Difference between revisions of "Ivermectin has beneficial effects against SARS-COV-2"
Tag: Undo |
Tag: Undo |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
for peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs. Results are very robust — <b>in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 60 of 76 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.</b> | for peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs. Results are very robust — <b>in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 60 of 76 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.</b> | ||
<table | <table style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"> | ||
<tr> | |||
<td>Results</td> | <td>Results</td> | ||
<td>Studies</td> | <td>Studies</td> | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr | <tr> | ||
<td>All studies</td> | <td>All studies</td> | ||
<td class="h350">76</td> | <td class="h350">76</td> | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr | <tr> | ||
<td><span>Peer-reviewed</span></td> | <td><span>Peer-reviewed</span></td> | ||
<td>55</td> | <td>55</td> | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr | <tr> | ||
<td><span>With GMK/BBC exclusions</td> | <td><span>With GMK/BBC exclusions</td> | ||
<td>51</td> | <td>51</td> | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr | <tr> | ||
<td><span>Randomized Controlled Trials</span></td> | <td><span>Randomized Controlled Trials</span></td> | ||
<td>32</td> | <td>32</td> | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr | <tr> | ||
<td><span>RCTs w/GMK/BBC exclusions</span></td> | <td><span>RCTs w/GMK/BBC exclusions</span></td> | ||
<td>25</td> | <td>25</td> | ||
Revision as of 05:06, 23 January 2022
Ivermectin has beneficial effects against SARS-COV-2 is a claim based on at least 76 independent studies conducted by researchers around the world. These studies show an unambiguous medical benefit for treatment with Ivermectin in patients suffering from SARS-COV-2 infection and Covid-19 disease.
Reasons & Support
Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant after exclusions. 49 studies from 45 independent teams in 21 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (37 primary outcome, 34 most serious outcome). Meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 66% [53‑75%] and 83% [74‑89%] 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 60 of 76 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
| Results | Studies | Prophylaxis | Early treatment | Late treatment | Patients | Authors |
| All studies | 76 | 83% [74‑89%] | 66% [53‑75%] | 39% [23‑52%] | 57,647 | 718 |
| Peer-reviewed | 55 | 83% [73‑90%] | 68% [50‑80%] | 41% [17‑58%] | 25,228 | 558 |
| With GMK/BBC exclusions | 51 | 82% [68‑89%] | 73% [64‑80%] | 53% [29‑69%] | 44,741 | 545 |
| Randomized Controlled Trials | 32 | 84% [25‑96%] | 62% [45‑74%] | 23% [-1‑41%] | 7,032 | 361 |
| RCTs w/GMK/BBC exclusions | 25 | 84% [25‑96%] | 69% [56‑77%] | 26% [-2‑46%] | 4,423 | 299 |
| Percentage improvement with ivermectin treatment in bold (confidence interval in brackets) | ||||||
| Statement of the claim | Ivermectin has beneficial effects against SARS-COV-2 |
| Level of certainty | True |
| Nature | Factual |
| Counterclaim | Ivermectin has no effect or detrimental effects against SARS-COV-2 |
| Dependent on | |
| Dependency of |
|