Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection (World 2020-01-19)

[-] stereomatch | 2 points | Jan 20 2021 14:03:32

PDF of the pre-print:

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-148845/v1.pdf

While this pre-print is new (dated Jan 19, 2021), his meta-analysis has been available at least since Dec 27, 2020 as a video of his 16 Dec 2020 presentation at the MedinCell Workshop. For a video link and rough transcript check out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/klmtou/_/gjxvfpu

Dr. Andrews Hill's Ivermectin meta-analysis, from University of Liverpool, England, was supported by The Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, a program of the WHO.

This may explain why Dr Andrew Hill who consults for Unitaid, was also present at the NIH, when the FLCCC made their presentation at the NIH:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FLCCC-Alliance-Response-to-the-NIH-Guideline-Committee-Recommendation-on-Ivermectin-use-in-COVID19-2021-01-18.pdf

On January 6, 2021, Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Pierre Kory – founding members of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) – along with Dr. Andrew Hill, researcher and consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO), presented their data on ivermectin before the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Treatment Guidelines Panel.

[-] Ok-Film-9049 | 1 points | Jan 20 2021 11:01:06

His conclusion should have been 'if it was this good, surely someone would have done something about it already,'

[-] lemallette | 1 points | Jan 20 2021 13:37:57

In response to this meta-analysis the NIH has now revised their guidelines on treatment of Covid-19. They no longer recommend against using ivermectin outside of a randomized trial. They now simply do not take a position: they do not recommend FOR OR AGAINST its use.

I count that as progress. Has it occurred to anyone else that the NIH had a lot of chutzpah in recommending against ivermectin when they were NOT FUNDING ANY SUCH RANDOMIZED TRIALS?

Dr. Hill says that his group plans to update their meta-analysis when two larger studies are completed by end of February 2021. That should bring the number of patients studied up to a much more acceptable 7000 and lessen the risk of publication bias.

Meanwhile, I maintain that the ethical U.S. physician can NO LONGER REFUSE TO PRESCRIBE IVERMECTIN for a patient known to have Covid-19. We must use the BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION in our clinical decisions (even if that information is not perfect). The best information, clearly summarized by Dr. Hill, strongly favors ivermectin.

[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points | Jan 21 2021 20:59:32

Has it occurred to anyone else that the NIH had a lot of chutzpah in recommending against ivermectin when they were NOT FUNDING ANY SUCH RANDOMIZED TRIALS?

IMO it would have been extremely appropriate for NIH to immediately fund the nice big well-designed US-based trial we all dream of. I'm personally not grateful that NIH took the faltering baby-step of going from against to neutral.