics committee of the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. RESULTS: In the pilot, 33 (89.2%) patients completed the follow-up. Among the participants who answered the satisfaction questionnaire (n = 29), 86.2% considered that the intervention motivated a healthy lifestyle and improved their understanding of warfarin therapy. All patients were willing to continue receiving the messages. Adherence measured by the Measure of Adherence to Treatment (MAT) test was high in the pre-intervention assessment and remained high (96.7% vs. 93.3%; p = 1.0000). The proportion of patients who achieved > 75% correct answers on the Oral Anticoagulation Knowledge (OAK) test increased from 6.5% to 25.6, p = 0.0703. In the scale-up, 23 patients answered the long-term assessment questionnaire. The main long-term knowledge reported was dietary information. Nine patients received the messages but did not remember their content. CONCLUSION: The intervention was well-accepted and had a positive impact on patient's knowledge about oral anticoagulation therapy. The scale-up assessment reinforced the need to constantly monitor digital interventions.