Inner_G84 | 10 points | Mar 31 2021 04:15:34

Argentina Ministry of Health conducts "cluster assigned clinical trial" to test Ivermectin... Positive results

https://trialsitenews.com/argentina-ministry-of-health-clinical-trial-ivermectin-shows-benefit-treating-outpatients-with-mild-covid-19/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=ChannelEmail&utm_campaign=Ivermectin&utm_content=Notification

permalink

[-] RoosterGold4576 | 2 points | Apr 01 2021 23:17:35

Soy médico, resido en Salta( al norte de argentina) Uso en mis pacientes ivermectina, lo claramente observacional y comprobado es una marcada reducción en las hospitalizaciones. Dios ilumine a las autoridades ( fda, oms, ema) para que reviertan las decisiones que tomaron

permalink

[-] TehCaster | -1 points | Mar 31 2021 05:06:00

Not double blind (it seems?), small, not peer reviewed yet. Will be easy to ignore when JAMA Colombian study showed no benefits in a similar setting (young outpatients), but larger and double blind.

permalink

[-] akaariai | 2 points | Mar 31 2021 05:27:38

I'm sure you know this, but...

THE JAMA STUDY DID NOT SHOW NO BENEFITS.

They did not find significant benefits, but that's very different of showing no benefits.

permalink

[-] citizen_py | 1 points | Mar 31 2021 05:48:59

There is another study that comes up with this one as well. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.26.21254398v1

permalink

[-] TehCaster | 1 points | Mar 31 2021 07:49:18

For the proponents of evidence based medicine, these statements are equal if the goal is to decide whether to say "this drug works for the disease, let's use it".

permalink

[-] akaariai | 2 points | Mar 31 2021 08:17:01

No they are not! The show no benefits means there's not much point continuing research on the topic. And would also invalidate a lot of other research done already. Meanwhile "did not find significant results" can either mean there's no benefit OR THE STUDY WAS UNDERPOWERED TO DETECT SIGNIFICANT RESULTS.

permalink

[-] TehCaster | 1 points | Mar 31 2021 07:47:58

Looks like trialsitenews didn't link the study itself: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.29.21254554v1

So here are more reasons why this will be pointed out as bad study and ignored:

"Clinical trial assigned by groups 2:1. The conglomerate of outpatients belonging to the urban area of county in the inside Tucumán was assigned to the Experimental Group (EG) and the outpatients from the peri-urban area of San Miguel de Tucumán and Gran San Miguel de Tucumán were assigned to the Control Group (CG). The criteria for this choice were based on the geographical distribution of Health Services, and logistics in current times of pandemic. "

Yet the consort flow diagram says "Randomized 2:1 (n=198)" but that doesn't sound randomized at all. So that's different groups of patients, and I'm not sure if the examination places were also thus different?
Then there's no placebo, yet the study relies on symptoms, some are subjective, so some decrease of them might be a placebo effect.

The authors themselves are modest about what the results mean: " However, our study shows overlaps in benefits with other authors, and taking together, these results are encouraging for further study about repurposing ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19."

permalink

[-] TehCaster | 1 points | Mar 31 2021 13:49:30

BTW it's something that I said about the JAMA trial before, and this study seems to show. If they reanalyzed their structured interviews for individual symptoms, and not only look at "days until all symptoms cleared", they might see something significant even there (assuming not everyone in their control group got IVM elsewhere).

permalink