Kovid-19 - Huvemek® Phase 2 clinical trial

Huvemek, Press Release, EudraCT2020-002091-12, Mar 2021
Improvement, day 7 32% improvement lower risk ← → higher risk Improvement, day 6 32% Improvement, day 5 36% Improvement, day 4 34% Ivermectin  Huvemek et al.  LATE TREATMENT RCT Is late treatment with ivermectin beneficial for COVID-19? Double-blind RCT 100 patients in Bulgaria Greater improvement with ivermectin (not stat. sig., p=0.28) c19early.org Huvemek, Press Release, March 2021 0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ RR
Ivermectin for COVID-19
4th treatment shown to reduce risk in August 2020, now with p < 0.00000000001 from 106 studies, recognized in 24 countries.
No treatment is 100% effective. Protocols combine treatments.
6,200+ studies for 200+ treatments. c19early.org
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 53 COVID-19 RCTs for ivermectin, which collectively show efficacy with p=0.000000087.
This is the 44th of 106 COVID-19 controlled studies for ivermectin, which collectively show efficacy with p<0.0000000001.
risk of no improvement, 31.6% lower, RR 0.68, p = 0.28, treatment 13 of 50 (26.0%), control 19 of 50 (38.0%), NNT 8.3, patients with improvement on WHO scale, day 7.
risk of no improvement, 31.8% lower, RR 0.68, p = 0.21, treatment 15 of 50 (30.0%), control 22 of 50 (44.0%), NNT 7.1, patients with improvement on WHO scale, day 6.
risk of no improvement, 36.0% lower, RR 0.64, p = 0.10, treatment 16 of 50 (32.0%), control 25 of 50 (50.0%), NNT 5.6, patients with improvement on WHO scale, day 5.
risk of no improvement, 34.5% lower, RR 0.66, p = 0.07, treatment 19 of 50 (38.0%), control 29 of 50 (58.0%), NNT 5.0, patients with improvement on WHO scale, day 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 2025 Bulgaria United Kingdom Russia USA Sudan Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Pakistan Argentina Vietnam Peru Philippines Spain Brazil Italy France Japan China Uzbekistan Ethiopia Iran Ghana Mexico South Korea Bangladesh Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland India DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Venezuela Nigeria Egypt Bolivia Taiwan Zambia Fiji Bosnia-Herzegovina Ukraine Côte d'Ivoire Iceland New Zealand Czechia Mongolia Israel Trinidad and Tobago Hong Kong North Macedonia Belarus Qatar Panama Serbia CAR 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 2025 Bulgaria United Kingdom Russia USA Sudan Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Pakistan Argentina Vietnam Peru Philippines Spain Brazil Italy France Japan China Uzbekistan Nepal Ethiopia Iran Ghana Mexico South Korea Bangladesh Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland India DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Venezuela Nigeria Egypt Bolivia Taiwan Zambia Fiji Ukraine Côte d'Ivoire Eritrea Iceland New Zealand Malawi Czechia Mongolia Israel Trinidad and Tobago Hong Kong North Macedonia Belarus Qatar Panama Serbia Syria 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
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. c19early involves the extraction of 200,000+ datapoints from thousands of papers. Community updates help ensure high accuracy. Treatments and other interventions are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. IMA and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop   
Submit