Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg (n = 602) daily, or placebo (n = 604) for 6 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results: Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 713 (59.1%) were women, and 1008 (83.5%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.13; P = .68). Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.0 [95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5]; P = .53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of ivermectin to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the US with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin, 400 µg/kg, daily for 3 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1591 participants aged 30 years and older with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute infection for 7 days or less, were enrolled from June 23, 2021, through February 4, 2022, with follow-up data through May 31, 2022, at 93 sites in the US. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive ivermectin, 400 µg/kg (n = 817), daily for 3 days or placebo (n = 774). Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite of hospitalization or death by day 28. Results: Among 1800 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 48 [12] years; 932 women [58.6%]; 753 [47.3%] reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1591 completed the trial. The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.96-1.17; posterior P value [HR >1] = .91). The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group. There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group (1.2% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.1 [95% CrI, 0.4-2.6]). The most common serious adverse events were COVID-19 pneumonia (ivermectin [n = 5]; placebo [n = 7]) and venous thromboembolism (ivermectin [n = 1]; placebo [n = 5]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin combination antiviral therapy versus oseltamivir monotherapy for the treatment of influenza: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Influenza continues to have a substantial socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccination programme and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest that combining antivirals might be more effective than administering oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial of a combination of oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin versus oseltamivir monotherapy with matching placebo for the treatment of influenza in 50 sites, consisting of academic medical centre clinics, emergency rooms, and private physician offices in the USA, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia. Participants who were aged at least 18 years with influenza and were at increased risk of complications were randomly assigned (1:1) by an online computer-generated randomisation system to receive either oseltamivir (75 mg), amantadine (100 mg), and ribavirin (600 mg) combination therapy or oseltamivir monotherapy twice daily for 5 days, given orally, and participants were followed up for 28 days. Blinded treatment kits were used to achieve masking of patients and staff. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3, and was assessed in participants who were randomised, had influenza infection confirmed by the central laboratory on a baseline nasopharyngeal sample, and had received at least one dose of study drug. Safety assessment was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227967. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and April 29, 2016, 633 participants were randomly assigned to receive combination antiviral therapy (n=316) or monotherapy (n=317). Seven participants were excluded from analysis: three were not properly randomised, three withdrew from the study, and one was lost to follow-up. The primary analysis included 394 participants, excluding 47 in the pilot phase, 172 without confirmed influenza, and 13 without an endpoint sample. 80 (40·0%) of 200 participants in the combination group had detectable virus at day 3 compared with 97 (50·0%) of 194 (mean difference 10·0, 95% CI 0·2-19·8, p=0·046) in the monotherapy group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related disorders, primarily nausea (65 [12%] of 556 reported adverse events in the combination group vs 63 [11%] of 585 reported adverse events in the monotherapy group), diarrhoea (56 [10%] of 556 vs 64 [11%] of 585), and vomiting (39 [7%] of 556 vs 23 [4%] of 585). There was no benefit in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4·5 days in the combination group vs 4·0 days in the monotherapy group; p=0·21). One death occurred in the study in an elderly participant in the monotherapy group who died of cardiovascular failure 13 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not related to study intervention. INTERPRETATION: Although combination treatment showed a significant decrease in viral shedding at day 3 relative to monotherapy, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand why there was no clinical benefit when a difference in virological outcome was identified. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.