The #Activ6 trial ivermectin 600μg/kg is a scientific fraud. medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Here is how they justify dosage and duration: "a possible anti-viral activity with increasing dose." citing Krolewiecki et al. study. 1/n
If we look at the protocol of the activ6 trial published as a supplement of the 400μg/kg arm published in the JAMA: jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…, here is the rationale for selection of dose (600μg/kg). 2/n
Reference 66 is Krolewiecki et al. study. 1rst problem: Krolewiecki study doesn't contain a 300μg/kg as they claim here. What is right is "The anti-viral activity was identified in the subgroup of patients on ivermectin with higher mean plasma concentrations."
3/n
Now if we look at the Krolewiecki study: sciencedirect.com/science/articl… we see that there is a single dosage of IVM: 600μg/kg during 5 days.
4/n
No difference in viral load is seen in the first place, but the authors identify 2 sub-groups according to mean plasma IVM concentration (+/-160ng/mL) and noticed an antiviral effect in the high concentration group: 5/n
"Mean IVM plasma concentration levels also showed a positive correlation with viral decay rate".
6/n
The authors stressed that "diet is a key variable affecting oral bioavailability of IVM, with increased plasma concentrations achieved with fed state" and identify it as a potential cause of variation of mean plasma concentration in their trial. 7/n
The conclusion for the rationale for selection of dose from Krolewiecki study is that not only dosage is important, but prescription with or after fat meal is crucial to see antiviral effect.
8/n
Now if we return to #activ6 protocol, we see that: 1/ They misinterpret Krolewiecki study by acknowledging only dosage parameter: "These data argue for the use of higher dosing regimens in clinical trials" when the prescription on fed state is crucial. 9/n
2/ They especially specify that drug should be taken on an empty stomach, knowing from Krolewiecki et al. that this is the key factor that lead to low levels of mean IVM plasma concentration, thus the less chance of seeing an antiviral effect. 10/n
Conclusion: the rationale for dosing of #Activ6 trial ivermectin 600μg/kg is based on potential anti-viral effect, but the whole trial is not designed to evaluate the anti-viral effect.
11/n
In addition to the low mean plasma concentration targeted, the key factor of an anti-viral drug should start the treatment early (<5 days after symptoms onset or even better <3 days).
12/n
See the paxlovid trial for an example of how an antiviral should be tested in clinical trials: nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…: early treatment, viral load measures at regular intervals, relevant inclusion criteria and outcome.
13/n
Now, I hope @NEJM, @JAMA_current or @TheLancet will refuse to publish this fraudulent trial designed to fail, and I hope reviewers will request a clear explanation of the "empty stomach" choice of the investigators.
14/n
Tout le monde saute sur le dernier préprint de Boulware et cie, le mec qui ne serait pas capable de détecter à l'aveugle une différence entre une pomme et une orange.
1/n
Rappelons donc que cette étude hérite des biais similaires au bras IVM 400μg/kg d'#activ6, même si on aurait pu espérer que la meilleure posologie (dosage et durée) apporte des résultats positifs: 1/ Traitement à jeun.
.@VPrasadMDMPH your interpretation of Axfors meta-analysis is completely wrong. It is not about early treatment. Everybody understand covid has several phases of illness that should be treated differently. 1/n
I respect your point of view as I think you're honest and sincere in your analyses. But I don't understand your leaning to wait for big RCT before doing something, for 2 reasons:
2/n
1/ Repurposed drugs will NEVER be tested in appropriate EARLY treatment RCT. you can search for it, you'll not find a single well-done early treatment RCT for repurposed drug aiming to assess efficacy against hospitalization and death.
3/n
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
"The laudable goal of making clinical decisions based on evidence can be impaired by the restricted quality and scope of what is collected as “best available evidence.”
1/n
The authoritative aura given to the collection, however, may lead to major abuses that produce inappropriate guidelines or doctrinaire dogmas for clinical practice."
2/n
"The threat of official, corporate, or private abuse will always remain, however, whenever any collection of information has been prominently heralded as the “best available evidence.”
3/n
qui se permettent de détruire la vie de millions de gens avec des NPI inefficaces tout en écartant tous les médicaments repositionnés comme l'a fait la défunte task force, ou est-ce que vous allez vous réveiller et faire quelque chose de sérieux, pour une fois?
3/3
Pendant la crise covid, on a vu deux erreurs majeures d'interprétation des biais des études scientifiques, relayées par les milieux #zététiciens et scientistes de tout bord.
Pour ces milieux:
1/n
1/La conception de l'étude (notamment observationnelle vs randomisée) serait un facteur majeur de biais. En cas de manque de concordance il faudrait s'appuyer uniquement sur les résultats des études randomisées.
2/n
On a beaucoup entendu cet argument sur les traitements du covid comme HCQ ou IVM.
2/S'intéresser au financement des études et conflits d'intérêts potentiels des auteurs serait du complotisme et n'aurait aucun intérêt scientifique.
3/n
@OsonsCauser@humanite_fr Malheureusement tout est faux dans votre vidéo, à l'image de celle que vous aviez faites sur l'hydroxychloroquine, pour laquelle vous vous étiez contenté de 3 clics pour trouver des tableaux biaisés.
1/n
@OsonsCauser@humanite_fr Revenons au vaccin. Tout votre raisonnement consiste à faire confiance aux autorités sanitaires pour les effets secondaires sans aller voir l'état des connaissances scientifiques. Votre conclusion qu'on peut faire confiance aux autorités est donc une tautologie.
3/n