Efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin in the treatment of mild to moderate Covid-19 patients: a multi-centre double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19 is controversial. A Cochrane review concluded that the efficacy and safety of ivermectin is uncertain (evidence up to April 2022) and WHO recommended its use only in the setting of clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate Covid-19. TRIAL DESIGN AND METHODS: A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted among RT-PCR-confirmed, adults, hospitalised within the first four days of symptoms. Patients received oral ivermectin 24 mg or placebo daily for five days. RT-PCR was repeated on days five and ten. Clinical progression was monitored using the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale. Serum ivermectin levels were measured on days three, five, and seven. The primary outcome was the difference in the viral load between day zero and ten in the two groups. RESULTS: Out of 1699 patients screened, 249 underwent randomization and 127 received ivermectin, and 122 placebo. D10 median viral load for E gene (IQR) was 2,000 copies/mL (100 - 20,500) with ivermectin (n = 80) and 4,100 copies/mL (1,000-65,600) with placebo (n = 81, p = 0.028), per protocol analysis. The difference in Log viral load between day zero and ten between ivermectin and placebo was 3.72 and 2.97 respectively (p = 0.022). There was no significant difference in the WHO clinical progression scale or the adverse effects. Ivermectin blood levels taken before or with meals were not significantly different. Only 7 and 17 patients achieved blood levels above 160ng/ML and 100ng/ML respectively and they did not achieve a significantly lower viral load. CONCLUSION: Although ivermectin resulted in statistically significant lower viral load in patients with mild to moderate Covid-19, it had no significant effect on clinical symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: SLCTR/2021/020, Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry. 19/07/2021.

Comprehensive analysis of gastrointestinal side effects in COVID-19 patients undergoing combined pharmacological treatment with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several drugs were repositioned and combined to quickly find a way to mitigate the effects of the infection. However, the adverse effects of these combinations on the gastrointestinal tract are unknown. We aimed investigate whether Hydroxychloroquine (HD), Azithromycin (AZ), and Ivermectin (IV) used in combination for the treatment of COVID-19, can lead to the development of gastrointestinal disorders. This is a systematic review and network meta-analysis conducted using Stata and Revman software, respectively. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023372802). A search of clinical trials in Cochrane Library databases, Embase, Web of Science, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus and Clinicaltrials.gov conducted on November 26, 2023. The eligibility of the studies was assessed based on PICO criteria, including trials that compared different treatments and control group. The analysis of the quality of the evidence was carried out according to the GRADE. Six trials involving 1,686 COVID-19 patients were included. No trials on the association of HD or AZ with IV met the inclusion criteria, only studies on the association between HD and AZ were included. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and increased transaminases were related. The symptoms of vomiting and nausea were evaluated through a network meta-analysis, while the symptom of abdominal pain was evaluated through a meta-analysis. No significant associations with these symptoms were observed for HD, AZ, or their combination, compared to control. Low heterogeneity and absence of inconsistency in indirect and direct comparisons were noted. Limitations included small sample sizes, varied drug dosages, and potential publication bias during the pandemic peak. This review unveils that there are no associations between gastrointestinal adverse effects and the combined treatment of HD with AZ in the management of COVID-19, as compared to either the use of a control group or the administration of the drugs individually, on the other hand, highlighting the very low or low certainty of evidence for the evaluated outcomes. To accurately conclude the absence of side effects, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment of non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials with 7,035 participants.

INTRODUCTION: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin in non-hospitalized patients with early COVID-19. METHODS: Five databases were searched until October 17, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin against standard of care (SoC), placebo, or active drug. Primary outcomes were hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV), clinical improvement, clinical worsening, viral clearance, and severe adverse events (SAEs). Random effects meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. Pre-specified subgroup analyses (ivermectin dose, control type, risk of bias, follow-up, and country income) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs (n = 7,035) were included. The controls were placebo in nine RCTs, SoC in two RCTs, and placebo or active drug in one RCT. Ivermectin did not reduce hospitalization (relative risk [RR], 0.81, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.64-1.03; 8 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-1.33; 9 RCTs, low QoE), or AEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.07; 9 RCTs, very low QoE) vs. controls. Ivermectin did not reduce MV, clinical worsening, or SAEs and did not increase clinical improvement and viral clearance vs. controls (very low QoE for secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with main analyses, and TSA-adjusted risk for hospitalization was similar to main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, ivermectin did not have effect on clinical, non-clinical or safety outcomes versus controls. Ivermectin should not be recommended as treatment in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Onchocerca volvulus microfilariae in the anterior chambers of the eye and ocular adverse events after a single dose of 8 mg moxidectin or 150 µg/kg ivermectin: results of a randomized double-blind Phase 3 trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana and Liberia.

BACKGROUND: After ivermectin became available, diethylcarbamazine (DEC) use was discontinued because of severe adverse reactions, including ocular reactions, in individuals with high Onchocerca volvulus microfilaridermia (microfilariae/mg skin, SmfD). Assuming long-term ivermectin use led to < 5 SmfD with little or no eye involvement, DEC + ivermectin + albendazole treatment a few months after ivermectin was proposed. In 2018, the US FDA approved moxidectin for treatment of O. volvulus infection. The Phase 3 study evaluated SmfD, microfilariae in the anterior chamber (mfAC) and adverse events (AEs) in ivermectin-naïve individuals with ≥ 10 SmfD after 8 mg moxidectin (n = 978) or 150 µg/kg ivermectin (n = 494) treatment. METHODS: We analyzed the data from 1463 participants with both eyes evaluated using six (0, 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-40, > 40) mfAC and three pre-treatment (< 20, 20 to < 50, ≥ 50) and post-treatment (0, > 0-5, > 5) SmfD categories. A linear mixed model evaluated factors and covariates impacting mfAC levels. Ocular AEs were summarized by type and start post-treatment. Logistic models evaluated factors and covariates impacting the risk for ocular AEs. RESULTS: Moxidectin and ivermectin had the same effect on mfAC levels. These increased from pre-treatment to Day 4 and Month 1 in 20% and 16% of participants, respectively. Six and 12 months post-treatment, mfAC were detected in ≈5% and ≈3% of participants, respectively. Ocular Mazzotti reactions occurred in 12.4% of moxidectin- and 10.2% of ivermectin-treated participants without difference in type or severity. The risk for ≥ 1 ocular Mazzotti reaction increased for women (OR 1.537, 95% CI 1.096-2.157) and with mfAC levels pre- and 4 days post-treatment (OR 0: > 10 mfAC 2.704, 95% CI 1.27-5.749 and 1.619, 95% CI 0.80-3.280, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The impact of SmfD and mfAC levels before and early after treatment on ocular AEs needs to be better understood before making decisions on the risk-benefit of strategies including DEC. Such decisions should take into account interindividual variability in SmfD, mfAC levels and treatment response and risks to even a small percentage of individuals.

Ivermectin ameliorates bleomycin-induced lung fibrosis in male rats by inhibiting the inflammation and oxidative stress.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a pulmonary fibrotic disease characterized by a poor prognosis, which its pathogenesis involves the accumulation of abnormal fibrous tissue, inflammation, and oxidative stress. Ivermectin, a positive allosteric modulator of GABAA receptor, exerts anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties in preclinical studies. The present study investigates the potential protective effects of ivermectin treatment in rats against bleomycin-induced IPF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study involved 42 male Wistar rats, which were divided into five groups: control (without induction of IPF), bleomycin (IPF-induced by bleomycin 2.5 mg/kg, by intratracheal administration), and three fibrosis groups receiving ivermectin (0.5, 1, and 3 mg/kg). lung tissues were harvested for measurement of oxidative stress [via myeloperoxidase (MPO), superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione (GSH)] and inflammatory markers (tumor necrosis factor-α [TNF-α], interleukin-1ß [IL-1ß], and transforming growth factor-ß [TGF-ß]). Histological assessments of tissue damage were performed using hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) and Masson's trichrome staining methods. RESULTS: The induction of fibrosis via bleomycin was found to increase levels of MPO as well as TNF-α, IL-1ß, and TGF-ß while decrease SOD activity and GSH level. Treatment with ivermectin at a dosage of 3 mg/kg was able to reverse the effects of bleomycin-induced fibrosis on these markers. In addition, results from H&E and Masson's trichrome staining showed that ivermectin treatment at this same dose reduced tissue damage and pulmonary fibrosis. CONCLUSION: The data obtained from this study indicate that ivermectin may have therapeutic benefits for IPF, likely due to its ability to reduce inflammation and mitigate oxidative stress-induced toxicity.

The Detrimental Effect of Pre-Treatment with Ivermectin on Myocardial Ischemia.

INTRODUCTION: Ivermectin (IVM) is a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic agent with potential antibacterial, antiviral, and anti-cancer effects. There are limited studies on the effects of IVM on cardiovascular diseases, so the present study sought to determine the effects of pre-treatment with IVM on myocardial ischemia in both ex vivo and in vivo. METHODS: In the ex vivo part, two groups of control and treated rats with IVM (0.2 mg/kg) were examined for cardiac function and arrhythmias by isolated heart perfusion. In the in vivo part, four groups, namely, control, IVM, Iso (MI), and Iso + IVM 0.2 mg/kg were used. Subcutaneous injection of isoproterenol (100 mg/kg/day) for 2 consecutive days was used for the induction of myocardial infarction (MI) in male Wistar rats. Then electrocardiogram, hemodynamic factors, cardiac hypertrophy, and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels were investigated. RESULTS: The ex vivo results showed that administration of IVM induces cardiac arrhythmia and decreases the left ventricular maximal rate of pressure increase (contractility) and maximal rate of pressure decline (relaxation). The isoproterenol-induced MI model used as an in vivo model showed that cardiac hypertrophy were increased with no improvement in the hemodynamic and electrocardiogram pattern in the IVM-treated group in comparison to MI (Iso) group. However, the MDA level was lower in the IVM-treated group. CONCLUSION: IVM pre-treatment demonstrates detrimental effects in cardiac ischemia through exacerbation of cardiac arrhythmia, myocardial dysfunction, and increased cardiac hypertrophy. Therefore, the use of IVM in ischemic heart patients should be done with great caution.

Efficacy and safety of moxidectin compared with ivermectin against Strongyloides stercoralis infection in adults in Laos and Cambodia: a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority, phase 2b/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Infection with the soil-transmitted helminth Strongyloides stercoralis affects up to 600 million people globally, most of whom live in rural areas with poor sanitation. If untreated, infection leads to long-lasting morbidity and might even be life-threatening. Moxidectin might be a promising alternative to ivermectin, the only currently recommended single-dose treatment. We aimed to assess whether moxidectin is non-inferior in terms of efficacy and safety compared with ivermectin. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, non-inferiority, phase 2b/3 trial in communities in Laos and Cambodia, adults aged 18-65 years were screened for the presence of S stercoralis larvae in their stool via sextuplicate quantitative Baermann assays. Using computer-generated group allocation (block randomisation stratified by infection intensity), parasitologically (two or more positive Baermann assays) and clinically eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive single oral doses of either moxidectin (8 mg) and ivermectin-matched placebo, or ivermectin (200 µg/kg bodyweight) and moxidectin-matched placebo. The primary endpoint was cure rate assessed at 14-21 days after treatment, using the available-case population analysed according to intention-to-treat principles. Moxidectin was considered non-inferior to ivermectin if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference was greater than the non-inferiority margin of -10 percentage points. Safety endpoints were assessed before treatment, and at 2-3 h, 24 h, and 14-21 days after treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04056325 and NCT04848688. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6, 2020, and May 21, 2022, 4291 participants were screened, 726 of whom were enrolled and randomly assigned to moxidectin (n=363) or ivermectin (n=363). For the participants with primary outcome data, we observed a cure rate of 93·6% (95% CI 90·5 to 96·0; 324 of 346 participants) in the moxidectin group and 95·7% (93·0 to 97·6; 335 of 350 participants) in the ivermectin group, resulting in a between-group difference of -2·1 percentage points (95% CI -5·5 to 1·3). The most common adverse events were abdominal pain (32 [9%] of 363 with moxidectin vs 34 [9%] of 363 with ivermectin) and headache (25 [7%] vs 30 [8%]), which were predominantly mild and transient. INTERPRETATION: Moxidectin was non-inferior to ivermectin in terms of efficacy in the treatment of strongyloidiasis. Additionally, both drugs had a similar safety profile. The fixed dose and lower cost of moxidectin compared with ivermectin make it a valuable alternative for people with strongyloidiasis. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation.

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 in Japan and Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug administered to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Fundamental research suggests that ivermectin is effective against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment option. METHODS: This multi-regional (Japan and Thailand), multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 (IVERMILCO Study). The participants took a specified number of the investigational product (ivermectin or placebo) tablets of, adjusted to a dose of 0.3-0.4 mg/kg, orally on an empty stomach once daily for three days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time at which clinical symptoms first showed an improving trend by 168 h after investigational product administration. RESULTS: A total of 1030 eligible participants were assigned to receive the investigational product; 502 participants received ivermectin and 527 participants received a placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was approximately 96 h (approximately four days) for both ivermectin and placebo groups, which did not show statistically significant difference (stratified log-rank test, p = 0.61). The incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions did not show statistically significant differences between the ivermectin and placebo groups (chi-square test, p = 0.97, p = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that ivermectin (0.3-0.4 mg/kg), as a treatment for patients with mild COVID-19, is ineffective; however, its safety has been confirmed for participants, including minor participants of 12 years or older (IVERMILCO Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05056883.).

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for the treatment of Plasmodium falciparum infections in asymptomatic male and female Gabonese adults - a pilot randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled single-centre phase Ib/IIa clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin's mosquitocidal effect and in vitro activity against Plasmodium falciparum asexual stages are known. Its in vivo blood-schizonticidal efficacy is unknown. Ivermectin's tolerability and efficacy against P. falciparum infections in Gabonese adults were assessed. METHODS: The study consisted of a multiple dose stage and a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled stage. Adults with asymptomatic P. falciparum parasitaemia (200-5000 parasites/µl) were enrolled. First, three groups of five participants received 200 µg/kg ivermectin once daily for one, two, and three days, respectively, and then 34 participants were randomized to 300 µg/kg ivermectin or placebo once daily for 3 days. Primary efficacy outcome was time to 90% parasite reduction. Primary safety outcomes were drug-related serious and severe adverse events (Trial registration: PACTR201908520097051). FINDINGS: Between June 2019 and October 2020, 49 participants were enrolled. Out of the 34 randomized participants, 29 (85%) completed the trial as per protocol. No severe or serious adverse events were observed. The median time to 90% parasite reduction was 24.1 vs. 32.0 h in the ivermectin and placebo groups, respectively (HR 1.38 [95% CI 0.64 to 2.97]). INTERPRETATION: Ivermectin was well tolerated in doses up to 300 µg/kg once daily for three days and asymptomatic P. falciparum asexual parasitaemia was reduced similarly with this dose of ivermectin compared to placebo. Further studies are needed to evaluate plasmodicidal effect of ivermectin at higher doses and in larger samples. FUNDING: This study was funded by the Centre de Recherches Médicales de Lambaréné and the Centre for Tropical Medicine of the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine.

Safety and tolerability of moxidectin and ivermectin combination treatments for lymphatic filariasis in Côte d'Ivoire: A randomized controlled superiority study.

BACKGROUND: Moxidectin is a macrocyclic lactone registered for the treatment of human onchocerciasis. The drug has a good safety profile, large volume of distribution and a long elimination half-life. This paper reports tolerability data from the first use of moxidectin in persons with Wuchereria bancrofti infection. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, masked-observer superiority trial, adults with Wuchereria bancrofti microfilaremia in Côte d'Ivoire were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment arms: ivermectin + albendazole (IA), moxidectin + albendazole (MoxA), ivermectin + diethylcarbamazine (DEC) + albendazole (IDA), or moxidectin + DEC + albendazole (MoxDA). As part of a larger efficacy trial, all participants were closely monitored for 7 days after treatment. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four individuals were treated, and monitored for treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE). Eighty-seven participants (53%) experienced one or more mild (grade 1) or moderate (grade 2) TEAE. Four participants had transient Grade 3 hematuria after treatment (3 after IDA and 1 after IA). There were no serious adverse events. There were no significant differences in frequency or types of TEAE between treatment groups (IA = 22/41 (53%), MoxA = 24/40 (60%), IDA = 18/41 (44%), MoxDA = 15/42 (36%), p = 0.530). Fifty-nine participants (36%) had multiple TEAE, and 8.5% had a one or more grade 2 (moderate) TEAE. Grade 2 TEAE were more frequent after triple drug treatments (IDA, 14.6%; MoxDA, 9.5%) than after two-drug treatments (IA, 7.3%; MoxA, 2.5%). There was no difference in TEAEs based on baseline Mf counts (OR 0.69 (0.33, 1.43), p-value 0.319). CONCLUSION: All treatment regimens were well tolerated. We observed no difference in safety parameters between regimens that contained ivermectin or moxidectin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04410406.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of albendazole and ivermectin based regimens for the treatment of microfilaraemic loiasis in adult patients in Gabon: A randomized controlled assessor blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of systematic evidence for strategies to control loiasis transmission in highly endemic regions. Here we assessed albendazole and ivermectin based treatment regimens to reduce Loa loa microfilaraemia in Gabon. METHODS: Eligible adult patients with L. loa microfilaraemia between 5,000 and 50,000 microfilariae/ml were randomized to either a control or one of three intervention groups (1:2:2:2 allocation ratio) consisting of three-week twice daily 400mg oral albendazole followed by 1) no treatment, 2) two further weeks of twice daily 400mg albendazole, or 3) a single dose of ivermectin in this open label randomized assessor blinded controlled clinical trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with L. loa microfilaraemia ≤ 100 mf/ml at Day 168. RESULTS: In the efficacy-population of 42 patients 0 (0%; control group), 1 (9%; 3-week albendazole), 5 (39%; 5-weeks albendazole) and 2 (22%; 3-week albendazole plus single dose ivermectin) participants met the primary outcome of microfilaraemia below 100/ml at day 168. A 80-90% reduction of microfilaraemia was observed in the active treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The 5-week regimen of albendazole or a 3-week regimen of albendazole followed by ivermectin were most efficacious to reduce microfilaraemia. All therapeutic regimens were well tolerated and safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered at the Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry: PACTR201807197019027.

Comparative Safety Surveillance of Triple (IDA) Versus Dual Therapy (DA) in Mass Drug Administration for Elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis in Kenya: A Cohort Event Monitoring Study.

INTRODUCTION: Dual diethylcarbamazine and albendazole (DA) therapy is the standard mass drug administration (MDA) regimen for lymphatic filariasis in Kenya. Following the recent World Health Organization recommendation, Kenya piloted triple therapy with ivermectin, diethylcarbamazine, and albendazole (IDA) in MDA. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a community-based, observational, cohort event monitoring study to compare the types, frequency, severity, and predictors of adverse events following dual versus triple therapy in 20,421 eligible residents. METHODS: Residents in Kilifi (n = 10,010) and Mombasa counties (n = 10,411) received DA and IDA through MDA campaigns, respectively. Adverse events were actively monitored through house-to-house visits on days 1, 2, and 7 after MDA. Any clinical events reported before and after MDA were cross-checked and verified to differentiate pre-existing events from MDA-associated adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 5807 and 3102 adverse events were reported by 2839 and 1621 individuals in the IDA and DA groups, respectively. The incidence of experiencing one or more adverse events was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the IDA group (27.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 26.4-28.2) than in the DA group (16.2%; 95% CI 15.5-16.9). Dizziness (15.9% vs 5.9%) and drowsiness (10.1% vs 2.6%) were the most common adverse events and significantly higher in the IDA group compared with the DA group (p < 0.0001). Most adverse events were mild or moderate with a few severe cases (IDA = 0.05%; 95% CI 0.35-0.78, DA = 0.03%; 95% CI 0.14-0.60). Female sex, obesity, taking three or more diethylcarbamazine or ivermectin tablets, and having pre-existing clinical symptoms were significant predictors of adverse events following IDA treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Ivermectin, diethylcarbamazine, and albendazole as a combination is as safe and well tolerated as DA to use in MDA campaigns with no serious life-threatening adverse events. Systemic mild-to-moderate adverse events with a few severe cases and transient adverse events are more common with IDA treatment than with DA treatment. Hence, integrating pharmacovigilance into a MDA program is recommended for the timely detection and management of adverse events.

Suppression of NLRP3 inflammasome by ivermectin ameliorates bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis. / ä¼Šç»´èŒç´ æŠ‘åˆ¶NLRP3ç‚Žç—‡å°ä½“å¯æ”¹å–„åšæ¥éœ‰ç´ è¯±å¯¼çš„è‚ºçº¤ç»´åŒ–.

Ivermectin is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic agent with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. Although recent studies reported the possible anti-inflammatory activity of ivermectin in respiratory injuries, its potential therapeutic effect on pulmonary fibrosis (PF) has not been investigated. This study aimed to explore the ability of ivermectin (0.6 mg/kg) to alleviate bleomycin-induced biochemical derangements and histological changes in an experimental PF rat model. This can provide the means to validate the clinical utility of ivermectin as a treatment option for idiopathic PF. The results showed that ivermectin mitigated the bleomycin-evoked pulmonary injury, as manifested by the reduced infiltration of inflammatory cells, as well as decreased the inflammation and fibrosis scores. Intriguingly, ivermectin decreased collagen fiber deposition and suppressed transforming growth factor-|ß1 (TGF-|ß1) and fibronectin protein expression, highlighting its anti-fibrotic activity. This study revealed for the first time that ivermectin can suppress the nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain (NOD)|-like receptor family pyrin domain-containing protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome, as manifested by the reduced gene expression of NLRP3 and the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC), with a subsequent decline in the interleukin|-|1ß (IL|-|1ß) level. In addition, ivermectin inhibited the expression of intracellular nuclear factor-|κB (NF|-|κB) and hypoxia­inducible factor­1α (HIF|-|1α) proteins along with lowering the oxidative stress and apoptotic markers. Altogether, this study revealed that ivermectin could ameliorate pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis induced by bleomycin. These beneficial effects were mediated, at least partly, via the downregulation of TGF-|ß1 and fibronectin, as well as the suppression of NLRP3 inflammasome through modulating the expression of HIF­1α and NF-|κB.

Pharmacokinetics, feasibility and safety of co-administering azithromycin, albendazole, and ivermectin during mass drug administration: A review.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, health ministries implement mass drug administration programmes for each neglected tropical disease (NTD) as separate and distinct campaigns. Many NTDs have overlapping endemicity suggesting co-administration might improve programme reach and efficiency, helping accelerate progress towards 2030 targets. Safety data are required to support a recommendation to undertake co-administration. METHODOLOGY: We aimed to compile and summarize existing data on co-administration of ivermectin, albendazole and azithromycin, including both data on pharmacokinetic interactions and data from previous experimental and observational studies conducted in NTD-endemic populations. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, research and conference abstracts, gray literature, and national policy documents. We limited the publication language to English and used a search period from January 1st, 1995 through October 1st, 2022. Search terms were: azithromycin and ivermectin and albendazole, mass drug administration co-administration trials, integrated mass drug administration, mass drug administration safety, pharmacokinetic dynamics, and azithromycin and ivermectin and albendazole. We excluded papers if they did not include data on co-administration of azithromycin and both albendazole and ivermectin, or azithromycin with either albendazole or ivermectin alone. RESULTS: We identified a total of 58 potentially relevant studies. Of these we identified 7 studies relevant to the research question and which met our inclusion criteria. Three papers analyzed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions. No study found evidence of clinically significant drug-drug interactions likely to impact safety or efficacy. Two papers and a conference presentation reported data on the safety of combinations of at least two of the drugs. A field study in Mali suggested the rates of adverse events were similar with combined or separate administration, but was underpowered. A further field study in Papua New Guinea used all three drugs as part of a four-drug regimen also including diethylcarbamazine; in this setting, co-administration appeared safe but there were issues with the consistency in how adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSION: There are relatively limited data on the safety profile of co-administering ivermectin, albendazole and azithromycin as an integrated regimen for NTDs. Despite the limited amount of data, available evidence suggests that such a strategy is safe with an absence of clinically important drug-drug interactions, no serious adverse events reported and little evidence for an increase in mild adverse events. Integrated MDA may be a viable strategy for national NTD programmes.

Efficacy and Safety of Moxidectin-Albendazole and Ivermectin-Albendazole Combination Therapy Compared to Albendazole Monotherapy in Adolescents and Adults Infected with Trichuris trichiura: A Randomized, Controlled Superiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: The currently recommended benzimidazole monotherapy is insufficiently effective to control infection with the soil-transmitted helminth Trichuris trichiura. Ivermectin-albendazole combination has shown promising, but setting-dependent efficacy, with therapeutic underperformance in Côte d'Ivoire. We evaluated whether moxidectin-albendazole could serve as an alternative to albendazole monotherapy in Côte d'Ivoire. METHODS: In this community-based, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial, individuals aged 12-60 years were screened for T. trichiura eggs in their stool using quadruplicate Kato-Katz thick smears. Diagnostically and clinically eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive single oral doses of moxidectin (8 mg) and albendazole (400 mg), ivermectin (200 µg/kg) and albendazole (400 mg), or albendazole (400 mg) and placebo. The primary outcome was proportion cured, ie, cure rate (CR), assessed at 2-3 weeks post-treatment. Safety endpoints were assessed pre-treatment and at 3 and 24 hours post-treatment. RESULTS: For the 210 participants with primary outcome data, we observed CRs of 15.3% in the moxidectin-albendazole arm and 22.5% in the ivermectin-albendazole arm, which did not differ significantly from the CR of 13.4% in the albendazole arm (differences: 1.8%-points [95% confidence interval: -10.1 to 13.6] and 9.1%-points [-3.9 to 21.8], respectively). Most common adverse events were abdominal pain (range across arms: 11.9%-20.9%), headache (4.7%-14.3%), and itching (5.8%-13.1%), which were predominantly mild and transient. CONCLUSIONS: All therapies showed similar low efficacy in treating trichuriasis in Côte d'Ivoire. Alternative treatment options need to be evaluated, and further analyses should be conducted to understand the lack of enhanced activity of the combination therapies in Côte d'Ivoire. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04726969.

Ivermectin drug induced liver injury.

Ivermectin remains a popular, albeit unproven, therapy used in both the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. We discuss a patient who developed jaundice and a liver injury 3 weeks after initiating ivermectin for COVID prevention.  Liver histology demonstrated a pattern of injury that was both portal and lobular, with a bile ductulitis as well with marked cholesasis. She was managed with low dose corticosteroids, later tapered and withdrawn. She remains well a year after presenting.