Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionIn 2020, nations hastened to contain an emerging COVID-19 pandemic by deploying diverse public health approaches, but conclusive appraisals of the efficacy of these approaches are elusive in most cases. One of the medicines deployed, ivermectin (IVM), a macrocyclic lactone having biochemical activity against SARS-CoV-2 through competitive binding to its spike protein, has yielded mixed results in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for COVID-19 treatments. In Peru, an opportunity to track the efficacy of IVM with a close consideration of confounding factors was provided through data for excess deaths as correlated with IVM use in 2020, under semi-autonomous policies in its 25 states.MethodsTo evaluate possible IVM treatment effects, excess deaths as determined from Peruvian national health data were analyzed by state for ages ≥60 in Peru’s 25 states. These data were compared with monthly summary data for excess deaths in Peru for the period 2020-2021 as published by the WHO in 2022. To identify potential confounding factors, Google mobility data, population densities, SARS-CoV-2 genetic variations, and seropositivity rates were also examined.ResultsReductions in excess deaths over a period of 30 days after peak deaths averaged 74% in the 10 states with the most intensive IVM use. As determined across all 25 states, these reductions in excess deaths correlated closely with the extent of IVM use (p<0.002). During four months of IVM use in 2020, before a new president of Peru restricted its use, there was a 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths and then a 13-fold increase in the two months following the restriction of IVM use. Notably, these trends in nationwide excess deaths align with WHO summary data for the same period in Peru.ConclusionsThe natural experiment that was put into motion with the authorization of IVM use for COVID-19 in Peru in May 2020, as analyzed using data on excess deaths by locality and by state from Peruvian national health sources, resulted in strong evidence for the drug's effectiveness. Several potential confounding factors, including effects of a social isolation mandate imposed in May 2020, variations in the genetic makeup of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and differences in seropositivity rates and population densities across the 25 states, were considered but did not appear to have significantly influenced these outcomes.

This mini-review focuses on the mechanisms of how severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) affects the brain, with an emphasis on the role of the spike protein in patients with neurological symptoms. Following infection, patients with a history of neurological complications may be at a higher risk of developing long-term neurological conditions associated with the α-synuclein prion, such as Parkinson’s disease and Lewy body dementia. Compelling evidence has been published to indicate that the spike protein, which is derived from SARS-CoV-2 and generated from the vaccines currently being employed, is not only able to cross the blood–brain barrier but may cause inflammation and/or blood clots in the brain. Consequently, should vaccine-induced expression of spike proteins not be limited to the site of injection and draining lymph nodes there is the potential of long-term implications following inoculation that may be identical to that of patients exhibiting neurological complications after being infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, further studies are needed before definitive conclusions can be made.

Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide prevention program using ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajaí, a southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of regular ivermectin use on subsequent COVID-19 infection and mortality rates. We analyzed data from a prospective, observational study of the citywide COVID-19 prevention with ivermectin program, which was conducted between July 2020 and December 2020 in Itajaí, Brazil. Study design, institutional review board approval, and analysis of registry data occurred after completion of the program. The program consisted of inviting the entire population of Itajaí to a medical visit to enroll in the program and to compile baseline, personal, demographic, and medical information. In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day. In cases where a participating citizen of Itajaí became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment. Clinical outcomes of infection, hospitalization, and death were automatically reported and entered into the registry in real time. Study analysis consisted of comparing ivermectin users with non-users using cohorts of infected patients propensity score-matched by age, sex, and comorbidities. COVID-19 infection and mortality rates were analyzed with and without the use of propensity score matching (PSM). Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001). In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

BackgroundWe have previously demonstrated that ivermectin used as prophylaxis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), irrespective of the regularity, in a strictly controlled citywide program in Southern Brazil (Itajaí, Brazil), was associated with reductions in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates. In this study, our objective was to determine if the regular use of ivermectin impacted the level of protection from COVID-19 and related outcomes, reinforcing the efficacy of ivermectin through the demonstration of a dose-response effect.MethodsThis exploratory analysis of a prospective observational study involved a program that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days, for 150 days. Regularity definitions were as follows: regular users had 180 mg or more of ivermectin and irregular users had up to 60 mg, in total, throughout the program. Comparisons were made between non-users (subjects who did not use ivermectin), and regular and irregular users after multivariate adjustments. The full city database was used to calculate and compare COVID-19 infection and the risk of dying from COVID-19. The COVID-19 database was used and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed for hospitalization and mortality rates.ResultsAmong 223,128 subjects from the city of Itajaí, 159,560 were 18 years old or up and were not infected by COVID-19 until July 7, 2020, from which 45,716 (28.7%) did not use and 113,844 (71.3%) used ivermectin. Among ivermectin users, 33,971 (29.8%) used irregularly (up to 60 mg) and 8,325 (7.3%) used regularly (more than 180 mg). The remaining 71,548 participants were not included in the analysis. COVID-19 infection rate was 49% lower for regular users (3.40%) than non-users (6.64%) (risk rate (RR): 0.51; 95% CI: 0.45-0.58; p < 0.0001), and 25% lower than irregular users (4.54%) (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.66-0.85; p < 0.0001). The infection rate was 32% lower for irregular users than non-users (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.64-0.73; p < 0.0001). Among COVID-19 participants, regularusers were older and had a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes and hypertension than irregular and non-users. After PSM, the matched analysis contained 283 subjects in each group of non-users and regular users, between regular users and irregular users, and 1,542 subjects between non-users and irregular users. The hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users (p < 0.0001), and by 29% among irregular users compared to non-users (RR: 0.781; 95% CI: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.099). Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users (RR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.35; p = 0.0008) and 84% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.71; p = 0.016), while irregular users had a 37% lower mortality rate reduction than non-users (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; p = 0.049). Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among regular users than non-users (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03-0.57; p = 0.006), and 72% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07-1.18; p = 0.083), while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32-0.76; p = 0.001).ConclusionNon-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.21272.].

Antenatal corticosteroids for pregnant women at risk of preterm birth are among the most effective hospital-based interventions to reduce neonatal mortality. We aimed to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of a multifaceted intervention designed to increase the use of antenatal corticosteroids at all levels of health care in low-income and middle-income countries. In this 18-month, cluster-randomised trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) rural and semi-urban clusters within six countries (Argentina, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Pakistan, and Zambia) to standard care or a multifaceted intervention including components to improve identification of women at risk of preterm birth and to facilitate appropriate use of antenatal corticosteroids. The primary outcome was 28-day neonatal mortality among infants less than the 5th percentile for birthweight (a proxy for preterm birth) across the clusters. Use of antenatal corticosteroids and suspected maternal infection were additional main outcomes. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01084096. The ACT trial took place between October, 2011, and March, 2014 (start dates varied by site). 51 intervention clusters with 47 394 livebirths (2520 [5%] less than 5th percentile for birthweight) and 50 control clusters with 50 743 livebirths (2258 [4%] less than 5th percentile) completed follow-up. 1052 (45%) of 2327 women in intervention clusters who delivered less-than-5th-percentile infants received antenatal corticosteroids, compared with 215 (10%) of 2062 in control clusters (p<0·0001). Among the less-than-5th-percentile infants, 28-day neonatal mortality was 225 per 1000 livebirths for the intervention group and 232 per 1000 livebirths for the control group (relative risk [RR] 0·96, 95% CI 0·87–1·06, p=0·65) and suspected maternal infection was reported in 236 (10%) of 2361 women in the intervention group and 133 (6%) of 2094 in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 1·67, 1·33–2·09, p<0·0001). Among the whole population, 28-day neonatal mortality was 27·4 per 1000 livebirths for the intervention group and 23·9 per 1000 livebirths for the control group (RR 1·12, 1·02–1·22, p=0·0127) and suspected maternal infection was reported in 1207 (3%) of 48 219 women in the intervention group and 867 (2%) of 51 523 in the control group (OR 1·45, 1·33–1·58, p<0·0001). Despite increased use of antenatal corticosteroids in low-birthweight infants in the intervention groups, neonatal mortality did not decrease in this group, and increased in the population overall. For every 1000 women exposed to this strategy, an excess of 3·5 neonatal deaths occurred, and the risk of maternal infection seems to have been increased. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Preterm birth remains a common cause of neonatal mortality, with a disproportionately high burden in low-income and middle-income countries. Meta-analyses of low-dose aspirin to prevent pre-eclampsia suggest that the incidence of preterm birth might also be decreased, particularly if initiated before 16 weeks of gestation. ASPIRIN was a randomised, multicountry, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial of low-dose aspirin (81 mg daily) initiated between 6 weeks and 0 days of pregnancy, and 13 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in nulliparous women with an ultrasound confirming gestational age and a singleton viable pregnancy. Participants were enrolled at seven community sites in six countries (two sites in India and one site each in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Kenya, Pakistan, and Zambia). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by site) to receive aspirin or placebo tablets of identical appearance, via a sequence generated centrally by the data coordinating centre at Research Triangle Institute International (Research Triangle Park, NC, USA). Treatment was masked to research staff, health providers, and patients, and continued until 36 weeks and 7 days of gestation or delivery. The primary outcome of incidence of preterm birth, defined as the number of deliveries before 37 weeks' gestational age, was analysed in randomly assigned women with pregnancy outcomes at or after 20 weeks, according to a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) protocol. Analyses of our binary primary outcome involved a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by site, and generalised linear models to obtain relative risk (RR) estimates and associated confidence intervals. Serious adverse events were assessed in all women who received at least one dose of drug or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02409680, and the Clinical Trial Registry-India, CTRI/2016/05/006970. From March 23, 2016 to June 30, 2018, 14 361 women were screened for inclusion and 11 976 women aged 14–40 years were randomly assigned to receive low-dose aspirin (5990 women) or placebo (5986 women). 5780 women in the aspirin group and 5764 in the placebo group were evaluable for the primary outcome. Preterm birth before 37 weeks occurred in 668 (11·6%) of the women who took aspirin and 754 (13·1%) of those who took placebo (RR 0·89 [95% CI 0·81 to 0·98], p=0·012). In women taking aspirin, we also observed significant reductions in perinatal mortality (0·86 [0·73–1·00], p=0·048), fetal loss (infant death after 16 weeks' gestation and before 7 days post partum; 0·86 [0·74–1·00], p=0·039), early preterm delivery (<34 weeks; 0·75 [0·61–0·93], p=0·039), and the incidence of women who delivered before 34 weeks with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (0·38 [0·17–0·85], p=0·015). Other adverse maternal and neonatal events were similar between the two groups. In populations of nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies from low-income and middle-income countries, low-dose aspirin initiated between 6 weeks and 0 days of gestation and 13 weeks and 6 days of gestation resulted in a reduced incidence of preterm delivery before 37 weeks, and reduced perinatal mortality. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

The use of azithromycin reduces maternal infection in women during unplanned cesarean delivery, but its effect on those with planned vaginal delivery is unknown. Data are needed on whether an intrapartum oral dose of azithromycin would reduce maternal and offspring sepsis or death. In this multicountry, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, we assigned women who were in labor at 28 weeks' gestation or more and who were planning a vaginal delivery to receive a single 2-g oral dose of azithromycin or placebo. The two primary outcomes were a composite of maternal sepsis or death and a composite of stillbirth or neonatal death or sepsis. During an interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial for maternal benefit. A total of 29,278 women underwent randomization. The incidence of maternal sepsis or death was lower in the azithromycin group than in the placebo group (1.6% vs. 2.4%), with a relative risk of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.79; P<0.001), but the incidence of stillbirth or neonatal death or sepsis was similar (10.5% vs. 10.3%), with a relative risk of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.09; P = 0.56). The difference in the maternal primary outcome appeared to be driven mainly by the incidence of sepsis (1.5% in the azithromycin group and 2.3% in the placebo group), with a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.77); the incidence of death from any cause was 0.1% in the two groups (relative risk, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.97). Neonatal sepsis occurred in 9.8% and 9.6% of the infants, respectively (relative risk, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.10). The incidence of stillbirth was 0.4% in the two groups (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.53); neonatal death within 4 weeks after birth occurred in 1.5% in both groups (relative risk, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.24). Azithromycin was not associated with a higher incidence in adverse events. Among women planning a vaginal delivery, a single oral dose of azithromycin resulted in a significantly lower risk of maternal sepsis or death than placebo but had little effect on newborn sepsis or death. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; A-PLUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03871491.).

Background A robust evidence base is required to assist healthcare commissioners and providers in selecting effective and sustainable approaches to improve cancer diagnosis and treatment. Such evidence can be difficult to build, given the fast-paced and highly pressured nature of healthcare delivery, the absence of incentives, and the presence of barriers in conducting pragmatic yet robust research evaluations. Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has played an active part in building the evidence base through its funding of programmes to identify, evaluate and scale-up innovative approaches across the UK. The aim of this paper is to describe and explain the research design and intended approach and activities for two cancer services improvement projects in Scotland funded by CRUK. Methods A hybrid effectiveness-implementation study design will assess both the efficiency of the new pathways and their implementation strategies, with the aim of generating knowledge for scale-up. A range of implementation, service and clinical outcomes will be assessed as determined by the projects’ Theories of Change (ToCs). A naturalistic case study approach will enable in-depth exploration of context and process, and the collection and synthesis of data from multiple sources including routine datasets, patient and staff surveys, in-depth interviews and observational and other data. The evaluations are informed throughout by a patient/public representatives’ group, and by small group discussions with volunteer cancer patients. Discussion Our approach has been designed to provide a holistic understanding of how (well) the improvement projects work (in relation to their anticipated outcomes), and how they interact with their wider contexts. The evaluations will help identify barriers, facilitators, and unanticipated consequences that can impact scalability, sustainability and spread. By opting for a pragmatic, participatory evaluation research design, we hope to inform strategies for scaling up successful innovations while addressing challenges in a targeted manner.