This is another docking study, where binding energy as calculated by software suggests likely chemical interactions. That's how I understand the term, anyway. Please correct me if I'm wrong. On the basis of not much, I don't think docking studies are very persuasive. They might be good for people looking for new pharmaceuticals, maybe? My guess is that they're worse evidence than in vitro studies, the lowest class of study in the hierarchy of science. Just a guess.

This study identifies another possible mechanism for ivermectin working against covid-19:

Ivermectin docked [with the covid virus] in the region of leucine 91 of the spike and histidine 378 of the ACE2 receptor. ... The ivermectin docking we identified may interfere with the attachment of the spike to the human cell membrane.

This is the telling part:

Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection.

Essentially, all research other than clinical trials has to be confirmed by clinical trials. Studies in test tubes and computers are at best good for suggesting therapies worth trialing.

permalink

Molecular mechanisms and computational desings are important. But we are not experts scientist like Wagstaff et al. And maybe is usefull for us that comments that she released in Antiviral research magazine. Three points are important, first is about computational design folks that cry against ivermectin because of its own campaign promoting hidroxichloroquine, and this computationals designs are too expensive and they cannot loose. 2nd point in the war against cheap ivermectin, menctioned by Wagstaff is that FDA tells you to not use veterinary ivermectin but not condemn distortion that show ivermectin like only for veterinary porpouses, but those who are in the pharmaceutical field investigation know that ivermectin is now in clinical trials but moreover preparing IV and inhaled presentation to be in market some day, when the chepest oral ivermevting is very efective, no labs studies about mechanisms are needed now, we need the second phase results( they are ready but not realeased and not peer reviewed) that allows us to the correct dosage in different phases of COVID. The rare is that clinical trials in course are trying very low dosages, when 2018 trial stablishes for viremias and malaria 18mg per day a excellent dosis without significant side effects. In Dominican Republic a laureate pneumologist in a COVID clinic shows more then 800 patiens whit severe illnes treated..not only with ivermectin.. when severe illnes last generation AB is needed, plus anticoagulant and O2 therapy and in phase III tzolucimab plus all the previous meds. Third point is about other team that is promoting hidroxicloroquin those who claim that toxic higer dosis are needed to kill COVID.. and wagstaff explain that dosage is not related to plasma levels.. killer activity of the drug is not necesary. Our own immune system can kill the virus, once its stops to enter into the cell core and cannot replicate.

permalink