Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies

For those who insist on science, from ivmmeta.com h/t Bil:

Covid Analysis, Sep 14, 2021, Version 118discussion updates (V1 Nov 26, 2020)  [GMK response, Elgazzar

Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 69% [54‑79%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.
Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 29 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.
Studies Prophylaxis Early treatment Late treatment Patients Authors
All studies 63 86% [75‑92%] 69% [54‑79%] 40% [24‑52%] 26,422 623
Peer-reviewed 45 86% [74‑93%] 70% [52‑81%] 43% [21‑59%] 17,316 490
Randomized Controlled Trials 31 84% [25‑96%] 64% [48‑74%] 30% [2‑50%] 6,561 369
Percentage improvement with ivermectin treatment
There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 63 studies is estimated to be 1 in 1 trillion.
While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 27% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Those denying the efficacy of treatments share responsibility for the increased risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and the increased mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.
The evidence base is much larger and has much lower conflict of interest than typically used to approve drugs.
All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix. See [Bryant, Hariyanto, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli] for other meta analyses with similar results confirming efficacy. et al.69%0.31 [0.20-0.47]Improvement, RR [CI]Bryant et al.62%0.38 [0.19-0.73]Lawrie et al.83%0.17 [0.08-0.35]Nardelli et al.79%0.21 [0.11-0.36]Hariyanto et al.69%0.31 [0.15-0.62]WHO (OR)81%0.19 [0.09-0.36]ivmmeta58%0.42 [0.30-0.59]Ivermectin meta analysis mortality resultsivmmeta.com Sep 14, 2021Lower Risk

Evidence base used for other COVID-19 approvals
Medication Studies Patients Improvement
Budesonide (UK) 1 1,779 17%
Remdesivir (USA) 1 1,063 31%
Casiri/imdevimab (USA) 1 799 66%
Ivermectin evidence 63 26,398 67% [59‑74%]

Continue reading→

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.