Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Malaysian Study Finds Ivermectin ‘Did Not Prevent’ Severe COVID-19, but Doctors Alliance Calls It ‘Misleading’
Epoch Times ^ | 02/20/2022 | Mimi Nguyen Ly

Posted on 02/20/2022 8:32:54 PM PST by SeekAndFind

A peer-reviewed study in which researchers concluded that ivermectin treatment during early COVID-19 “did not prevent” severe disease in high-risk patients has been criticized by an alliance of doctors for being “misleading.”

In the open-label randomized clinical trial, also referred to as the “The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial,” published in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal on Feb. 18, researchers said their findings “do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”

The study involved results from 490 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 in Malaysia. Participants were aged 50 and over, with at least one documented comorbidity. People who did not develop symptoms or who had severe COVID-19 were not included in the trial.

The trial was conducted in 20 hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in the country between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. Of the group, 249 participants received standard care, while 241 received a course of oral ivermectin over five days in addition to standard care.

Researchers said they found that 21.6 percent of patients in the ivermectin group and 17.3 percent in the standard care group progressed to “severe disease.”

They wrote that there were no statistically significant differences between the two cohorts in how many needed mechanical ventilation, had to be admitted to intensive care unit (ICU), or died within 28 days after having been admitted to the hospital.

Ivermectin is a generic medicine developed in the 1970s and is now widely used against roundworm parasites to treat river blindness and elephantiasis, as well as to treat scabies, lice, and rosacea in humans. William Campbell and Satoshi Omura in 2015 won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the drug’s discovery and applications.

Ivermectin has been praised by some doctors as a life-saving early treatment for COVID-19. At least two groups, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD), have been advocating for the off-label use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in its early stages.

The World Health Organization features ivermectin on its List of Essential Medicines. It is also approved as an antiparasitic agent by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

However, the FDA has not approved the drug to treat or prevent COVID-19 in humans. According to the FDA, side effects of ivermectin include skin rash, nausea, and vomiting.

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a joint statement in September 2021 they were against its use to treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial.

Criticism

On Feb. 19, the FLCCC rejected the conclusions of the I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial and called it “misleading” and “underpowered.” The group also said that the study authors reached “a conclusion that inexplicably departs from the study’s own data.”

Dr. Paul Marik, a neurocritical care doctor who is the chairman and chief scientific officer of the FLCCC, said the study was “clearly designed to fail.”

“The authors selected out patients with mild or moderate disease who were at low risk of having a major event. Consequently it was grossly underpowered for any meaningful patient-centered outcome,” he said in a statement, later adding, “It is clear that a massive study would have been far better to determine greater statistical significance.”

Dr. Pierre Kory, FLCCC president and chief medical officer, said the study’s conclusion is “flat out wrong and highly misleading.”

“In the study’s control group, two-and-a-half times more patients had to be placed on mechanical ventilation—and there were three times more deaths in the control group,” Kory, a pulmonologist, said in a statement. “This shows that ivermectin causes a 75 [percent] risk reduction in death and further strengthens metadata of ivermectin’s large mortality benefits in severe COVID.”

Kory was referring to the results of the study, which found that four people in the ivermectin group needed mechanical ventilation compared to 10 people in the control group; six people in the ivermectin group needed admission to ICU compared to eight in the control group; and three people in the ivermectin group died, compared to 10 people in the control group.

Meanwhile, FLCCC co-founder Dr. Keith Berkowitz noted that the strongest p-value in the entire study, which is the measure of statistical significance, was for the 28-day hospital mortality, which was at .09. A p-value of less than .05 would be considered statistically significant.

Berkowitz commented that the study was “too limited and small to even be randomized,” but despite that, the results still “trended in favor of ivermectin.”

The FLCCC also criticized the fact that all the study participants had been experiencing symptoms for five days when they were enrolled in the study, and said that ivermectin treatment started too late in the disease.

“As those of you who have been following the FLCCC know, early treatment (within the first ONE OR TWO DAYS of symptom onset) is critical to slow virus replication and impeded progression to severe disease,” the FLCCC said. “So the authors of the study reported that ivermectin was not helpful in preventing progression to severe disease—among study patients who had been started too late in their disease at the start. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that [ivermectin] was not helpful in the treatment of COVID.”

“This study is in line with the major medical journals which will only publish negative studies on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine,” Marik said. “They simply will not publish any of the dozens of positive studies that have emerged. This constitutes enormous, deliberate publication bias, which is immensely injurious to scientific truth—and to patients throughout the world.”

The FLCCC group accused the I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial and JAMA of having “[dismissed] the totality of peer-reviewed, published evidence (and a number of summary meta-analyses) showing repeatedly shorter times to clinical recovery, fewer hospitalizations, and far less death when COVID patients are treated with ivermectin.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to JAMA and the study’s corresponding author, Dr. Steven Chee Loon Lim, for comment.



TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: covid; ivermectin; prevention

TABLE FROM THE FLCCC ALLIANCE COMMUNITY WEBSITE

This graph of the I-TECH study results clearly shows that even in this underpowered study, mortality benefits trend in FAVOR of ivermectin. Even though there were SEVEN fewer deaths with the use of ivermectin in this study— the authors STILL erroneously concluded that IVM was ineffective for COVID. The question to be answered here by JAMA is why they ever chose to publish this highly misleading study.


What happened to the patients when they did progress to severe disease? What did the study find out about its secondary outcomes, which included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events? Let’s take a look:

In which arm of the study would you prefer to be? The study showed that fewer people in the ivermectin arm of the trial required mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Fewer died, of course, while more experienced diarrhea. It is likely that most would say that they would MUCH prefer to be in the ivermectin arm of the study.


1 posted on 02/20/2022 8:32:54 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Did a search of the article - the word “zinc” did not appear. My understanding was that the ivermectin was to act as an ion to help the body absorb the zinc, same as HCQ or quercetin. So they are doing studies on these things without the zinc...would seem to not actually be studying what is said to help with COVID19.


2 posted on 02/20/2022 8:39:52 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
My understanding was that the ivermectin was to act as an ion ionophore to help the body absorb the zinc, same as HCQ or quercetin.

Regards,

3 posted on 02/20/2022 8:58:04 PM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

Good review of ivermectin antiviral actions in Jornal of Antibiotics...June 12 2020..Heidary is one of the authors...good reading...


4 posted on 02/20/2022 9:18:10 PM PST by Getready (Wisdom is more valuable than gold and diamonds, and harder to find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This doctor has been treating COVID patients with Ivermectin, other drugs, vitamins, and minerals. Check out her Twitter feed:

https://mobile.twitter.com/SabinehazanMD


5 posted on 02/20/2022 9:25:57 PM PST by ConjunctionJunction (Vim vi repellere licet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Scientific American calls the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) a fringe doctor’s group. FLCCC and others like them are encouraging and enabling people to take the drug off-label to treat or prevent COVID—despite a lack of solid evidence that it works against the disease and the fact that high doses can be harmful. In doing so, some experts believe these groups are undermining vaccination efforts. reliable safety data on the prolonged courses being recommended currently or in patients taking ivermectin while suffering from COVID-19 and all the immune and metabolic changes associated with this disease.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fringe-doctors-groups-promote-ivermectin-for-covid-despite-a-lack-of-evidence/


6 posted on 02/20/2022 9:38:36 PM PST by jonrick46 (Leftnicks chase illusions of motherships at the end of the pier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I guess they didn’t expect other doctors would just jump in and peer review it as well.


7 posted on 02/20/2022 9:45:44 PM PST by \/\/ayne (I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
Safety of high-dose ivermectin: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Results: The systematic search identified six studies for inclusion, revealing no differences in the number of individuals experiencing adverse events. A descriptive analysis of these clinical trials for a variety of indications showed no difference in the severity of the adverse events between standard (up to 400 μg/kg) and higher doses of ivermectin.

Organ system involvement only showed an increase in ocular events in the higher-dose group in one trial for the treatment of onchocerciasis, all of them transient and mild to moderate in intensity.

8 posted on 02/20/2022 9:50:26 PM PST by \/\/ayne (I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No Zinc and doxycycline (or azythromycin) and the study is trash. Zinc is the bullet that kills the virus after ivermectin gets it inside the cell wall. The antibiotic fights inflammation. This study is like saying that guns loaded with blanks are no more effective in stopping crime than no guns at all.


9 posted on 02/20/2022 10:13:41 PM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Scientific American endorsed Joe Biden for President. I no longer consider it scientific nor American. It’s just another biased rag that the leftists have taken over.


10 posted on 02/20/2022 10:14:31 PM PST by FreedomForce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
For this I am looking at what FLCCC did to reach its conclusions. This is from the bottom of the first page of the report (WARNING: Wall of text):

"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)"

I posted that to show reading a mass of statistics written out is really hard. When someone wants to hide what they do not want to admit openly, then writing out statistics in natural language is the way to make it as confusing as possible. What FLCCC did was go through this text, put the numbers into a table (Just like all the other data except these. Now lets make that text a little more readable:


Event:       group              statistics 
             Ivermectin         Control 
mechanical
ventilation  4 (1.7%)   10 (4.0%) RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17
ICU admin    6 (2.4%)    8 (3.2%) RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79
28-day 
in-hospital 
death        3 (1.2%)   10 (4.0%) RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09
Most common adverse event:
diarrhea 14 (5.8%) 4 (1.6%) - no details given -

This matches what FLCCC got out of the study. My conclusions:

First, the authors say this supports that "For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups", which is contradicted by what was found for ventilation and 28 day in hospital death. ICU admission was the only one where they were close, and one out of three is not a majority. Both mechanical ventilation and death are more severe secondary outcomes than ICU admission, when ICU is common for Covid.

Second, "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", when it prevented patient death better than the control. Because patients on ivermectin still got sick, then it was not considered to work, even though fewer were put on ventilators or died. "Not dying" is more important than "not having more severe symptoms and treatment".

Third, Ivermectin at 0.4 mg/kg may be too low. FLCCC recommends 0.6 mg/kg for hospitalized patients. I am not a doctor, so I can't comment beyond this.

Forth, those who advocate Ivermectin, support its use for prevention and early treatment, not after the disease has gotten to the point that inpatient care is needed. For this study, the patients were all but guaranteed to go from mild to severe disease. This study answers a question that no one supporting the use of Ivermectin is claiming.

When it comes to Covid, prevention and eartly treatment are effectively outlawed and forbidden subjects in scientific study. Finally, this is JAMA. They have politicized research and sacked members who question their politics in the past. This looks like they are still using their same old tricks now.

11 posted on 02/20/2022 10:18:04 PM PST by Widget Jr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
Ping.

One more for your collection.

12 posted on 02/20/2022 10:49:53 PM PST by Widget Jr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: \/\/ayne

From study at your link:

“there are not enough data to support a recommendation for its [Ivermectin’s] use in higher-than-approved doses.”

“Ivermectin frenzy: the advocates, anti-vaxxers and telehealth companies driving demand”:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/13/ivermectin-treatment-covid-19-anti-vaxxers-advocates


13 posted on 02/20/2022 10:50:31 PM PST by jonrick46 (Leftnicks chase illusions of motherships at the end of the pier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreedomForce

Thanks for making me aware of the anti-Trump sentiment in the scientific community. I think science and politics are like oil and water. The Scientific American’s commentary on Ivermectin is about that politicization.

You should see Johns Hopkins’ rebuke of President Trump and their endorsement of Biden. Nature was just as bad in their opposition against Trump. I bet they are sorry they endorsed Biden and wish Trump was in office now. Well, maybe they won’t say anything, due to their support for government action against man-made global warming. I hope when they understand it’s the sun causing global warming, they don’t shroud the earth with a cloud of moon dust.


14 posted on 02/20/2022 11:30:28 PM PST by jonrick46 (Leftnicks chase illusions of motherships at the end of the pier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Not much of a response. Yes, they don’t recommend it, but higher doses are not harmful as you seem to think they are. You must really hate Ivermectin for some strange reason.


15 posted on 02/21/2022 5:03:21 AM PST by \/\/ayne (I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

That’s the word. :-)

Thanks.


16 posted on 02/21/2022 7:40:43 AM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson