luisvel | 18 points | Jan 06 2021 14:48:36

Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate Covid19 disease: A randomised controlled double blind dose response study in Lagos.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249131v1

permalink

[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points | Jan 06 2021 21:30:46

Great find, Luis!

The title should have had (Nigeria 2021-01-05) after the article's title.

Another win for ivermectin!

Lagos, Nigeria! IIRC this the first African trial posted to the sub.

Nicely designed study! Pretty cool that it found a statistically significant change in days to negative despite N=62 patients divided into 3 arms.

Dose-response demonstrated for days to negative.

The strong statsig negative correlation between platelet count and days to negative is intriguing! I don't recall other trials tracking platelet count -- but I could easily have forgotten.

Need to look at the full report!

Abstract
Introduction: In vitro studies have shown the efficacy of Ivermectin (IV) to inhibit the SARS - CoV- 2 viral replication, but questions remained as to In-vivo applications. We set out to explore the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin in persons infected with COVID19.

Methods:
We conducted a translational proof of concept (PoC) randomized, double blind placebo controlled, dose response, parallel group study of IV efficacy in RT - PCR proven COVID 19 positive patients. 62 patients were randomized to 3 treatment groups.

(A) IV 6mg regime
(B)IV 12 mg regime (given Q84hrs for 2weeks)
(C, control) Lopinavir/Ritonavir.

All groups plus standard of Care.

Results:

* The Days to COVID negativity [DTN] was significantly and dose dependently reduced by IV (p = 0.0066). The DTN for Control were, = 9.1+/-5.2, for A 6.0 +/- 2.9, and for B 4.6 +/-3.2. 2 Way repeated measures ANOVA of ranked COVID 19 + / - scores at 0, 84, 168, 232 hours showed a significant IV treatment effect (p=0.035) and time effect (p <0.0001).

* IV also tended to increase SPO2 % compared to controls, p = 0.073, 95% CI - 0.39 to 2.59 and

So close to the fabled, arbitrary, traditional .05.

* increased platelet count compared to C (p = 0.037) 95%CI 5.55 - 162.55 multiplied by 10^3/ml. The platelet count increase was inversely correlated to DTN (r = -0.52, p = 0.005).

No SAE was reported.

Conclusions:
12 mg IV regime may have superior efficacy. IV should be considered for use in clinical management of SARS-Cov-2, and may find applications in community prophylaxis in high-risk areas.

Faster days to negativity is a fairly consistent result for ivermectin, starting with the first Bangladesh trial if memory serves, where IVM + DOXY cleared more virus by day 6 than HCQ + AZT did by day 12.

permalink

[-] stereomatch | 2 points | Jan 08 2021 03:12:50

Whiteboard Doctor covers this paper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-4mNFH2dbU Mild To Moderate COVID-19 And Ivermectin: New Randomized Double Blind Trial Jan 8, 2020

A new randomized double blind trial has come out in pre-print looking at the possible efficacy of Ivermectin in mild to moderate COVID-19. We will discuss what Ivermectin is, how it may work in COVID-19, and then dive into the study itself. The study concluded that Ivermectin may shorten the viral phase and increase viral clearance. What are the limitations and what might this mean?

Paper:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249131v1.full.pdf Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: A randomised controlled double blind dose response study in Lagos.

permalink

[-] DreadPyriteRoberts | 2 points | Jan 08 2021 22:01:07

Dr. Patrick Hill (who is working on the ivermectin meta-analysis that's apparently going to WHO tweeted about this study:

New randomised trial of ivermectin from Nigeria. Significantly faster viral clearance for higher doses of ivermectin given over three days. Randomised trials in Bangladesh and Egypt show same effects. (image)

permalink

[-] warriorsfan23 | 1 points | Jan 06 2021 17:21:46

Good stuff. The low n will lead to doubts about the results I assume.

permalink

[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points | Jan 07 2021 20:36:51

It shouldn't: the tests for statistical significance show that the N was sufficient.

But you're probably right. "Study too small, can't rely on it."

permalink