Two Groups Review Evidence for Ivermectin Very Differently

Two Groups Review Evidence for Ivermectin Very Differently

Recently, a large, multi-center based group of Canadian researchers (Bartoszco of McMaster University, et al) conducted a living systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate and compare the effects of possible repurposed drugs for prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Basing their study on data from a WHO COVID-19 database as well as review of extensive multilingual COVID-19 literature up until January 19, 2021 as well as six Chinese databases up until January 20, 2021, the group sought to better understand the randomized trials in which people at risk of COVID-19 were randomized to drug prophylaxis or non prophylaxis (e.g. standard of care or placebo). The group looked at both hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin but the emphasis of this entry is ivermectin. While pairs of reviewers independently screened potential eligible articles, this group recently included the very same clinical trials that a UK-based group reviewed for their systematic review on ivermectin known as the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) COVID-19—the BIRD recommendation. But that’s where the two different meta-analyses diverge. The Canadian group, that is McMaste...

Note:  If you need assistance with your subscription or would like to discuss a corporate subscription for more than 10 employees please contact us or use the chat (bottom right).

Personal
$5 / Month
Individuals at home that are reading our content for personal health care or other non-professional reasons.
Like a Starbucks a month
Personal - Single Payment
$50 for 1 Year
Individuals - reading for personal reasons who prefer to pay for one year in advance with no recurring billing.
18% discount to monthly
Professional
$12 / Month
Professionals from the healthcare industry who are subscribing on behalf of their company for work reasons.
Way better than coffee