A Multicenter Cohort Study on the Adverse Effects Evaluation After Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccination Among Pregnant Healthcare Employees in Penang General Hospitals.

Introduction: The year 2020 saw the emergence of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which became a great threat to public health worldwide. The exponential spread of the disease with millions of lives lost worldwide saw the emergence of an accelerated vaccine development with emergency approval from well-known regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration, followed by widespread vaccine deployment despite a paucity in safety profile data. This issue becomes even more pronounced when it involves expectant mothers considering the possible undesirable effect toward the unborn child. Method: This was a retrospective cohort study which was conducted at six general hospitals in the state of Penang, Malaysia. All the pregnant employees who have consented to take the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and participate in this study were monitored from the time of their first vaccination and up to 28 days after they delivered their babies. Results: All the participants had adequate maximum vertical pocket (MVP) and no obvious anomalies or detection of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) were detected during the second trimester. However, one subject was reported to have miscarried during the second trimester. The reported mean neonate birth weight was 3.0 kg with the mean Apgar score of 8.8 and 9.8 at 1 and 5 min, respectively. Approximately seven (5.8%) neonates were reported to be small for their gestational age. Another three (2.5%) neonates were reported to have anomalies. Conclusion: As a whole, the inference that can be made from this study is that mRNA COVID-19 vaccine appears to be safe in pregnant women regardless of the trimester as the findings did not show obvious safety warning signs.

Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities: The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19. Evidence-based data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin are needed. Objective: To determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients' symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events. Results: Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04920942.

Efficacy of Early Treatment With Favipiravir on Disease Progression Among High-Risk Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of favipiravir in preventing disease progression in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains uncertain. We aimed to determine its effect in preventing disease progression from nonhypoxia to hypoxia among high-risk COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 public hospitals across Malaysia (February-July 2021) among 500 symptomatic, RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients, aged ≥50 years with ≥1 comorbidity, and hospitalized within first 7 days of illness. Patients were randomized 1:1 to favipiravir plus standard care or standard care alone. Favipiravir was administered at 1800 mg 2×/day on day 1 followed by 800 mg 2×/day until day 5. The primary endpoint was rate of clinical progression from nonhypoxia to hypoxia. Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of 500 patients randomized (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.0] years; 258 women [51.6%]; 251 [50.2%] had COVID-19 pneumonia), 487 (97.4%) patients completed the trial. Clinical progression to hypoxia occurred in 46 (18.4%) patients on favipiravir plus standard care and 37 (14.8%) on standard care alone (OR, 1.30; 95% CI: .81-2.09; P = .28). All 3 prespecified secondary endpoints were similar between both groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 6 (2.4%) vs 5 (2.0%) (OR, 1.20; 95% CI: .36-4.23; P = .76), ICU admission in 13 (5.2%) vs 12 (4.8%) (OR, 1.09; 95% CI: .48-2.47; P = .84), and in-hospital mortality in 5 (2.0%) vs 0 (OR, 12.54; 95% CI: .76-207.84; P = .08) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among COVID-19 patients at high risk of disease progression, early treatment with oral favipiravir did not prevent their disease progression from nonhypoxia to hypoxia. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04818320).