<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://imcjms.com/assets/rss.css" ?><rss version="2.0">
<channel>
    <title>IMC Journal of Medical Science</title>
    <link>https://imcjms.com</link>
    <description>Ibrahim Medical College Journal of Medical Science</description>

                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Commentary about open-label randomized
controlled study of ivermectin in mild to moderate COVID-19]]></title>

                                    <author><![CDATA[Eduardo Ortega-Guillén]]></author>
                                    <author><![CDATA[Giovanni Meneses]]></author>
                
                <link data-url="https://imcjms.com/registration/journal_full_text/357">
    https://imcjms.com/registration/journal_full_text/357
</link>
                <pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2021 01:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
                <category><![CDATA[Others]]></category>
                <comments><![CDATA[]]></comments>
                <description>To the Editor:
We have carefully read the article from Podder et al. [1]
published on July 2020 at this journal (volume 14, issue 2). In this regard,
the authors mentioned approval of their study by the director of the health
center, but not a methodological and ethical evaluation by an institutional
board. We noted that the trial is not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, unlike
the trial of e.g. Chowdhury et al. [2] from the same country (cited in the
article). A board would have questioned the low statistical power of the
design, as it only had 62 subjects. We consider inappropriate the choice of a
negative outcome of 10-day RT-PCR test as a result in outpatients, since it
already was not recommended by the WHO in June 2020 [3].
The authors excluded subjects taking hydroxychloroquine or
antimicrobials other than doxycycline, which could introduce considerable
selection bias because it ruled out 80% of patients with a positive RT-PCR
test. Lack of concealment of the randomization sequence and systematic
allocation were additional factors of bias when distributing patients to the
study groups. On the other hand, the lack of blinding increased the risk of
information bias, since the outcome is the absence of symptoms. But the most
objectionable methodological element was the exclusion of 20 subjects after
allocation, based on criteria of lack of information and time of symptoms
greater than seven days, not previously defined as study exclusion criteria.
We consider inadequate that the authors combined mild and moderate
cases of the disease and managed both categories in a single study of
outpatients, when moderate cases probably must be hospitalized or receive
stricter monitoring. Since May 2020, WHO advised against the decision to
administer antibiotics (e.g. doxycycline) to patients without evidence of
bacterial pneumonia [4].
When calculating the coefficients of variation of the times until
the patients’ recovery, high variability is found in almost all described
symptoms durations. We would recommend to the authors to perform a normality
contrast test (e.g. Shapiro-Wilk) to check the relevance of the t-test, due to
a possible lack of a normal distribution of the data. Even for smaller
subgroups (about 6 patients per group with dyspnea or fatigue) the potential
utility of a test of difference of medians (e.g. Mann-Whitney U test) had to be
evaluated.
&amp;nbsp;
References
1.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Podder CS, Chowdhury N, Sina MI, Haque
WMMU. Outcome of ivermectin treated mild to moderate COVID-19 cases: a
single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled study. IMC J Med Sci. 2020; 14(2).
2.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Chowdhury ATMM, Shahbaz M, Karim MR, Islam
J, Guo D, He S. A randomized trial of ivermectin-doxycycline and
hydroxychloroquine- azithromycin therapy on COVID19 patients. Research Square; 2020.
3.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; World Health Organization. Criteria for
releasing COVID-19 patients from isolation: scientific brief: June 17, 2020.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. 5 p. Report No.:
WHO/2019-nCoV/Sci_Brief/Discharge_From_Isolation/2020.1.
4.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; World
Health Organization. Clinical management of COVID-19: interim guidance, 27 May
2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. 62 p. Report No.:
WHO/2019-nCoV/clinical/2020.5.
&amp;nbsp;
Eduardo
Ortega-Guillén, MSc
Hospital Nacional Alberto Sabogal Sologuren-EsSalud,
Callao, Peru 
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos,
Lima, Peru.
&amp;nbsp;
Giovanni
Meneses*, PhD
Hospital San Juan de Lurigancho, San Juan de
Lurigancho, Lima, Peru 
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos,
Lima, Peru.
&amp;nbsp;
*Corresponding
author: Giovanni Meneses, Departamento Académico de Medicina
Preventivay Salud Pública, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos, Lima, Peru. ZIP Code: 15307. E-mail: gmenesesf@unmsm.edu.pe
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
[Editor’s note: Reference # 5 is deleted as the reference is
missing/not cited within the text.]
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Authors’ reply
We appreciate Eduardo Ortega-Guillén, MSc and Giovanni Meneses,
PhD for the issues they raised about our study. With all admiration to their
concerns, our responses to disavow most of the claims are that the study
was performed in a resource-limited primary healthcare setting, where a
well-organized institutional review board is not a reality. The local health
complex authority consisting of Head of the Upazila health complex and other
senior consultants decide and approve conduction of any study at the center.
The authority assesses the scientific and ethical aspects of the study(s).&amp;nbsp; This study was also approved by the same
body. Though not mandatory – it would have been better if the study was
registered in ClinicalTrials.gov site. At the beginning of the study repeat
RT-PCR for end of isolation was recommended [1]. We excluded subjects taking
hydroxychloroquine or antimicrobials other than doxycycline to eliminate
confounders and determine the optimum benefit of ivermectin over the usual care. We also excluded
the patients presented after one week or more as ivermectin was presumed to be
effective if initiated early in the disease. Though antibiotics are not
recommended in COVID management if there is no bacterial infection suspected;
it was the centre&#039;s protocol to treat every suspected patient of pneumonia with
doxycycline at presentation as there were not sufficient investigation
facilities to exclude community-acquired pneumonia. In our national and WHO
interim guidelines, patients with the mild and moderate disease are advised to
be managed at home [1,2]. In some cases, mild and moderate cases are clinically
overlapped, so we managed these patients on outdoor patient department (OPD)
basis, preserving the valuable hospital beds for more severe cases. Regarding
the relevance of t-test, yes, we agree with Eduardo Ortega-Guillén and Giovanni Meneses that it would have been better if we used a nonparametric test
for some cases to find out the differences of medians. As suggested, we have re-analyzed our data by
Shapiro-Wilk and Mann-Whitney tests, but the results remained as before and
there was no change of significance. Also, similar to our observations, several
studies showed no conclusive benefits after ivermectin use [3]. &amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
References
1.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; World Health Organization. Clinical
management of COVID-19: interim guidance, 27 May 2020. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2020. 62 p. Report No.: WHO/2019-nCoV/clinical/2020.5. 
2.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Disease Control Division. Directorate
General of Health Services. Ministry of Health &amp;amp; Family Welfare. Government
of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. National Guidelines on clinical
management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Bangladesh: Directorate
General of Health Services, Ministry of Health &amp;amp; Family Welfare; 2020.
Version 7.0. 
3.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; National Institutes of Health. COVID-19 treatment
guidelines panel. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment guidelines. [accessed
on February 25, 2021]; Available from: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/.

&amp;nbsp;
Wasim Md Mohosin Ul Haque*
Department of Nephrology, BIRDEM General Hospital
122 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh; Email: wmmhaque@live.com
&amp;nbsp;
Chinmay Saha Podder 
Debidwar
Upazila Health Complex 
Debidwar,
Cumilla, Bangladesh. 
&amp;nbsp;
*Corresponding
author</description>

            </item>
            
    <copyright>2026 Ibrahim Medical College. All rights reserved.</copyright>
</channel>
</rss>
