RH Logo

All
My Hubs

Covid-19

Trending
Today
All
Papers
Posts
Hypotheses

Sign in to discover all of the research papers you care about, live as they're published.

3
Date Added: Nov 24, 2021
This is a test hypothesis exploring the concept that ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19 based upon Scott Alexander's November 17th blog post - https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wantedIn this blog, Alexander does a deep dive into the various studies which have been cited in favor of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Here is a figure from https://ivmmeta.com/ that gives an overview of the papers which have explored Ivermectin's efficacy: We plan to use this hypothesis post to recreate Alexander's blog in an attempt to better understand how ResearchHub's hypothesis feature could be used to communicate information of this sort in the future. Please feel free to: 1.) add any additional relevant studies that are not covered in Alexander's blog, or 2.) add your own commentary on the value of each source cited in this hypothesis.
Leaning towards no
66% of researchers think no
34
Date Added: Nov 25, 2021
Date Added: Nov 25, 2021
To advance a novel concept of debulking virus in the oral cavity, the primary site of viral replication, virus-trapping proteins CTB-ACE2 were express…
7
Date Added: Nov 24, 2021
Date Added: Nov 24, 2021
Objective We evaluated whether ivermectin combined with doxycycline reduced the clinical recovery time in adults with COVID-19 infection. Methods This was a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms randomly assigned to treatment (n = 200) and placebo (n = 200) groups. The primary outcome was duration from treatment to clinical recovery. Secondary outcomes were disease progression and persistent COVID-19 positivity by RT-PCR. Results Among 556 screened patients, 400 were enrolled and 363 completed follow-up. The mean patient age was 40 years, and 59% were men. The median recovery time was 7 (4–10, treatment group) and 9 (5–12, placebo group) days (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.90). The number of patients with a ≤7-day recovery was 61% (treatment group) and 44% (placebo groups) (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.04–0.09). The proportion of patients who remained RT-PCR positive on day 14 and whose disease did not progress was significantly lower in the treatment group than in the placebo group. Conclusions Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative by RT-PCR on day 14.
2
Date Added: Nov 24, 2021
Date Added: Nov 24, 2021
For the past few months, HMOs have faced crowded emergency rooms and insufficient hospital and intensive-care-unit beds, all from the worst pandemic o…
2
Date Added: Nov 24, 2021
Date Added: Nov 24, 2021
Background: Up-to-date, there is no recognized effective treatment or vaccine for the treatment of COVID-19 that emphasize urgency around distinctive effective therapies. This study aims to evaluate the anti-parasitic medication efficacy "Ivermectin" plus standard care (azithromycin, vitamin C, Zinc, Lactoferrin & Acetylcystein & prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation if D-dimer > 1000) in the treatment of mild/moderate and severely ill cases with COVID 19 infection, as well as prophylaxis of health care and/ or household contacts in comparison to the Hydroxychloroquine plus standard treatment. Subject and methods: 600 subjects; 400 symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 patients and 200 health care and household contacts distributed over 6 groups; Group I: 100 patients with Mild/Moderate COVID-19 infection received a 4-days course of Ivermectin plus standard of care; Group II: 100 patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 infection received hydroxyxholorquine plus standard of care; Group III: 100 patients with severe COVID-19 infection received Ivermectin plus standard of care; Group IV: 100 patients with Severe COVID-19 infection received hydroxyxholorquine plus standard of care. Routine laboratory investigations and RT-PCR were reported before and after initiation of treatment. Group V stick to personal protective equipment (PPE) plus Ivermectin 400mcg / kg to be repeated after one week, and Group VI stick to PPE only and both groups V&VI were followed for two weeks. Results: Patients received ivermectin reported substantial recovery of laboratory investigations; and significant reduction in RT-PCR conversion days. A substantial improvement and reduction in mortality rate in Ivermectin treated groups; group I (mild/moderate cases), (99%, and 0.0%, respectively) and group III (severe cases), (94%, and 2.0%, respectively) versus hydroxychloroquine plus standard care treated groups; group II (mild/moderate cases), (74% and 4%, respectively) and group IV (severe cases) (50% and 20%, respectively). Ivermectin had significantly reduced the incidence of infection in health care and household contacts up to 2% compared to 10% in non ivermectin group Conclusion: Addition of Ivermectin to standard care is very effective drug for treatment of COVID-19 patients with significant reduction in mortality compared to Hydroxychloroquine plus standard treatment only. Early use of Ivermectin is very useful for controlling COVID 19 infections, prophylaxis and improving cytokines storm
5
Date Added: Nov 24, 2021
Date Added: Nov 24, 2021
Objectives: We investigated the outcomes of Ivermectin-Doxycycline vs. Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin combination therapy in mild to moderate COVID19 patients. Methods: Patients were divided randomly into two groups: Ivermectin 200µgm/kg single dose + Doxycycline 100mg BID for ten days in group A, and Hydroxychloroquine 400mg for the first day, then 200mg BID for nine days + Azithromycin 500mg daily for five days in group B (Control group). RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 infection was repeated in all symptomatic patients on the second day onward without symptoms. Repeat PCR was done every two days onward if the result found positive. Time to the negative PCR and symptomatic recovery was measured for each group. Results: All subjects in Group A reached a negative PCR, at a mean of 8.93 days, and reached symptomatic recovery, at a mean of 5.93 days, with 55.10% symptom-free by the fifth day. In group B, 96.36% reached a negative PCR at a mean of 9.33 days and were symptoms-free at 6.99 days. In group A 31.67% of patients expressed symptoms caused by medication, this was 46.43% in group B. Conclusion: The combination therapy of Ivermectin-Doxycycline showed a trend towards superiority to the combination of Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin for mild to moderate COVID19 disease. Keywords: Azithromycin, Bangladesh, COVID-19, Doxycycline, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, randomized controlled trial (RCT)
85
Date Added: Sep 17, 2021
Date Added: Sep 17, 2021
Since its discovery, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has created a global pandemic of COVID-19. As of August 2 2, 2021, more than 198 million infections were reported worldwide. Typical symptoms include fatigue, fever, cough, and anosmia or dysgeusia. Outbreak management has been hindered by high transmission rates and limitations in testing capacity. Effective public health tools are needed for rapid and early detection. The current diagnostic standard is quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), but its cost and long turnaround times limit its utility for widespread surveillance. Lack of surveillance has caused severe societal disruption. Rapid antigen tests that permit new cases to isolate immediately can be important surveillance tools. 3 A longitudinal comparison between antigen tests performed at home and qRT-PCR has not previously been performed, to our knowledge. Here, we describe implementation of high-frequency testing using inexpensive, at-home, semiquantitative, direct antigen rapid tests (DARTs) and compare their performance with that of qRT-PCR on self-collected nasal specimens.
94
Date Added: Oct 19, 2021
Date Added: Oct 19, 2021
Importance Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown. Objective To evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants The HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US. Interventions Patients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data. Results Of 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P 
10
Date Added: Sep 28, 2021
Date Added: Sep 28, 2021
SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccination in healthy individuals generates immune protection against COVID-19. However, lit- tle is known about SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine-induced responses in immunosuppressed patients. We investigated induction of antigen-specific antibody, B cell and T cell responses longitudinally in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) on anti-CD20 antibody monotherapy (n = 20) compared with healthy controls (n = 10) after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 mRNA vaccination. Treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (aCD20) significantly reduced spike-specific and receptor-binding domain (RBD)-specific antibody and memory B cell responses in most patients, an effect ameliorated with longer duration from last aCD20 treatment and extent of B cell reconstitution. By contrast, all patients with MS treated with aCD20 generated antigen-specific CD4 and CD8 T cell responses after vaccination. Treatment with aCD20 skewed responses, compromising circulating follicular helper T (TFH) cell responses and augmenting CD8 T cell induction, while preserving type 1 helper T (TH1) cell priming. Patients with MS treated with aCD20 lacking anti-RBD IgG had the most severe defect in circulating TFH responses and more robust CD8 T cell responses. These data define the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immune landscape in aCD20-treated patients and provide insights into coordinated mRNA vaccine-induced immune responses in humans. Our findings have implications for clinical decision-making and public health policy for immunosuppressed patients including those treated with aCD20.