I appreciate this statement (with the political part omitted):
Media publications ... touted the drug as a “cure” that could kill the virus in “just 48 hours.”
Snopes didn't do their research, though: they made no mention of the 3 completed clinical trials, which are easily found -- or the ICON study, or any other research other than the April Monash 48 hours result and this article:
I'm afraid I only gave that article a quick skim here. It's a very thorough review. I guess I should look at it again.
Except it's conclusion is quite negative:
In this systematic review, we showed antiviral effects of ivermectin on a broad range of RNA and DNA viruses by reviewing all related evidences since 1970. This study presents the possibility that ivermectin could be a useful antiviral agent in several viruses including those with positive-sense single-stranded RNA, in similar fashion. Since significant effectiveness of ivermectin is seen in the early stages of infection in experimental studies, it is proposed that ivermectin administration may be effective in the early stages or prevention. Of course, confirmation of this statement requires human studies and clinical trials.
Ivermectin, owing to its antiviral activity, may play a pivotal role in several essential biological processes, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of different types of viruses including COVID-19. Clinical trials are necessary to appraise the effects of ivermectin on COVID-19 in clinical setting and this warrants additional investigation for probable benefits in humans in the current and future pandemics. On April 10, 2020, FDA issued a statement concerning self-administration of ivermectin against COVID-19 [43] referring to recently published in vitro study on this subject [15]. FDA highlighted that this type of in vitro study is usually used in the early stages of drug development. Moreover, further trials are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of ivermectin for human use against COVID-19 to discover preventive or therapeutic window [43].
As noted, the activity of ivermectin in cell culture has not reproduced in mouse infection models against many of the viruses and has not been clinically proven either, in spite of ivermectin being available globally. This is likely related to the pharmacokinetics and therapeutic safety window for ivermectin. The blood levels of ivermectin at safe therapeutic doses are in the 20–80 ng/ml range [44], while the activity against SARS-CoV2 in cell culture is in the microgram range. Ivermectin is administered orally or topically. If safe formulations or analogs can be derived that can be administered to achieve therapeutic concentrations, ivermectin could be useful as a broad-spectrum antiviral agent.
The last paragraph raises CONCENTRATION TOO HIGH!!!. Man, I'm sick of that one.
My interest in articles like this is low, since we have so much positive clinical research by this time, and a lot more coming (I hope).
There are some examples where it did fail in mouse model (as this one with Zika virus https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732889318306606) even though it had worked in vitro. But the lack of mention of the ongoing human studies and results is more important than this. We are past the mouse model with covid and ivermectin.
Thanks again for your research u/TrumpLyftAllies. Someone is trying to discredit ivermectin. It's disappointing even with the recent prophylactic study affirming that it works!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points | Aug 29 2020 21:27:03
Snopes concluded "Mostly false".
I appreciate this statement (with the political part omitted):
Media publications ... touted the drug as a “cure” that could kill the virus in “just 48 hours.”
Snopes didn't do their research, though: they made no mention of the 3 completed clinical trials, which are easily found -- or the ICON study, or any other research other than the April Monash 48 hours result and this article:
Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen
I'm afraid I only gave that article a quick skim here. It's a very thorough review. I guess I should look at it again.
Except it's conclusion is quite negative:
In this systematic review, we showed antiviral effects of ivermectin on a broad range of RNA and DNA viruses by reviewing all related evidences since 1970. This study presents the possibility that ivermectin could be a useful antiviral agent in several viruses including those with positive-sense single-stranded RNA, in similar fashion. Since significant effectiveness of ivermectin is seen in the early stages of infection in experimental studies, it is proposed that ivermectin administration may be effective in the early stages or prevention. Of course, confirmation of this statement requires human studies and clinical trials.
Ivermectin, owing to its antiviral activity, may play a pivotal role in several essential biological processes, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of different types of viruses including COVID-19. Clinical trials are necessary to appraise the effects of ivermectin on COVID-19 in clinical setting and this warrants additional investigation for probable benefits in humans in the current and future pandemics. On April 10, 2020, FDA issued a statement concerning self-administration of ivermectin against COVID-19 [43] referring to recently published in vitro study on this subject [15]. FDA highlighted that this type of in vitro study is usually used in the early stages of drug development. Moreover, further trials are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of ivermectin for human use against COVID-19 to discover preventive or therapeutic window [43].
As noted, the activity of ivermectin in cell culture has not reproduced in mouse infection models against many of the viruses and has not been clinically proven either, in spite of ivermectin being available globally. This is likely related to the pharmacokinetics and therapeutic safety window for ivermectin. The blood levels of ivermectin at safe therapeutic doses are in the 20–80 ng/ml range [44], while the activity against SARS-CoV2 in cell culture is in the microgram range. Ivermectin is administered orally or topically. If safe formulations or analogs can be derived that can be administered to achieve therapeutic concentrations, ivermectin could be useful as a broad-spectrum antiviral agent.
The last paragraph raises CONCENTRATION TOO HIGH!!!. Man, I'm sick of that one.
My interest in articles like this is low, since we have so much positive clinical research by this time, and a lot more coming (I hope).
permalink
[-] luisvel | 3 points | Aug 29 2020 22:13:02
The mouse infection model results are interesting though. Did they assess why they failed?
permalink
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points | Aug 29 2020 22:24:27
You obviously have a better attention span than me. Please read the article carefully and report back! Seriously.
permalink
[-] luisvel | 3 points | Aug 29 2020 22:47:12
There are some examples where it did fail in mouse model (as this one with Zika virus https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732889318306606) even though it had worked in vitro. But the lack of mention of the ongoing human studies and results is more important than this. We are past the mouse model with covid and ivermectin.
permalink
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 0 points | Aug 29 2020 22:57:40
Thanks for putting in the effort. I agree, in vitro is weak, mouse studies better, clinical trials WAY better. :)
permalink
[-] jamesthrowaway345034 | 3 points | Aug 31 2020 03:46:01
Thanks again for your research u/TrumpLyftAllies. Someone is trying to discredit ivermectin. It's disappointing even with the recent prophylactic study affirming that it works!
permalink
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 0 points | Aug 31 2020 03:50:13
Thanks for the thanks! :)
permalink