Diese Metastudie…

Ich habe mir mal die Studien angesehen, die in der zitierten Metastudie als ausgewertet aufgeführt werden. Das wären ja dann, wenn ich die Experten richtig verstehe, diejenigen Studien, denen man glauben soll.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab591

Da finden sich Passagen wie:
»The trial run between May 18 and September 29, 2020 with 45 randomized patients (30 in the IVM group and 15 controls). There was no difference in viral load reduction between groups but a significant difference in reduction was found in patients with higher median plasma IVM levels (72% IQR 59 – 77) versus untreated controls (42% IQR 31 – 73) (p=0·004). The mean ivermectin plasma concentration levels also showed a positive correlation with viral decay rate.«
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3714649

»EDITORIAL NOTE:

25 October 2021: This study describes the results of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial for the use of ivermectin to treat mild to severe COVID-19 infection in 180 patients. The researchers indicated that the treatment resulted in reduced mortality, improved oxygen saturation, and improvement on a number of other clinical parameters.

On 8 October 2021 and 9 October 2021, two articles were published by subject-matter experts outlining concerns about various aspects of the study and, in particular, calling into question the randomization of participants.«
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-109670/v1

»A 5-day course of ivermectin resulted in an earlier clearance of the virus compared to placebo (p = 0.005), thus indicating that early intervention with this agent may limit viral replication within the host. In the 5-day ivermectin group, there was a significant drop in CRP and LDH by day 7, which are indicators of disease severity.«
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191

»Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which warrants assessment in larger trials.«
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100720

»In the intervention arm, early viral clearance was observed in patients without experiencing any side effects. These are of importance because high viral load and prolonged viremia can potentially trigger the immune dysregulation phase leading to more severe disease, and the requirement of treatment escalation.«
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.02.21250840

Mein Liebling:
»On October 20, 2020, the lead pharmacist observed that a labeling error had occurred between September 29 and October 15, 2020, resulting in all patients receiving ivermectin and none receiving placebo during this time frame. The study blind was not unmasked due to this error.[…]

This study did not find any significant effect of ivermectin on other evaluated measures of clinical benefit for the treatment of COVID-19. Although a numerically smaller proportion of ivermectin-treated patients required escalation of care (2.0% with ivermectin vs 5.0% with placebo), the difference was not statistically significant and was further attenuated in a post hoc analysis after excluding 4 patients […]

This study has several limitations. First, the study was not conducted or completed according to the original design, and the original primary outcome to detect the ability of ivermectin to prevent clinical deterioration was changed 6 weeks into the trial. In the study population, the incidence of clinical deterioration was below 3%, making the original planned analysis futile. Ultimately, findings for primary and secondary end points were not significantly different between the ivermectin and placebo groups. […]

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr López-Medina reported receiving grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen and personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur during the conduct of the study. Dr López reported receiving grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen and personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur during the conduct of the study. Dr Oñate reported receiving grants from Janssen and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Gilead outside the submitted work.«
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.3071

»Conclusion There was no difference in the primary outcome i.e. negative RT-PCR status on day 6 of admission with the use of ivermectin. However, a significantly higher proportion of patients were discharged alive from the hospital when they received ivermectin.«
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249310

Danke Herr Kolanda, mich haben sie überzeugt…

gruss. luky