#ivermectin for covid has been in heavy-play mode in the media again.
Why?
A new trial report, and 3 meta-analyses.
As usual, half the world thinks these are proof of the #ivermectincure and half thinks it's bogus.
Why can't we all get along?
foxnews.com/media/biologis…
Why?
A new trial report, and 3 meta-analyses.
As usual, half the world thinks these are proof of the #ivermectincure and half thinks it's bogus.
Why can't we all get along?
foxnews.com/media/biologis…
@DrAndrewHill released his team's meta-analysis right on the heels of 2 other meta-analyses, one positive & one negative. Dr Hill, who has been a bit of an ivermectin cheerleader, had a positive conclusion:
academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-a…
academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-a…
A huge concern w/ any meta-analysis is "Garbage In, Garbage Out" - and we've plenty of garbage in the IM world.
Whether a study rates inclusion and how it gets weighted in a meta-analysis can swing the conclusion.
These meta-analyses don't move the needle.
Whether a study rates inclusion and how it gets weighted in a meta-analysis can swing the conclusion.
These meta-analyses don't move the needle.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GidMK/status/1412635807702142982
What about the new IVERCOR trial?
bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…
Ivermectin proponents will point out that 1/3rd fewer of the treated patients developed severe disease;
doubters will observe the difference was not statistically significant.
bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…
Ivermectin proponents will point out that 1/3rd fewer of the treated patients developed severe disease;
doubters will observe the difference was not statistically significant.
This study had many of the same flaws we keep seeing.
Treatment protocol did not follow the most positive IM trials - dose was below the 12+mg level for avg adult, and avg treatment began 4d after symptoms.
SOONER is BETTER with ivermectin -- if it really works.
Treatment protocol did not follow the most positive IM trials - dose was below the 12+mg level for avg adult, and avg treatment began 4d after symptoms.
SOONER is BETTER with ivermectin -- if it really works.
Then there's the randomization.
Another recurring theme.
The placebo group was a bit sicker than the ivermectin group.
Can having 8 more diabetic patients matter - when the outcome was 7 fewer people hospitalized?
Yes.
Another recurring theme.
The placebo group was a bit sicker than the ivermectin group.
Can having 8 more diabetic patients matter - when the outcome was 7 fewer people hospitalized?
Yes.
We are still left needing more information to weigh in on ivermectin with authority.
You'd think researchers would repeat the most compelling studies, to see if their findings can be reproduced.
This has not happened with the two studies that jump out as "compelling."
You'd think researchers would repeat the most compelling studies, to see if their findings can be reproduced.
This has not happened with the two studies that jump out as "compelling."
The HCW trials from Argentina - in which NO ONE who had IV/carrageenan prophylaxis developed covid while 58.2% of controls did, was just too good to be true.
But I can't see what went wrong with it.
It needs to be repeated!
media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-…
But I can't see what went wrong with it.
It needs to be repeated!
media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-…
And I love this study from Iran:
clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/6…
If you get past the mimeograph look to its trial design report, it's a clever way to rapidly investigate if IM works as exposure prophylaxis.
Control group was oddly high - 58% again - but IM group only 7% infection rate.
clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/6…
If you get past the mimeograph look to its trial design report, it's a clever way to rapidly investigate if IM works as exposure prophylaxis.
Control group was oddly high - 58% again - but IM group only 7% infection rate.
This trial begs to be repeated on a bigger budget.
That these are the strongest studies for IM - 58% vs 0%, 58% vs 7% - and both were exposure prophylaxis suggests that this is the angle to explore.
Western studies of IM for *treatment* have not done well.
That these are the strongest studies for IM - 58% vs 0%, 58% vs 7% - and both were exposure prophylaxis suggests that this is the angle to explore.
Western studies of IM for *treatment* have not done well.
https://twitter.com/buzzhollandermd/status/1340737265606135809
So - when we will we "know" if ivermectin is effective vs covid?
We are promised that "large randomized trials" are underway which will "answer" the question.
Sadly, not.
The UK "PRINCIPLE", US "ACTIV-6," & Brazil/McMasters "TOGETHER," all allow enrollment 7-14d after diagnosis.
We are promised that "large randomized trials" are underway which will "answer" the question.
Sadly, not.
The UK "PRINCIPLE", US "ACTIV-6," & Brazil/McMasters "TOGETHER," all allow enrollment 7-14d after diagnosis.
I suspect they will be negative, or marginal at best.
Ivermectin haters will have a field day.
Ivermectin fans will decry the poor study designs.
Dr Kory will continue to melt down in his anguish.
Ivermectin haters will have a field day.
Ivermectin fans will decry the poor study designs.
Dr Kory will continue to melt down in his anguish.
https://twitter.com/PierreKory/status/1393543932492058631
The whole scene is frustrating.
I continue to think there is some real but small chance ivermectin is effective vs covid, esp early in the course of exposure.
I'd like to see the question actually answered.
Much like mask efficacy, school closures, etc, I doubt we ever will.
I continue to think there is some real but small chance ivermectin is effective vs covid, esp early in the course of exposure.
I'd like to see the question actually answered.
Much like mask efficacy, school closures, etc, I doubt we ever will.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
