Analgesics..
Antiandrogens..
Bromhexine
Budesonide
Cannabidiol
Colchicine
Conv. Plasma
Curcumin
Ensovibep
Famotidine
Favipiravir
Fluvoxamine
Hydroxychlor..
Iota-carragee..
Ivermectin
Lactoferrin
Lifestyle..
Melatonin
Metformin
Molnupiravir
Monoclonals..
Nigella Sativa
Nitazoxanide
Nitric Oxide
Paxlovid
Peg.. Lambda
Povidone-Iod..
Quercetin
Remdesivir
Vitamins..
Zinc

Other
Feedback
Home
Home   COVID-19 treatment studies for Ivermectin  COVID-19 treatment studies for Ivermectin  C19 studies: Ivermectin  Ivermectin   Select treatmentSelect treatmentTreatmentsTreatments
Melatonin Meta
Bromhexine Meta Metformin Meta
Budesonide Meta Molnupiravir Meta
Cannabidiol Meta
Colchicine Meta Nigella Sativa Meta
Conv. Plasma Meta Nitazoxanide Meta
Curcumin Meta Nitric Oxide Meta
Ensovibep Meta Paxlovid Meta
Famotidine Meta Peg.. Lambda Meta
Favipiravir Meta Povidone-Iod.. Meta
Fluvoxamine Meta Quercetin Meta
Hydroxychlor.. Meta Remdesivir Meta
Iota-carragee.. Meta
Ivermectin Meta Zinc Meta
Lactoferrin Meta

Other Treatments Global Adoption
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Recent: 
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ Mortality -197% Improvement Relative Risk Death/hospitalization 27% Progression -37% Progression (b) -4% primary Hospitalization, I vs. P 61% Hospitalization, I vs. P ≤.. 75% Hospitalization, I/I+M vs. P 70% Hospitalization, I/I+M vs.. 42% c19ivm.org Bramante et al. NCT04510194 COVID-OUT Ivermectin RCT EARLY Favors ivermectin Favors metformin (p..
Randomized Trial of Metformin, Ivermectin, and Fluvoxamine for Covid-19
Bramante et al., NEJM, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2201662, COVID-OUT, NCT04510194 (history)
18 Aug 2022    Source   PDF   DATA   Share   Tweet
Detailed analysis due to inaccurate consequential press
COVID-OUT remote RCT, showing no significant differences compared to a combined metformin/placebo "control" group. Results for other treatments are listed separately - metformin, fluvoxamine.
Authors include metformin patients in the control group, allowing details of adjustments to affect results. Using standard treatment vs. placebo analysis shows 61% lower hospitalization, or 75% lower for patients with onset ≤5 days (not statistically significant with only 7 and 5 events). These results are not reported in the paper or the supplementary appendix, readers need to request the data. Authors note that "hospitalization is perhaps the most accurate and well-documented end point".
There are many major issues as detailed below. Submit Updates or Corrections
SeverityIssueAuthor response
CRITICAL1. Ivermectin vs. placebo analysis - 61% lower hospitalization -
CRITICAL2. ER results unreliable, not related to symptoms -
CRITICAL3. Mismatch with reported death and symptoms -
CRITICAL4. Ivermectin vs. placebo symptoms consistent with efficacy -
CRITICAL5. Multiple outcomes missing, including time to recovery -
CRITICAL6. Hypoxemia results unreliable but prioritized -
CRITICAL7. Adverse events not reported, partial data shows no increase -
CRITICAL8. Control group includes metformin, adjustment protocol violation -
CRITICAL9. Viral load results missing -
CRITICAL10. Metformin/fluvoxamine conclusions opposite of Together Trial, but matching earlier studies on each team -
CRITICAL11. Author claims results from 569 researchers should be censored for false information -
CRITICAL12. Administration on an empty stomach -
CRITICAL13. Results delayed 6 months (including life-saving metformin results) Results sent to US government. Note most people live outside the US, and there was no action.
SERIOUS14. Fewer comorbidities for serious outcomes -
SERIOUS15. Control arm results very different between treatments -
SERIOUS16. COVID-19 specific symptoms hidden in appendix -
SERIOUS17. Authors claim placebo is not better than the treatments -
SERIOUS18. Incorrect claim that no treatment reduced severity -
SERIOUS19. False conclusion -
SERIOUS20. Trial outcomes modified -
SERIOUS21. Very high percentage of missing data -
SERIOUS22. Medication delivery varied significantly -
SERIOUS23. Treatment 3 days for ivermectin, 14 days for metformin and fluvoxamine -
SERIOUS24. SAP dated after trial -
SERIOUS25. Test requirement and delivery prohibits early treatment -
SERIOUS26. Conclusion modified by journal -
SERIOUS27. Symptom results contradictory -
SERIOUS28. Adherence very low -
SERIOUS29. Inconsistent blinding statements -
SERIOUS30. Author indicates a best guess can be used for onset -
MAJOR31. Ivermectin from source chosen has shown lower efficacy -
MAJOR32. Adherence subgroups analysed but not reported -
UNKNOWN33. Maximum symptom duration not clear -
UNKNOWN34. No discontinuation due to hospitalization for ivermectin -
COMMENT35. Authors indicate up to 5 day delay in real-world usage -
Ivermectin vs. placebo analysis - 61% lower hospitalization. Authors include metformin patients in the control group, allowing details of adjustments to affect results. Using standard treatment (ivermectin only) vs. placebo analysis shows more favorable results for ivermectin, with 61% lower hospitalization, or 75% lower for patients with onset ≤5 days (not statistically significant with only 7 and 5 events). Authors note that "hospitalization is perhaps the most accurate and well-documented end point".
ER results unreliable, not related to symptoms. Authors detail why the main hypoxemia results are unreliable, however the ER results appear to be similarly uninformative. ER visits do not appear to be related to symptoms. The mean total COVID-19 symptom score for patients reporting an ER visit is 55.7 compared to 56.0 for patients reporting no ER visit (or hospitalization/death). Visualization of the ER patient symptoms raises the question of why most of them went to the ER. Of the 26 patients reporting an ER visit and symptom data, only one ever reported severe dyspnea, 5 more reported at most moderate dyspnea, 11 more reported at most mild dyspnea, and 9 reported no dyspnea at any time. ER patients were less likely to report severe or moderate dyspnea. The decision to go to the ER appears to be more of a personal preference rather than based on symptoms. Patients that signed up for the trial may be especially concerned about PASC for example, and seek help based on potential future problems rather than current symptoms.
Maximum dyspnea severity ER patients Non-ER/hosp./death patients
Severe 3.8% 6.5%
Moderate 19.2% 22.2%
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
D1 D14
Mismatch with reported death and symptoms. There was only one death for a patient that was treated very late (7 days). The patient was not hospitalized. The death is reported within 14 days, however the patient reported symptom data for all 14 days, showing substantial recovery several days prior, with only 2 of 14 symptoms remaining and reported as mild. Data suggests that the death was not due to COVID-19.
D1 D14
Ivermectin vs. placebo symptoms consistent with efficacy. Authors include metformin patients in the control group, allowing details of adjustments to affect results. Using standard treatment vs. placebo analysis gives the mean COVID-19 symptom scores below, matching expectation for an effective treatment with the low-risk fast recovering population (note that administration on an empty stomach is expected to delay the time when therapeutic effects may be reached).
Multiple outcomes missing, including time to recovery. Multiple outcomes are missing, for example time to recovery (where ACTIV-6 showed superiority of ivermectin): "Time to meaningful recovery (symptoms or severity improved by one category and sustained for at least 36 hours)" (protocol page 91). Notably, the definition is less biased than the ACTIV-6 definition, including improvement by one category, making allowance for mild fatigue and cough, and requiring 36 hours sustained rather than 3 days. More notably, the result is not reported.
Hypoxemia results unreliable but prioritized. Authors detail why the hypoxemia results are unreliable [vimeo.com] @28:30, however they are still prioritized in the presentation, and included in the abstract without mentioning that these results are unreliable.
Adverse events not reported, partial data shows no increase. Adverse events are not reported (other than to note none were serious). Partial information is contained in Table S2 and Figure S5. Notably, there is no significant increase for ivermectin for any of the expected side effects, in contrast to other trials, e.g. [Lim]. These results are unexpected if patients received and took authentic ivermectin at the dosage indicated.
Control group includes metformin, adjustment protocol violation. The "control" group includes patients receiving metformin, which is known to be beneficial for COVID-19 [c19early.org]. Authors present adjusted results however they do not appear to fully account for metformin efficacy. For example, the adjusted result for ivermectin ER/hosp./death is close to the unadjusted result, while a greater difference would be expected based on the metformin efficacy reported (which is not expected to be doubled in the metformin + ivermectin arm). The trial has 5 treatments arms, but is presented as if there was 3, which adds complexity, makes the results subject to potential interactions between treatments, and introduces the potential for investigator bias in adjustments. Notably, the protocol specifies primary and secondary adjustments (page 74), and the paper reports only one set of adjustments, which matches neither the primary or secondary adjustments in the protocol.
Viral load results missing. One of the primary objectives of the trial was "To understand if the active treatment arms are superior to placebo in improving viral load, serologic markers associated with Covid-19, and gut microbiome in non-hospitalized adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection." In the July 8 presentation authors report having analyzed viral load data [vimeo.com] @19:20. No viral load results have been reported.
Metformin/fluvoxamine conclusions opposite of Together Trial, but matching earlier studies on each team. The Together trial and COVID-OUT both tested metformin and fluvoxamine. Notably, they came to opposite conclusions. In Together, authors found efficacy for fluvoxamine, but the metformin results were so negative that the trial was terminated early. In COVID-OUT it was the opposite, authors (although not the journal editor) found efficacy for metformin, while the fluvoxamine results were so negative that the trial was terminated early [twitter.com]. Note that the Together authors include researchers that found fluvoxamine effective in earlier studies, while the COVID-OUT authors include researchers that found metformin effective in earlier studies.
Author claims results from 569 researchers should be censored for false information. 58 studies by 569 scientists report statistically significant positive results for ivermectin treatment of COVID-19 [ivmmeta.com]. One author claimed that a report of positive results is "disinformation" and distributed a request to report and censor the author [twitter.com (B), twitter.com (C), twitter.com (D)]. While discussion is warranted for all studies, a call for censorship of results is extreme and raises questions. Author provides no basis for the results of the 569 scientists being wrong and warranting of censorship, and there is no indication that author has even read most of the studies. Author cherry-picked two of 93 studies, (COVID-OUT and ACTIV-6 [Bramante, Naggie], both very high COI studies with an extensive list of issues and very delayed treatment) and claimed that "no benefit of ivermectin was observed" [twitter.com (E)]. In addition to ignoring the 58 studies reporting statistically significant positive results, ACTIV-6 [c19ivm.org] reported a posterior probability that ivermectin is effective of 99%, 98%, and 97% for mean time unwell, clinical progression @14 days, and clinical progression @7 days (even though none of the pre-specified primary outcomes were reported, and noting that these preprint results were changed without explanation), and COVID-OUT showed 61% lower hospitalization with ivermectin vs. placebo (not including metformin), although this was not reported.
Administration on an empty stomach. Authors instructed patients to take ivermectin on an empty stomach, but other treatments with food. [Guzzo] show that the plasma concentration of ivermectin is much higher when administered with food (geometric mean AUC 2.6 times higher). "Ivermectin or matching placebo should be taken by mouth on an empty stomach with water. 1 hour before or 2 hours after a meal. All other agents should be taken by mouth at the end of a balanced snack or small meal."
Results delayed 6 months (including life-saving metformin results). Results were delayed for 6 months with no explanation, with followup ending Feb 14, 2022. Results were not presented until July 8 [rethinkingclinicaltrials.org], and they were still not available to the public due to a news embargo for over a month. Embargo and delay of clinical trial results during a pandemic is not consistent with a goal of minimizing mortality and morbidity. Notably authors report very positive results for metformin (although journal editors changed the conclusion as below).
Fewer comorbidities for serious outcomes. Patients experiencing serious outcomes are expected to be more likely to have comorbidities, however the opposite is seen.
Outcome Comorbidity prevalence
Non-ER/hosp./death 53%
ER 45%
Hospitalization 12.5%
Death 0%
Control arm results very different between treatments. Control arm results are very different between treatments, for example considering hospitalization/death, this was 1.0% for ivermectin treatment vs. 2.7% for metformin control, however it was 1.3% for the ivermectin control. The metformin arm started earlier, however the difference in outcomes is very large given that most patients are in the shared period.
COVID-19 specific symptoms hidden in appendix. Authors present results for all symptoms in Figure 2, and for COVID-19 symptoms in the appendix Figure S4. Notably, the COVID-19 specific results are better for ivermectin and especially for fluvoxamine.
Authors claim placebo is not better than the treatments. Authors state: Neither overall symptoms nor Covid-19–specific symptoms were reduced faster with placebo than with any of the trial drugs. This may be true, Figure S4 shows symptoms were reduced faster with all treatments (with ivermectin and fluvoxamine showing greater improvement than metformin), but the reverse claim is very unusual — placebo is not expected to be better. Note that the graphs and data refer to the control groups including other treatments, while the statement refers to placebo only.
Incorrect claim that no treatment reduced severity. Authors claim that "None of the trial drugs resulted in a lower severity of symptoms than identically matched placebo." The intended meaning — compared to the "control" groups used, since that is the data reported — is incorrect, multiple results show lower severity in the treatment groups in terms of the symptom scores and severity resulting in hospitalization. Individual results may not reach statistical significance, however ER/hosp./death does in the larger metformin group.
False conclusion. Authors claim "None of the three medications that were evaluated prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19." Taking the literal wording, this is false, there were no deaths with fluvoxamine. Taking the likely meaning (no treatment reduced incidence of these events), this is false, reduced incidence is seen in several results (mostly without statistical significance).
Trial outcomes modified. Trial outcomes were changed on January 20, 2022 [clinicaltrials.gov], and again on March 2, 2022 [clinicaltrials.gov (B)].
Very high percentage of missing data. There is a very high percentage of missing data. 25% of patients have zero symptom data reported for all 14 days in the data file. This does not match the paper which reports 20% of patients did not contribute symptom data (Figure 2).
Medication delivery varied significantly. Medication delivery varied significantly over the trial. In this presentation [vimeo.com (B)], author indicates that delivery was initially local, later via FedEx, was much slower in August, there were delays due to team bandwidth issues, and they only realized they could use FedEx same day delivery in September.
Treatment 3 days for ivermectin, 14 days for metformin and fluvoxamine. Treatment was 14 days for metformin and fluvoxamine, but only 3 days for ivermectin.
SAP dated after trial. The SAP is dated February 14, 2022, which authors note is one day before unblinding. However, the protocol notes that the statisticians are unblinded: "There is one unblinded statistician with two unblinded supporting statisticians on the study team", and "All analyses will be carried out by the un-blinded statisticians". The protocol also notes that the SAP will be developed by unblinded statisticians in one case, and blinded in a second case: "detailed statistical analysis plan will be developed by the unblinded statisticians", and "statistical analysis plan will be developed by the blinded statistician."
Test requirement and delivery prohibits early treatment. The requirement for a positive test and delivery of medication introduces substantial delay and largely excludes the possibility of early treatment. The protocol requires verifiable results using a local laboratory standard which excludes most home antigen tests (supplementary data page 5). Note that the trial results do not generalize to real-world usage, where clinicians recommend treatment immediately on symptoms.
Conclusion modified by journal. Author statements indicate that the conclusion was modified by the journal [twitter.com (F), twitter.com (G)].
Symptom results contradictory. Authors consider only metformin results to be positive (the journal editor considers none to be positive), however the symptom results in Figure S4 show the opposite: ivermectin and fluvoxamine show faster improvement (without statistical significance), while no difference is seen for metformin.
Adherence very low. Adherence was very low, with 77% overall reporting 70+% adherence, and 85% for ivermectin reporting 70+% adherence. An author has claimed 85% took all doses but that is contradicted by the 20% reported "Total Interruption or Discontinuation" in Table S2. Numbers for 100% adherence are not provided.
Inconsistent blinding statements. Protocol page 12 states that "The research team statisticians will remain blinded", while the supplementary data page 40 states that "There is one unblinded statistician with two unblinded supporting statisticians on the study team".
Author indicates a best guess can be used for onset. One author suggests that investigators can use a "best guess" if a patient gives a range for time of onset, which would allow a biased investigator to present an incorrect lower average time from onset [twitter.com (H)].
Ivermectin from source chosen has shown lower efficacy. Authors chose to source ivermectin from Edenbridge, which ranked 7 out of 11 brands in In Vitro tests for antiparasitic efficacy [Williams], requiring 5 days compared to 2 days for the best performing brand, and 3 days for 4 other brands.
Adherence subgroups analysed but not reported. Authors indicate they performed subgroup analysis by adherence [vimeo.com] @18:30, however these results have not been reported.
Maximum symptom duration not clear. The procol excludes patients with >7 days of symptoms, i.e. patients 7 days from onset are included. The paper claims "less than 7 days" in one instance and "within 7 days" in another. The presentation reports "<7 days" [vimeo.com].
No discontinuation due to hospitalization for ivermectin. Table S2 shows 9 placebo patients discontinued treatment due to hospitalization, compared to zero for ivermectin. While ivermectin patients only received 3 days treatment, they received placebo tablets for the remaining days. If this number is only counting discontinuation during the first three days, the result highlights that treatment was stopped before any patients were hospitalized. The protocol notes "Study drug will be stopped at the time of hospitalization for any reason".
Authors indicate up to 5 day delay in real-world usage. Authors note up to 11 days treatment delay with a remote clinical trial compared to up to 5 day for "real-world use" [vimeo.com] @43:00, where the 5 days derives from testing and medical system delays. However, logical real-world use, as used in many locations, is to have the treatment on hand to take immediately.
risk of death, 197.1% higher, RR 2.97, p = 1.00, treatment 1 of 408 (0.2%), control 0 of 396 (0.0%), continuity correction due to zero event (with reciprocal of the contrasting arm), day 28.
risk of death/hospitalization, 26.7% lower, RR 0.73, p = 0.66, treatment 4 of 406 (1.0%), control 5 of 394 (1.3%), NNT 352, odds ratio converted to relative risk.
risk of progression, 36.8% higher, RR 1.37, p = 0.33, treatment 23 of 406 (5.7%), control 16 of 394 (4.1%), odds ratio converted to relative risk, combined ER, hospitalization, death.
risk of progression, 3.7% higher, RR 1.04, p = 0.78, treatment 105 of 407 (25.8%), control 96 of 391 (24.6%), odds ratio converted to relative risk, combined hypoxemia, ER, hospitalization, death, primary outcome.
risk of hospitalization, 60.8% lower, RR 0.39, p = 0.28, treatment 2 of 206 (1.0%), control 5 of 202 (2.5%), NNT 66, IVM vs. placebo.
risk of hospitalization, 74.6% lower, RR 0.25, p = 0.37, treatment 1 of 137 (0.7%), control 4 of 139 (2.9%), NNT 47, IVM vs. placebo, ≤5 days from onset.
risk of hospitalization, 70.1% lower, RR 0.30, p = 0.12, treatment 3 of 406 (0.7%), control 5 of 202 (2.5%), NNT 58, IVM and IVM+MF vs. placebo.
risk of hospitalization, 41.8% lower, RR 0.58, p = 0.50, treatment 3 of 406 (0.7%), control 5 of 394 (1.3%), NNT 189, IVM and IVM+MF vs. placebo and MF.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates
Bramante et al., 18 Aug 2022, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, placebo-controlled, USA, peer-reviewed, 3 authors, average treatment delay 4.6 days, dosage 430μg/kg days 1-3, this trial compares with another treatment - results may be better when compared to placebo, trial NCT04510194 (history) (COVID-OUT).
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Submit Updates or Corrections
This PaperIvermectinAll
Loading..
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and treatments are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. FLCCC and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop   
Submit