ivmmeta | •97% of 37 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (95% of all 57 studies). 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.
•Random effects meta-analysis with
pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported shows 78% and
85% improvement for
early
treatment and prophylaxis (RR
0.22
[0.12-0.39] and
0.15
[0.09-0.25]). Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis:
80% and
87% (RR
0.20
[0.14-0.28] and
0.13
[0.07-0.25]),
and after restriction to 32 peer-reviewed studies:
80% and
88% (RR
0.20
[0.12-0.34] and
0.12
[0.05-0.30]).
•81% and
96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis
(RR 0.19
[0.07-0.54] and
0.04
[0.00-0.58]). Statistically
significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization,
cases, and viral clearance.
•100% of the
17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects,
with an estimated improvement of
73% and
83% respectively (RR 0.27
[0.18-0.41] and
0.17
[0.05-0.61]), and 93% of all
29 RCTs.
•The probability that an ineffective
treatment generated results as positive as the
57 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in
5 trillion (p = 0.00000000000021).
•Heterogeneity arises from many factors including
treatment delay, patient population, the effect measured, variants, and
treatment regimens. The consistency of positive results across a wide variety
of cases is remarkable. Heterogeneity is low in specific cases, for example
early treatment mortality.
•While many treatments have some level
of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid
infection. Only 28% 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. Not doing so increases the risk of
COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral
damage.
•Many studies do not specify
administration, or specify fasting. Administration with food may significantly
increase plasma and tissue concentration.
•All data to reproduce this paper and
the sources are in the appendix.
See [Bryant, Hill, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli] for other meta analyses, all
with similar results confirming effectiveness.
Show results for:
All studiesExclusionsMortalityVentilationICU admissionHospitalizationCOVID-19 casesViral clearancePeer reviewedRCT mortalityAll RCTs
00.250.50.7511.251.51.752+Kory et al.0.31[0.20-0.47]RRCIHill et al.0.25[0.12-0.52]Bryant et al.0.32[0.14-0.72]Lawrie et al.0.17[0.08-0.35]Nardelli et al.0.21[0.11-0.36]WHO (OR)0.19[0.09-0.36]ivmmeta0.28[0.17-0.46]Ivermectin meta analysis mortality resultsivmmeta.com 6/3/21Lower Risk
00.250.50.7511.251.51.752+Kory et al.0.31[0.20-0.47]RRCIHill et al.0.25[0.12-0.52]Bryant et al.0.32[0.14-0.72]Lawrie et al.0.17[0.08-0.35]Nardelli et al.0.21[0.11-0.36]WHO (OR)0.19[0.09-0.36]ivmmeta0.28[0.17-0.46]Ivermectin meta analysis mortality resultsivmmeta.com 6/3/21Lower Risk
| Improvement | Studies | Authors | Patients | |
| Early treatment | 78% [61‑88%] | 23 | 236 | 3,227 |
| Late treatment | 45% [27‑59%] | 20 | 165 | 6,595 |
| Prophylaxis | 85% [75‑91%] | 14 | 108 | 8,789 |
| Mortality | 72% [54‑83%] | 21 | 195 | 7,525 |
| RCTs only | 65% [49‑75%] | 29 | 310 | 5,161 |
| All studies | 72% [63‑78%] | 57 | 509 | 18,611 |
| 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 | 57 | 18,611 | 72% [63‑78%] |
0 comments:
Post a Comment