Posted on 07/18/2021 8:22:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Proponents of ivermectin for COVID-19 have long been talking about an expected review and meta-analysis led by Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool.
These results were finally published this week in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, and they're positive -- but they haven't escaped criticism, and most researchers still want results from a randomized controlled trial.
The review and meta-analysis was conducted as part of the International Ivermectin Project Team from December 2020 to May 2021. Ivermectin proponents said Hill was conducting the analysis for the WHO, but Hill recently told MedPage Today the analysis was supported by Fort Worth, Texas-based Rainwater Charitable Foundation, and not WHO.
Hill and colleagues assessed 24 randomized trials totaling 3,328 patients that involved some type of control, whether it was standard of care or another therapy. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 400 participants. Eight of the studies had been published, nine were preprints, six were unpublished results shared for the analysis, and one was reported on a trial registry website.
In the 11 trials (totaling 2,127 patients) that focused on moderate or severe infection, there was a 56% reduction in mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.77, P=0.004), with 3% of patients on ivermectin dying compared with 9% of controls.
But the researchers noted that the total number of deaths was small (128) and there was no difference between ivermectin and controls in the subgroup with severe disease. As for moderate disease, they reported a 70% improvement in survival with ivermectin (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.15-0.58, P=0.0004).
Use of ivermectin was also associated with a reduction in time to recovery of 1.58 days compared with controls (95% CI -2.8 to -0.35, P=0.01) and with a shorter duration of hospitalization (-4.27 days, 95% CI -8.6 to -0.06, P=0.05).
However, the drug was not associated with a lower risk of hospitalization, though a sensitivity analysis that included any hospitalizations within 12 hours of taking the drug did show a reduction with ivermectin (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.80, P=0.01).
Many studies included in the analysis were not peer reviewed, which was a limitation; additionally, studies varied widely in terms of dosage, treatment duration, and inclusion criteria. Studies also included a range of comparators, including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, standard of care, and placebo.
The authors concluded that their results "need to be validated in larger confirmatory trials" -- a fact that David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, who has been interested in evaluating ivermectin for COVID-19 outpatients, agreed with.
On Twitter, Boulware pointed out that there was no mention of patients receiving steroids, which could be a major confounder.
As for the outpatient findings, he noted that only two of seven trials showed a reduction in symptom duration, and that a small sample size didn't offer adequate analysis as to whether hospitalization risk was reduced by early treatment.
"Thus, there remains a need for phase 3 randomized clinical trials testing early ivermectin treatment to be completed in order to delineate what is the clinical benefit of early treatment? Quicker resolution of symptoms? Less hospitalization?" he tweeted. "Personally, I would have liked to see more separation of outpatient vs hospitalized therapy, as blurring everything together is not particularly helpful."
"Of course, rolling out vaccination as quickly and widespread as possible would negate the need to use ivermectin as a treatment," he added. "So big picture, vaccines are the better solution."
Boulware noted that there are multiple ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials "which will provide definitive results," including the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial that's aiming to enroll about 1,500 patients in its ivermectin arm.
One Argentinian randomized controlled trial of 500 patients recently published in BMC Infectious Diseases found that ivermectin didn't prevent hospitalization among outpatients with COVID-19.
If they had worked as hard on studying Ivermectin and HCQ for COVID treatment, this whole thing would have blown over with hardly a ripple in our lives.
But noooo, they had to push their EUA vax and kill people and destroy lives to do it.
Any cure for Covid is absolutely a forbidden topic and speaking of it will result in instant punishment. Any reference is deemed double plus bad.
Any cure for Covid is absolutely a forbidden topic and speaking of it will result in instant punishment. Any reference is deemed double plus bad.
The “experts” know it works.
BUT this is NOT about public health, it is about Control and the Globalist Agenda.
They have been lying to our face from the very beginning. And laughing about it.
No more for me. They are simply full of crap.
no trial will ever be good enough especially when the big money is behind vaccines.
All 24 studies showed some kind of improvement with IVM.
What are the odds it really doesn’t work?
Infintesimal.
Not dealing with the politics but just the Meta analysis. This shows a relatively weak showing for ivermectin. It is perhaps useful in early disease but fails to rise to the level of an efficacious treatment.
This is a very small number for a meta and is equivocal in results. As such from strictly a data interpretation it would make sense that a large RCT should be undertaken to achieve a definitive result.
The data on ivermectin is as clear as mud which is consistent with clinical observation.
“most researchers still want results from a randomized controlled trial”
Like the one that was just foisted upon the entire USA by Moderna, Pfizer and J&J? Like those? Then what’s the problem? Might disrupt the cash cow.
Isn’t early ivermectin supposed to prevent progression to ‘moderate’ and ‘severe’ stages? If a cake is a flop 30% of the time, and 50% of those cakes are unsalvageable, it’s probably the recipe.
Funny how they just seem to never bother getting around to doing a large study on Ivermectin...but for the past year, all the experts have been saying that we need a large study.
Funny how that works...
Lol ….a peer reviewed random control study on mask efficacy regarding transmissions of airborne respiratory viruses STILL DOESNT EXIST…. Isn’t that the good standard…. As they apparently are telling us?
Perhaps you need to look at the data from India.
The bad orangeman mentioned those words. Bad orangeman is bad. Therefore Ivermectin and HCQ is bad.
“Any cure for Covid is absolutely a forbidden topic and speaking of it will result in instant punishment.”
And impeachment and removal from office.
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.