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

Authors: Covid AnalysisAug 12, 2021Version 109 — twitter personality response, added Together Trial (V1 Nov 26, 2020)

•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 73% and 86% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.27 [0.16-0.44] and 0.14 [0.08-0.25]), with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, restriction to peer-reviewed studies, restriction to serious outcomes, and restriction to Randomized Controlled Trials.•61% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.39 [0.17-0.90] and 0.04 [0.00-0.59]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortalityhospitalizationrecoverycases, and viral clearance. 27 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.

StudiesProphylaxisEarly treatmentLate treatmentPatientsAuthors
All studies6386% [75‑92%]73% [56‑84%]40% [24‑52%]26,422613
With exclusions5188% [76‑94%]76% [66‑83%]50% [28‑65%]18,907525
Peer-reviewed4286% [73‑93%]75% [61‑84%]43% [21‑59%]16,455436
Randomized Controlled Trials3184% [25‑96%]67% [54‑76%]30% [2‑50%]6,561359
Mortality results2596% [41‑100%]61% [10‑83%]53% [32‑67%]13,911263
Percentage improvement with ivermectin treatment
Meta-Analysis of Studies for Ivermectin Effectiveness Against COVID-19

•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 63 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 1 trillion (p = 0.00000000000083).

Heterogeneity arises from many factors including treatment delay, population, dose, and effect measured, and is low in specific cases, e.g., early treatment mortality.

•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 29% 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 [BryantHariyantoHillKoryLawrieNardelli] for other meta analyses with similar results confirming effectiveness. et al.69%0.31 [0.20-0.47]Improvement, RR [CI]Hill et al.75%0.25 [0.12-0.52]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]ivmmeta61%0.39 [0.28-0.56]Ivermectin meta analysis mortality resultsivmmeta.com 8/14/21Lower RiskIncreased Risk

Global adoption: 30%
Evidence base used for other COVID-19 approvals
Budesonide (UK)11,77917%
Remdesivir (USA)11,06331%
Casiri/imdevimab (USA)179966%
Ivermectin evidence6326,39869% [60‑75%]
Effectiveness of Other Medications Against COVID-19

For More Information: https://ivmmeta.com/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *