Posted on 08/04/2021 4:43:38 PM PDT by gas_dr
Background
Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) replication in the early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 treatment is conflicting.
Objectives
To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID‐19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 (postexposure prophylaxis).
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), medRxiv, and Research Square, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 26 May 2021.
Selection criteria
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID‐19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity, treated in inpatient or outpatient settings, and for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.
Co‐interventions had to be the same in both study arms.
We excluded studies comparing ivermectin to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.
Data collection and analysis
We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. The primary analysis excluded studies with high risk of bias. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes 1. to treat inpatients with moderate‐to‐severe COVID‐19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, adverse events, quality of life, duration of hospitalization, and viral clearance; 2. to treat outpatients with mild COVID‐19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, admission to hospital, adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance; (3) to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection: SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, development of COVID‐19 symptoms, adverse events, mortality, admission to hospital, and quality of life.
Main results
We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID‐19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID‐19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Eight studies had an open‐label design, six were double‐blind and placebo‐controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.
Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.
We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies.
Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for inpatient COVID‐19 treatment
We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low‐certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to day 28 assessed as need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.59; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low‐certainty evidence) or need for supplemental oxygen (0 participants required supplemental oxygen; 1 study, 45 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), adverse events within 28 days (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.97; 1 study, 152 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), and viral clearance at day seven (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.48; 2 studies, 159 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on clinical improvement up to 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 study; 73 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) −0.10 days, 95% CI −2.43 to 2.23; 1 study; 45 participants; low‐certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life up to 28 days.
Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for outpatient COVID‐19 treatment
We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality up to 28 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; very low‐certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to 14 days assessed as need for IMV (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.47; 1 study, 398 participants; very low‐certainty evidence) or non‐IMV or high flow oxygen requirement (0 participants required non‐IMV or high flow; 1 study, 398 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo reduces or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; 1 study, 24 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on the number of participants with symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 1 study, 398 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and adverse events within 28 days (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; low‐certainty evidence). None of the studies reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for primary analysis. No study reported hospital admission or quality of life up to 14 days.
Ivermectin compared to no treatment for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection
We found one study. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study, 304 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID‐19 symptoms and adverse events up to 14 days that were included in a secondary analysis due to high risk of bias. No study reported SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days.
Authors' conclusions
Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials.
I work in modeling and statistics in industry. It I did in my line of work what Pharma has done for the cv19vx, I’d be out of a job.
Doctors on this site have written that they are not opposed to this treatment on a “right to try” basis, but at some point , if it is not working then more effective treatments need to be used. <<<<
and what is the “more effective treatments” you speak of?????
we all need to know what those are.....can you list them here?
Thanks in advance!
This video is a great analysis of what is happening in FL.
The first 17 minutes are numbers and stats about who is in the hospital.
The 17 -35 Minutes is about early treatments, and monoclonal antibodies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuJyUSB6J5s
But in many states it isn't illegal. Either way, all the patent office is approving is a delivery system. Whether someone in a particular case can misuse that delivery system for an illegal purpose isn't the patent office's concern.
...say I have invented an efficient, effortless way to genocide murder masses of human beings.The patent office would refuse the patent because genocide is illegal.
Substitute murder, or any other crime, for genocide and see how ridiculous that standard is.
Your standard says semi-automatic rifles shouldn't be patentable because they can be used to easily commit murder.
Or the guillotine could never be patented because it could be misused for mass murder.
REAL doctors don’t jump up and down waving, “I’m a real doctor, i really am ... really” in response to a post not addressed to any specific “doctor”, fake or otherwise, and which no names were explicitly named ...
apparently you believed the post must have been aimed at you ... i wonder why ... could it be BECAUSE you KNOW you are a fake “doctor”? no one but you responded to my post, so that must be the case ...
it’s hard for me to believe that you were stupid enough to so blatantly give yourself away like that ...
i do believe the fake “doctor” doth protest too much ...
I look forward to your using this nasal spray. Send us a report on whether there is Graphene in it? LOL.
I’ll beam you the report but you’re going to need a 5G device to receive it.
Well you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.
Have a blessed day
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good insight. They just don't 'read' as legit. They never have.
gas_dr sometimes postures like he's a television doctor, 'saving lives' in every episode, but the doctors I've known don't have that exact 'over the top swagger' (i.e., "I'm a hero!") in which they insist other specialists know nothing and only his advice can 'save you. ' I think it's because he tries too hard to elevate his opinion above that of real doctors (e.g., Dr. McCullough or Zelenko.)
I skimmed his fake posts and found gas_dr repeatedly insisting to others they reject Ivermectin and get 'Regeneron".
He might be unaware that he's recommending the name of a company, and not the product they sell. I could not find that treatment at first while searching the Internet because it's not the name of an infusion, it's the company that sells it. One has to ask for REGEN-COV.
There are terms under REGEN-COV is given (exposure prophylaxis and those ill with at risk factors) but he insists everyone who wants it will be given it, because he doesn't know any better:
I know you are an Ivermectin proponent. As I stated, with immediate attention at the onset of symptoms, at this time, there is no one who will not get the treatment. This is the best treatment option, this is the closest to a cure, and is absolutely the best medicine available. Please instead of trying to detract from this life saving therapy, stop promoting weaker and less effective treatments.
In reality, all those not deemed 'high risk' or too ill are barred from receiving this treatment, but he makes blanket statements warning people not to prepare with Ivermectin or HCQ/AZ because so-called 'REGEN-COV' is just waiting for them.
Rules in effect for REGEN-COV:
The original EUA for REGEN-COV EUA Regeneron LOA Treatment and Prophylaxsis of COVID-19 (fda.gov)
And the July 30 REGEN-COV revisied EUA FDA authorizes REGEN-COV monoclonal antibody therapy for post-exposure prophylaxis (prevention) for COVID-19 | FDA
Sometimes he says, 'if you meet the criteria' and sometime he doesn't mention that part. But he does say he has never been 'turned back' when requesting monoclonals ( 48 of 81)
and this one:
" They are in all major cities and any primary care or specialist physician can write for this actual life saving infusion.
Otherwise you are gambling with your own life listening to people who have never practiced medicine tell you how to treat a disease. I have used ivermectin in the treatment of Covid. It is neither a cure nor a particularly effective control of the disease". 17 of 133 gas_dr
It just sounds like all you have to do is ask and show up.
I've read people on FR and on the Internet saying they can't find a prescriber.
Why scare these people with fear of dying from an illness that isn't nearly as he, the CDC/NIH/FAUCI pretend it is, why make blanket promises to them they'll get monoclonals 'anywhere', why denounce alternative treatments that other doctors like Dr. Zelenko, McCullough have found safe and effective? What kind of 'doctor' operates this way?
Real doctors educate when there is misinformation as many of my colleagues do (Mom MD / Ark). There are not ethical issues to present the facts, and there is no liability as I am not specifically treating someone. I am, however, offering data to clarify misinformation from those who attempt to practice medicine without a license, which may in fact be unethical and illegal.
You are implying a double standard to discredit several well respected physicians — it is a very poor argumen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You and your peer fake doctors are not ‘real’ doctors. You have zero curiousity as to evolving data and facts. Just PUSHTHEVAX no matter what happens, and to whom.
What’s freakish is that you pretend your fake credentials should supercede those of experts like Dr. McCullough and Dr. Zelenko, who are not anonymous fake doctors on the internet but stand by their treatment protocols, putting forth their names, reputations etc. and enduring the attacks of the deep state.
Your kind just advises blind faith in a system attacking the public.
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.