Evaluation of Ivermectin as a Potential Treatment for Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Double-Blind Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial in Eastern India
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Objective Ivermectin has been suggested as a treatment for COVID-19.This randomised control trial was conducted to test the efficacy of Ivermectin in the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19. Design Parallel, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial Setting: A tertiary care dedicated COVID-19 hospital in Bihar, India Participants Adult patients (> 18 years) admitted with mild to moderate COVID 19 disease (saturation > 90% on room air, respiratory rate < 30 and no features of shock) with no contraindications to ivermectin and willing to participate in the study Intervention Patients in the intervention arm were given ivermectin 12 mg on day 1 and day 2 of admission. Patients in the placebo arm were given identical looking placebo tablets. Rest of the treatment was continued as per the existing protocol and the clinical judgment of the treating teams. Outcome Measures The primary outcome measure was a negative RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 on day 6 of admission. The secondary outcome measures were symptom status on day 6, discharge status on day 10, admission to ICU, need for invasive mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality. Results A total of 115 patients were enrolled for the study of which 112 were included in the final analysis. Of them, 55 were randomised to the intervention arm while 57 were randomised to the placebo arm. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics of the two arms. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, i.e. negative RT-PCR status on day 6 between the two groups. Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two groups in most of the secondary outcome measures, viz. symptom status on day 6, discharge status on day 10, admission to ICU, and need for invasive mechanical ventilation. However, while there was no in-hospital mortality in the intervention arm, there were 4 deaths in the placebo arm. As a result, all patients in the intervention arm (n=56) were successfully discharged as compared to 93.1% (n=54/58) in the placebo arm (RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.2, p=0.019). 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. Strengths and Limitations of the Study This study was randomised and double blind, thereby minimizing the chance of bias. All outcome measures except symptom status on day 6 were objective and placebo control was used for comparison. Only single repeat RT-PCR was done. So median time to viral clearance in the two groups could not be calculated. Severe cases were not included in the study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».