Category: Science

Cureus | Prophylactic Role of Ivermectin in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Among Healthcare Workers

Introduction

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are vulnerable to getting infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Preventing HCWs from getting infected is a priority to maintain healthcare services. The therapeutic and preventive role of ivermectin in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is being investigated. Based on promising results of in vitro studies of oral ivermectin, this study was conducted with the aim to demonstrate the prophylactic role of oral ivermectin in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Bhubaneswar.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted at AIIMS Bhubaneswar, which has been providing both COVID and non-COVID care since March 2020. All employees and students of the institute who provided written informed consent participated in the study. The uptake of two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose at a gap of 72 hours) was considered as exposure. The primary outcome of the study was COVID-19 infection in the following month of ivermectin consumption, diagnosed as per Government of India testing criteria (real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]) guidelines. The log-binomial model was used to estimate adjusted relative risk (ARR), and the Kaplan-Meier failure plot was used to estimate the probability of COVID-19 infection with follow-up time.

Results

Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two doses and single dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection (6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two doses of oral ivermectin had a significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 infection during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.

Conclusion

Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.

— Read on www.cureus.com/articles/64807-prophylactic-role-of-ivermectin-in-severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-coronavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections | medRxiv

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: ‘SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.1-fold (95% CI, 8.1 to 21.1) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta compared to previously infected’
— Read on www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

In other words: natural immunity 13x better than vaccines.

Time trends and factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from January-May 2021 among US adults: Findings from a large-scale national survey | medRxiv

According to this paper, a sizeable chunk of people who simply do not want to be vaccinated against Covid-19 (which is their right entirely and this was considered perfectly normal before the Marxist-like propaganda) have high education and/or are very well informed.
— Read on www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full

Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise? – The BMJ

Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise? – The BMJ
— Read on blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/

Time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported — Richard Smith, former BMJ editor

Antibody responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection more potent than vaccine-elicited ones

Researchers in the United States have conducted a study showing the difference in antibody evolution following vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between people who have not previously been infected with the virus and those who have.
— Read on www.news-medical.net/news/20210801/Antibody-responses-following-SARS-CoV-2-infection-more-potent-than-vaccine-elicited-ones.aspx

Quite obviously, I should add.