Kovid-19 - Huvemek® Phase 2 clinical trial

Huvemek, Press Release, 3/25, EudraCT2020-002091-12, Mar 2021
Late treatmentRCT · EudraCT2020-002091-12 · 100 patients · Bulgaria
Ivermectin for COVID-19
Huvemek Press Release, 3/25 · March 2021
Greater improvement with ivermectin
Not statistically significant · p = 0.28

Ivermectin for COVID-19

4th treatment shown to reduce risk in August 2020, now with p < 0.0000000001 from 106 studies, recognized in 24 countries.

No treatment is 100% effective.
Protocols combine treatments.

Multicenter double-blind RCT with 100 hospitalized patients in Bulgaria showing faster viral clearance, greater clinical improvement, and improved biomarkers with treatment. Limited data has been reported currently. No serious adverse events were observed.
Authors administered ivermectin on an empty stomach. Ivermectin is a lipophilic drug with low aqueous solubility and is better absorbed when given with food, especially high-fat meals. Administration with a high-fat meal can significantly increase plasma and tissue concentrations (~2.5x plasma concentration in Guzzo) and reduce time to onset of action. Standard practice for systemic use of ivermectin is administration with food (for intestinal parasitic infections, systemic distribution may not be required). Specifying fasted administration may avoid or delay the attainment of therapeutic concentrations and raises concerns about possible investigator bias.
This is the 21st of 54 COVID-19 RCTs for ivermectin, which collectively show efficacy with p=0.000000027.
This is the 43rd of 106 COVID-19 controlled studies for ivermectin, which collectively show efficacy with p<0.0000000001.
OutcomeImprovementEffect · pTreatmentControl
risk of no improvement 31.6% lower · RR 0.68 · p = 0.28 31.6% lowerRR 0.68p = 0.28 13 of 50 (26.0%) 19 of 50 (38.0%) treatment 13 of 50 (26.0%), control 19 of 50 (38.0%)patients with improvement on WHO scaleNNT 8.3day 7
risk of no improvement 31.8% lower · RR 0.68 · p = 0.21 31.8% lowerRR 0.68p = 0.21 15 of 50 (30.0%) 22 of 50 (44.0%) treatment 15 of 50 (30.0%), control 22 of 50 (44.0%)patients with improvement on WHO scaleNNT 7.1day 6
risk of no improvement 36.0% lower · RR 0.64 · p = 0.10 36.0% lowerRR 0.64p = 0.10 16 of 50 (32.0%) 25 of 50 (50.0%) treatment 16 of 50 (32.0%), control 25 of 50 (50.0%)patients with improvement on WHO scaleNNT 5.6day 5
risk of no improvement 34.5% lower · RR 0.66 · p = 0.07 34.5% lowerRR 0.66p = 0.07 19 of 50 (38.0%) 29 of 50 (58.0%) treatment 19 of 50 (38.0%), control 29 of 50 (58.0%)patients with improvement on WHO scaleNNT 5.0day 4

Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates.

Huvemek et al., 25 Mar 2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, Bulgaria, preprint, 1 author, average treatment delay 7.0 days, dosage 400μg/kg days 1-3, trial EudraCT2020-002091-12.
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatment protocols c19early.org November 2026 Bulgaria Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Myanmar South Africa Peru Philippines USA Brazil France Italy Canada Pakistan Spain Vietnam Japan Iran Bangladesh Ethiopia Ghana Mexico South Korea Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland Uzbekistan India China Venezuela DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Egypt Nigeria Taiwan Fiji Zambia Bosnia-Herzegovina Dominican Republic Bolivia Côte d'Ivoire Eritrea Togo Iceland New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Mongolia Czechia Belarus Israel Haiti North Macedonia Hong Kong Qatar Panama Serbia Bulgaria favored high-profit treatments.The average efficacy of treatments was moderate.High-cost protocols reduce early treatment, andforgo complementary/synergistic benefits. More effective More expensive 75% 50% 25% ≤0%
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19treatment protocols worldwide c19early.org November 2026 Bulgaria Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Myanmar South Africa Peru Philippines USA Brazil France Italy Canada Pakistan Spain Vietnam Japan Iran Bangladesh Ethiopia Ghana Mexico South Korea Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland Uzbekistan India China Venezuela DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Egypt Taiwan Fiji Zambia Dominican Rep. Bolivia Côte d'Ivoire Eritrea Togo Sri Lanka Iceland Trinidad and Tobago Mongolia Czechia Belarus Israel North Macedonia Hong Kong Qatar Panama Serbia Bulgaria favored high-profit treatments.The average efficacy was moderate.High-cost protocols reduce early treatment,and forgo complementary/synergistic benefits. More effective More expensive 75% 50% 25% ≤0%
Late treatment
is less effective