Covid Analysis, Dec 14, 2021
Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant after exclusions. 47 studies from 43 independent teams in 19 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (36 primary outcome, 33 most serious outcome).
•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 66% [53‑76%] and 83% [73‑89%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis (excluding all GMK/BBC team studies), for primary outcomes, for peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs.
•Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 58 of 70 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 26% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
•Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, which may be significantly more effective.
•Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used, including treatments, as supported by Pfizer [Pfizer, TrialSiteNews]. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.
| Studies | Prophylaxis | Early treatment | Late treatment | Patients | Authors | |
| All studies | 70 | 83% [73‑89%] | 66% [53‑76%] | 37% [23‑49%] | 49,938 | 669 |
| Peer-reviewed | 48 | 85% [74‑92%] | 70% [53‑81%] | 39% [19‑54%] | 17,913 | 496 |
| With GMK/BBC exclusions | 50 | 80% [66‑89%] | 73% [63‑80%] | 47% [26‑62%] | 37,998 | 545 |
| Randomized Controlled Trials | 31 | 84% [25‑96%] | 63% [44‑75%] | 23% [-1‑41%] | 6,858 | 358 |
| RCTs w/GMK/BBC exclusions | 27 | 84% [25‑96%] | 68% [53‑78%] | 25% [-2‑44%] | 4,583 | 330 |
| 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 70 studies is estimated to be 1 in 879 billion.
•Over 20 countries have adopted ivermectin for COVID-19. 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.
Ivermectin meta analysis mortality results
[—-]
Reszta dla lekarzy, laikom nie radze się tym podniecać…MD