Ivermectina para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19 y expuestos al SARS-CoV-2 (7 de Mayo de 2021) / Ivermectin for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 y expuestos al SARS-CoV-2 (May 7, 2021)

INTRODUCCIÓN: La ivermectina es un fármaco antiparasitario con actividad inmuno-moduladora y antiinflamatoria, no autorizado para mujeres embarazadas o en período de lactancia, ni para niños de menos de 15 kg de peso corporal. La dosis para el tratamiento antiparasitario varía entre 150 mcg/Kg y 250 mcg/Kg por vía oral y única vez, con un posible re tratamiento a partir de los 14 días para algunas indicaciones. La ivermectina se encuentra aprobada solamente como antiparasitario por la Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT), Administración de Drogas y Alimentos de los Estados Unidos (FDA, su sigla del inglés Food and Drug Administration) y por la Agencia Europea de Medicina (EMA, su sigla del inglés European Medicine Agency). Durante los años previos, se ha demostrado la capacidad de la ivermectina in vitro, de disminuir la replicación viral, a través de diferentes mecanismos, entre los que se incluye la inhibición de la interacción entre la proteína integrasa (IN) del virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana-1 (VIH-1) y el heterodímero α/ß1 de importina (IMP) responsable de la importación nuclear de esta proteína.3-4 Los estudios sobre las proteínas del SARS-CoV han revelado que podría existir un rol potencial de la ivermectina a través de este mecanismo de acción de IMPα/ß1, principalmente durante el proceso de infección a las células del huésped, en el cierre nucleocitoplasmático dependiente de la señal de la proteína de la nucleocápside del SARS-CoV. OBJETIVO: El objetivo del presente informe es evaluar parámetros de eficacia, seguridad, conveniencia y recomendaciones disponibles acerca del uso ivermectina para la profilaxis de la infección por el virus SARS-CoV-2 y para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Teniendo en cuenta la velocidad con la que la información relacionada a la pandemia aparece y se modifica (link), se desarrolló un protocolo sustentado en proyectos que resume activamente la evidencia científica a medida que la misma se hace disponible. Con este fin se utilizó la plataforma Love de Epistemonikos para identificar revisiones sistemáticas "vivas". Se seleccionaron aquellas con una calidad metodológica apropiada evaluada a través de la herramienta AMSTAR-2, y que a su vez llevaran un proceso de actualización frecuente.8 De cada una de las revisiones sistemáticas identificadas se extractaron los efectos de la intervención sobre los desenlaces priorizados como importantes o críticos separando los efectos del tratamiento sobre pacientes expuestos (infección por SARS-CoV-2 confirmada por laboratorio) y en pacientes infectados y con COVID-19 (mortalidad, ingreso en asistencia ventilatoria mecánica, duración de estadía hospitalaria, tiempo a la resolución de síntomas o mejoría clínica al día 7-28 y eventos adversos graves) y la certeza en dichos efectos. Adicionalmente se extractaron datos relacionados a efectos de subgrupo potencialmente relevantes para la toma de decisión, con especial énfasis en el tiempo de evolución y la severidad de la enfermedad. RECOMENDACIONES: Se identificaron siete recomendaciones de las cuales cinco cumplen con los criterios de inclusión del presente informe. CONCLUSIONES: En personas no infectadas expuestas al SARS-CoV-2, existe incertidumbre en el efecto de la ivermectina para prevenir la infección sintomática, presunta o confirmada por este virus. El cuerpo de evidencia disponible hasta el momento muestra que, en pacientes con COVID-19, existe incertidumbre en el efecto de ivermectina sobre la mortalidad y los eventos adversos graves. La ivermectina podría no tener efecto sobre el ingreso en ventilación mecánica o la duración de la internación y probablemente no tenga efecto en el tiempo de resolución de los síntomas La ivermectina se encuentra ampliamente disponible en Argentina y está aprobada por ANMAT para el tratamiento de infecciones parasitarias. Sin embargo, no se encuentra aprobada para su uso en la prevención de la infección por el virus SARS-CoV-2 o para el tratamiento de personas con COVID-19. Su costo comparativo es bajo. Las guías de práctica clínica identificadas consistentemente brindan recomendaciones en contra del empleo de ivermectina en personas expuestas al virus SARS-CoV-2 o con enfermedad por COVID-19.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ivermectin 1% Cream in Adults with Papulopustular Rosacea in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Papulopustular rosacea is a chronic skin disease involving central facial erythema in combination with papules and pustules. Papulopustular rosacea is treated with topical, systemic, or a combination of topical and systemic therapies. Currently approved topical therapies include azelaic acid gel/cream/foam twice daily (BID) and metronidazole cream/gel/lotion BID. Ivermectin 1% cream once daily (QD) is a new topical agent for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea that has been approved for the management of inflammatory lesions of rosacea and offers an alternative to current treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ivermectin 1% cream QD compared with current topical treatments in order to understand the cost of adding ivermectin as a treatment option that would bring additional clinical benefit for adults with papulopustular rosacea in the United States. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of ivermectin 1% cream QD was compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID and azelaic acid 15% gel BID for adults in the United States with moderate-to-severe papulopustular rosacea using a Markov cohort state transition structure with 2 mutually exclusive health states (rosacea and no rosacea) and 5 phases. Patients could succeed or fail to respond to treatment and experience a relapse after treatment success. The model took a health care payer perspective (direct medical costs of topical and/or systemic therapy plus health care costs for physician and specialist visits) and used a 3-year time horizon. The model was run for a cohort of 1,000 patients. Costs (2014 U.S. dollars) and benefits (disease-free days and quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were discounted at a rate of 3% per annum. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and measured in terms of incremental cost per QALY gained (estimated from health state utilities for patients with and without rosacea). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to assess the robustness of model outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID, ivermectin 1% cream QD was associated with higher costs but provided greater clinical benefit, with an ICER of $13,211 per QALY gained. For a cohort of 1,000 patients, ivermectin 1% cream QD provided an additional 72,922 disease-free days (200 years) over a 3-year period compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID, leading to a lower cost per disease-free day for ivermectin 1% cream QD ($4.54) compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID ($4.85). Ivermectin 1% cream QD was associated with lower total costs and greater clinical benefit compared with azelaic acid 15% gel BID at year 3 and dominated this treatment. After 3 years, ivermectin 1% cream QD was associated with the lowest health care costs ($62,767 compared with $73,284 for metronidazole 0.75% cream BID and $77,208 for azelaic acid 15% gel BID), reflecting a 15% reduction in physician visit costs, when compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID, and almost a 20% reduction, when compared with azelaic acid 15% gel BID. The univariate sensitivity analyses indicated that the results are sensitive to the time horizon selected: the longer the time horizon, the more beneficial the results for ivermectin 1% cream QD relative to the comparators, although even at 1 year, ivermectin 1% cream QD dominated azelaic acid 15% gel BID. The PSA suggested that ivermectin 1% cream QD was the most likely treatment to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $15,000 and above. CONCLUSIONS: Ivermectin 1% cream QD had favorable incremental cost-effectiveness when compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID and dominated azelaic acid 15% gel BID in the treatment of papulopustular rosacea in the United States. Therefore, ivermectin 1% cream QD may be a good first-line treatment for papulopustular rosacea, providing additional clinical benefit at no or low additional cost. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Galderma Laboratories. The sponsor was involved in the design of the model structure but not in the collection of the data used to populate the model. Manuscript preparation was also funded by Galderma. Taieb is an investigator and advisor for Galderma. Gold is an investigator for Galderma. Feldman is a consultant and speaker for Galderma and has received grants from Galderma. Dansk and Bertranou received a research grant from Galderma to conduct this study. Dansk and Bertranou contributed to the design of the model structure, the sourcing and inputting of the data, and the interpretation of the results. Taieb, Feldman, and Gold contributed to the interpretation of the results. All authors reviewed draft versions of the manuscript and gave permission for the submission of the final version.

A randomised controlled clinical trial on the safety of co-administration of albendazole, ivermectin and praziquantel in infected schoolchildren in Uganda.

Integrated chemotherapy of neglected tropical diseases (NTD) through mass drug administration given as a single dose would increase treatment coverage and cost-effectiveness. This study reports on the safety of a combination of albendazole, ivermectin and praziquantel in the treatment of lymphatic filariasis (LF), schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis (STH) in infected children. In this randomised, controlled, single-blinded clinical trial conducted in 235 primary school children aged 5-18 years in Yumbe District in Northern Uganda, the triple combination therapy was compared with the current NTD programme regimen. Liver function testing was performed for all children who received combined therapy. The study included 48 children with LF alone, 60 children with schistosomiasis (Schistosoma mansoni), 41 children with STH, 49 children with schistosomiasis + LF and 37 children with all three types of infection. Children were closely monitored by a paediatrician for any adverse reactions for 7 days. No serious adverse events were experienced. However, 4 of 18 children in the test group and 2 of 3 children in the control group who did not report any ill conditions before treatment developed adverse drug reactions. The combined and conventional therapies were found to be equally safe. The efficacies of both therapies were comparable and satisfactory. [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01050517].

Cost-effectiveness of triple drug administration (TDA) with praziquantel, ivermectin and albendazole for the prevention of neglected tropical diseases in Nigeria.

Onchocerciasis, lymphatic filariasis (LF), schistosomiasis and soil transmitted, helminthiasis (STH) are all co-endemic in Nigeria. Annual mass drug administration (MDA) with ivermectin (for onchocerciasis), albendazole (for STH and with ivermectin for LF) and praziquantel (for schistosomiasis) is the WHO-recommended treatment strategy for preventive chemotherapy. Separate delivery rounds for distribution of these drugs have been the usual approach to MDA. All three drugs, however, have now been shown to be clinically and programmatically safe for co-administration with what has come to be known as triple drug administration (TDA). We examined the cost savings of converting from separate delivery rounds to TDA in two states in Nigeria. In 2008, eight local government areas received a single round of ivermectin with albendazole followed at least 1 week later by a single round of praziquantel to school-aged children. The following year, a single round was administered with TDA. The number of treated individuals was essentially unchanged during both years (1,301,864 in 2008 and 1,297,509 in 2009) and no change in adverse events was reported. The total programmatic costs for the MDA, not including drug and overhead costs, reduced by 41% from $123,624 to $72,870. Cost savings were limited in larger populations due to economies of scale. TDA is recommended for mature MDA.