Talk:Ivermectin

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Reuters reports Japanese study on Ivermectin antiviral effect against Covid

I was about to edit my previous post after noting that articles in medical journals as primary sources are not allowed. One of the articles, however, is from Reuters (posted on Yahoo! News), which is both a secondary and credible source, and describes a study showing Ivermectin has an antiviral effect against Covid. Is there any reason for not including this? [1] Also directly on Reuters: [2] 87.208.148.99 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

And you will note they say it is only companies claim, not in fact a claim made by a peer reviewed study.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Reuters is not reliable for biomedical assertions, for that WP:MEDRS would be needed. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

They only say the company claims ther are benefits, there is a lack of details.𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 00:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

wij van wc eend adviseren wc eend—blindlynx 04:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

How to we hold to "claim made by a peer reviewed study" when several approved COVID-related meds have zero or only small peer-reviewed studies? We have a significant hill to climb to create a level scientific playing field on this in Wikipedia. Mr Pete (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Bryant, Lawrie, et al. – epilogue

I notice the the American Journal of Therapeutics has finally issued expressions of concern against this review (and the Kory one) which Wikipedia has been steadfastly holding out against because of their WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims made in the context of the WP:BESTSOURCES. I have edited Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic accordingly, and with luck we should now stop seeing requests to include these blessed articles!

References

Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Remove OTC from US Its only OTC as a livestock drug as it was a grandfathered drug when the FDA started to regulate animal drugs and the human form is RX only and regulated by the FDA 71.173.76.19 (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See sourcing for OTC claim, [3]. Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a lotion to treat head lice for nonprescription, or over-the-counter (OTC), use through a process called a prescription (Rx)-to-OTC switch. The FDA initially approved Sklice (ivermectin) lotion, 0.5% for the treatment of head lice infestation in patients 6 months of age and older as a prescription drug in February 2012. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 4 March 2022

Add a section on Early Treatment RCT studies. We now have up-to-date meta-analysis of more than a dozen RCT's (Randomized Controlled Trials) of early treatment with IVM. According to WP:MEDASSESS, "The best evidence for efficacy of treatments and other health interventions is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials." The same page WP:MEDDATE urges using the latest information. When ineffective late treatment is excluded, the results become more clear, for any potential treatment.Mr Pete (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done Misinformation. Won't be included here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it really depends on the quality of the meta-analysis and of the studies used for it. Garbage in, garbage out. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

International Journal of Infectious Diseases - Treatment for COVID-19 and decreased mortality

For your consideration - I have no experience with MEDRS so I don't know how reputable this is: Treatment with Ivermectin Is Associated with Decreased Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: Analysis of a National Federated Database - SmolBrane (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's just a conference abstract which has been picked up by the ivermectin cultists, leading to one of the authors having to tweet out a reality check.[4] For Wikipedia, it's useless. Alexbrn (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin and COVID-19

"Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds".

"Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19". doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2115869. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

2600:1000:B03F:2983:4FD:F300:B6A2:155 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)