With new trial data, it has become quite unlikely that ivermectin has a meaningful benefit in the treatment of COVID-19

My new piece https://t.co/joX0HIJOYR

— Health Nerd (@GidMK) June 14, 2022

https://t.co/BYTFKosew3

— simonthong aka kitty poo (@KittyPo80176717) June 14, 2022

Another large, robust randomized trial has failed to find a meaningful benefit for ivermectin for COVID-19 https://t.co/F3ZekR1LYn

— Health Nerd (@GidMK) June 13, 2022

This is what I'd call a fairly convincingly null trial. Ivm did:

– worse on deaths/hospitalizations
– better on time to recovery
– better on symptom severity
– worse on ED visits

than placebo, none of them statistically significant

— Health Nerd (@GidMK) June 13, 2022

Will be writing this up into a piece tomorrow, but with such a tiny/no benefit on yet another large trial it is now becoming very unlikely that there will be any utility for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 (jury still out on prevention)

— Health Nerd (@GidMK) June 13, 2022

NIH ACTIV-6 #ivermectin early #covid19 treatment results with 1591 randomized participants.
No difference in ER visits, hospitalizations, deaths (all numerically higher with IVM, but no statistical difference).
Time to recovery 11 vs 11.5 days. #idtwitterhttps://t.co/c5ZdMQwfyI

— David Boulware, MD MPH (@boulware_dr) June 13, 2022

The symptom duration data are interesting. The trial is large enough that it can detect differences that are not clinically meaningful, but there are some subgroups that are interesting. Not conclusive as they are small, but hypothesis generating for verification in future arm

— David Boulware, MD MPH (@boulware_dr) June 13, 2022

Thus, if the debate is over whether there is zero difference or a small, clinically non-meaningful difference – let the debate start.
Hazard Ratio observed = 1.07 (95%CI, 0.96, 1.17)

Here's what a theoritical Hazard Ratio of 0.66 or 1.50 would look like. That's a difference. pic.twitter.com/Aq844EIWI1

— David Boulware, MD MPH (@boulware_dr) June 13, 2022

One write up by @carlzimmer in the @NYTimes on the ACTIV-6 trial with quote from the two co-PIs. https://t.co/3OKMPm32Sd

— David Boulware, MD MPH (@boulware_dr) June 13, 2022

Here is a link to the ACTIV-6 website which explains more about the trial and results. https://t.co/tW8BZn3guW

— David Boulware, MD MPH (@boulware_dr) June 13, 2022

More details on the trial and trial results can be found at: https://t.co/Om1IfjE7Pz pic.twitter.com/SQ8rQIPx2n

— David Boulware, MD MPH (@boulware_dr) June 13, 2022