Posted on 12/24/2020 2:19:15 PM PST by absalom01
Key Points Question Does fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and σ-1 receptor agonist, prevent clinical deterioration in outpatients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?
Findings In this randomized trial that included 152 adult outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 and symptom onset within 7 days, clinical deterioration occurred in 0 patients treated with fluvoxamine vs 6 (8.3%) patients treated with placebo over 15 days, a difference that was statistically significant.
Meaning In this preliminary study, adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 treated with fluvoxamine, compared with placebo, had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days; however, determination of clinical efficacy would require larger randomized trials with more definitive outcome measures.
Abstract Importance Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may lead to serious illness as a result of an excessive immune response. Fluvoxamine may prevent clinical deterioration by stimulating the σ-1 receptor, which regulates cytokine production.
Objective To determine whether fluvoxamine, given during mild COVID-19 illness, prevents clinical deterioration and decreases the severity of disease.
Design, Setting, and Participants Double-blind, randomized, fully remote (contactless) clinical trial of fluvoxamine vs placebo. Participants were community-living, nonhospitalized adults with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, with COVID-19 symptom onset within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater. One hundred fifty-two participants were enrolled from the St Louis metropolitan area (Missouri and Illinois) from April 10, 2020, to August 5, 2020. The final date of follow-up was September 19, 2020.
Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of fluvoxamine (n = 80) or placebo (n = 72) 3 times daily for 15 days.
Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting both criteria of (1) shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and (2) oxygen saturation less than 92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.
Results Of 152 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 46 [13] years; 109 [72%] women), 115 (76%) completed the trial. Clinical deterioration occurred in 0 of 80 patients in the fluvoxamine group and in 6 of 72 patients in the placebo group (absolute difference, 8.7% [95% CI, 1.8%-16.4%] from survival analysis; log-rank P = .009). The fluvoxamine group had 1 serious adverse event and 11 other adverse events, whereas the placebo group had 6 serious adverse events and 12 other adverse events.
Conclusions and Relevance In this preliminary study of adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19, patients treated with fluvoxamine, compared with placebo, had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days. However, the study is limited by a small sample size and short follow-up duration, and determination of clinical efficacy would require larger randomized trials with more definitive outcome measures.
Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04342663
Small study, but massive results.
It's becoming clear that there are amost certainly two different early outpatient therapies that will keep almost everyone out of the hospital.
HCQ early combination therapy would likewise eliminate the risk of hospital overcrowding, though with likely lower average effectiveness.
The difference being, it's going to be hard to ignore this now that JAMA has published this paper.
You may know it by its brand name, Luvox. Of course, with flu at the start of the name, even I could have predicted this :)
Crikey, just give them IV vitamin C already (MATH+ therapy), and stop the rope-a-dope play doctor routine. So sick of us being told that this virus needs all sorts of crazy off-label interventions.
Listening to this medical crap is about as uplifting as the magic bullet theory.
The whole repurposing of drugs selected by computer models is really an amazing phenomenon. And SARS-CoV2 seems to be one of the most vulnerable viruses out there.
Add Indomethacin to the “random drug kills COVID” list. And I have this one in my medicine cabinet.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.14.20245266v1.full.pdf
Ivermectin appears better than HCQ.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/i-mask-prophylaxis-treatment-protocol/
https://www.evms.edu/covid-19/covid_care_for_clinicians/
Ping
How could something named “fluvoxamine” not work?
Sorry. I’m not taking Prozac for a virus, regardless. I took it once for three days 20 years ago and had a bad reaction to it.
My experience is that they will send you home unless your become so sick that they need to put you on a ventilator. I have the ground glass pneumonia, not too bad and they gave me tessarole perles, and a broad spectrum antibiotic which I had to insist on, thinking they would give my Zithro. No fancy treatments, live or die and the doctors have no curiosity and seem disinterested.
For Gout
Insanity.
Good luck.
That is Prozac they are talking about which has been around a very long time. I take 30mgs a day for Anxiety, plus Vitamin D, C, & B1.. Although I don’t consider myself Bullet Proof for Covid, good know I have added protection.
Disagree, what they are finding is that there are off patent drugs out there that can work rather than taking untested Vaccines that could cause side effects we don’t know about.
“Disagree, what they are finding is that there are off patent drugs out there that can work rather than taking untested Vaccines that could cause side effects we don’t know about.”
Actually I agree with you in the sense that they should look at everything, and that any antiviral, corticosteroid, blood thinner, antibiotic etc should be looked at. My comment is more directed at the refusal or resistance to use things like IV-C, which has decades of research and proven clinical use. It is so different in the wellness MD field, where a MD will treat the patient as a partner in health.
I agree with the vitamin c iv. After I read Norman Cousins book, Anatomy of an illnesses I was sold along with what I read of dr. Linus pauling .
The ground glass pneumonia in my reading is related to thiamine deficiency. That is why the ‘T’ in the MATH+ cv19 protocol is Thiamine aka vitamin B-1. The great thing about taking B complex even every meal, is that whatever is not used gets excreted.
Friend of mine at a local hospital here, not MD, describes how discouraging it is working in ICU. The patients are being given minimal treatment (thanks Fauci) and then dying. She was so worried about infecting others that she has not left her home except for work since April. And no one had told her about the MATH+ protocol or any home based protocol to boost immunity. Meanwhile, she and many of the other RNs and support personnel are terrified of the vaxx.
No, this is Luvox, a different SSRI.
But according to what I understand, the group that published this article had looked at all of the SSRI’s that were FDA approved, only selecting Luvox to test because it seemed to them to be most likely to have a strong effect.
So, Fluoxetine, generic for Prozac could well have similar effects.
Ivermectin has been a hard sell, since most of the evidence showing its effectiveness consists of retrospective studies. I suspect that it’s highly effective at keeping people out of the hospital.
But the problem is political, not medical. For a lot of bad reasons, the Democrat party, the MSM, and the howler monkeys on Twitter have decided that There Must Be No Treatment, Only A Vaccine Will Do. (Well, until they think of their next demand.)
This strikes me as different, in that there’s a real, double-blind RCT, published in a JAMA property, and that this was used as an off-label treatment right in ground zero of Covid madness: the San Francisco Bay area.
With a competent media, or even a functioning opposition party, it would become difficult for Gavin Newsom, London Breed, or Eric Garcetti to continue their draconian war against small business in FR’s home state.
On balance, I think that would be a good thing.
This is not Prozac.
If we were really serious about mitigating the public health threat posed by this CCP virus (and there is a threat to the sick and the elderly), we would have behaved very differently.
In February and March, the HCQ+Zinc+macrolide outpatient therapy was the best bet we had. At minimum, half of the people who died in the spring would have been saved, and up to as many as 70%, the way it’s looking now.
By July, there was really good evidence that ivermectin was showing promising results, and was likely even more effective at keeping people out of hospitals than HCQ combination therapy.
Now we have this. But, here’s the thing: the authors have decided that what they need is a larger RCT, to decide if this is 99% effective, or 100% effective. Same goes for ivermectin. The safety profile is known, and there’s a vast body of evidence suggesting that it, too, could be as close to 100% effective when used early.
Of course, nothing is 100%, but the reason that we’re allowing the middle class, small businesses, and working people to have their lives destroyed is to “save the hospitals from overcapacity”. Any of these therapies, on a population level, would take that excuse off of the table.
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.