Finally had a chance to look up some materials on Ivermectin.
We know it significantly reduces the replication in vitro from research back in March (first link thanks to Ann
@flaflwrgrl):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
https://www.monash.edu/news/ar...
Back
in April the FDA warned people not to use it (fair enough, considering the lack of trials at that time).
In May and June the mechanism and dosages were discussed via letters:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
In mid-August, the Royal Australian College of GPs noted that there was
insufficient evidence to support the use of ivermectin (at the time).
An
article from August also noted that one of the concerns with ivermectin was that the dosage suggested by the earlier studies (back in March) was several orders of magnitude above the normal amount prescribed for treatment of parasites, etc.
In September there was an observational
Argentinian study that showed promise (no infections reported in the ivermectin group). It wasn't randomized and didn't include a placebo, though.
October:
Results from a retrospective study (the ICON study) indicated a reduction in mortality and the authors called for proper, randomized trials to be conducted:
Interpretation of these findings are tempered by the limitations of the retrospective design and the possibility of confounding. Appropriate dosing for this indication is not known, nor are the effects of ivermectin on viral load or in patients with milder disease. Further studies in appropriately designed randomized trials are recommended before any conclusions can be made.
End of October:
A yet-to-be-peer-reviewed study from India indicates that two high doses, three days apart, may be significantly effective in preventing infection.
At the end of the day, somebody really needs to a proper randomised, controlled study for ivermectin. Dr. Pierre Kory is right to call on organisations to investigate it.
