Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 µg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 in Japan and Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug administered to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Fundamental research suggests that ivermectin is effective against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment option. METHODS: This multi-regional (Japan and Thailand), multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 (IVERMILCO Study). The participants took a specified number of the investigational product (ivermectin or placebo) tablets of, adjusted to a dose of 0.3-0.4 mg/kg, orally on an empty stomach once daily for three days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time at which clinical symptoms first showed an improving trend by 168 h after investigational product administration. RESULTS: A total of 1030 eligible participants were assigned to receive the investigational product; 502 participants received ivermectin and 527 participants received a placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was approximately 96 h (approximately four days) for both ivermectin and placebo groups, which did not show statistically significant difference (stratified log-rank test, p = 0.61). The incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions did not show statistically significant differences between the ivermectin and placebo groups (chi-square test, p = 0.97, p = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that ivermectin (0.3-0.4 mg/kg), as a treatment for patients with mild COVID-19, is ineffective; however, its safety has been confirmed for participants, including minor participants of 12 years or older (IVERMILCO Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05056883.).

The Detrimental Effect of Pre-Treatment with Ivermectin on Myocardial Ischemia.

INTRODUCTION: Ivermectin (IVM) is a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic agent with potential antibacterial, antiviral, and anti-cancer effects. There are limited studies on the effects of IVM on cardiovascular diseases, so the present study sought to determine the effects of pre-treatment with IVM on myocardial ischemia in both ex vivo and in vivo. METHODS: In the ex vivo part, two groups of control and treated rats with IVM (0.2 mg/kg) were examined for cardiac function and arrhythmias by isolated heart perfusion. In the in vivo part, four groups, namely, control, IVM, Iso (MI), and Iso + IVM 0.2 mg/kg were used. Subcutaneous injection of isoproterenol (100 mg/kg/day) for 2 consecutive days was used for the induction of myocardial infarction (MI) in male Wistar rats. Then electrocardiogram, hemodynamic factors, cardiac hypertrophy, and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels were investigated. RESULTS: The ex vivo results showed that administration of IVM induces cardiac arrhythmia and decreases the left ventricular maximal rate of pressure increase (contractility) and maximal rate of pressure decline (relaxation). The isoproterenol-induced MI model used as an in vivo model showed that cardiac hypertrophy were increased with no improvement in the hemodynamic and electrocardiogram pattern in the IVM-treated group in comparison to MI (Iso) group. However, the MDA level was lower in the IVM-treated group. CONCLUSION: IVM pre-treatment demonstrates detrimental effects in cardiac ischemia through exacerbation of cardiac arrhythmia, myocardial dysfunction, and increased cardiac hypertrophy. Therefore, the use of IVM in ischemic heart patients should be done with great caution.

Ivermectin ameliorates bleomycin-induced lung fibrosis in male rats by inhibiting the inflammation and oxidative stress.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a pulmonary fibrotic disease characterized by a poor prognosis, which its pathogenesis involves the accumulation of abnormal fibrous tissue, inflammation, and oxidative stress. Ivermectin, a positive allosteric modulator of GABAA receptor, exerts anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties in preclinical studies. The present study investigates the potential protective effects of ivermectin treatment in rats against bleomycin-induced IPF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study involved 42 male Wistar rats, which were divided into five groups: control (without induction of IPF), bleomycin (IPF-induced by bleomycin 2.5 mg/kg, by intratracheal administration), and three fibrosis groups receiving ivermectin (0.5, 1, and 3 mg/kg). lung tissues were harvested for measurement of oxidative stress [via myeloperoxidase (MPO), superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione (GSH)] and inflammatory markers (tumor necrosis factor-α [TNF-α], interleukin-1ß [IL-1ß], and transforming growth factor-ß [TGF-ß]). Histological assessments of tissue damage were performed using hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) and Masson's trichrome staining methods. RESULTS: The induction of fibrosis via bleomycin was found to increase levels of MPO as well as TNF-α, IL-1ß, and TGF-ß while decrease SOD activity and GSH level. Treatment with ivermectin at a dosage of 3 mg/kg was able to reverse the effects of bleomycin-induced fibrosis on these markers. In addition, results from H&E and Masson's trichrome staining showed that ivermectin treatment at this same dose reduced tissue damage and pulmonary fibrosis. CONCLUSION: The data obtained from this study indicate that ivermectin may have therapeutic benefits for IPF, likely due to its ability to reduce inflammation and mitigate oxidative stress-induced toxicity.

Efficacy and Safety of Moxidectin-Albendazole and Ivermectin-Albendazole Combination Therapy Compared to Albendazole Monotherapy in Adolescents and Adults Infected with Trichuris trichiura: A Randomized, Controlled Superiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: The currently recommended benzimidazole monotherapy is insufficiently effective to control infection with the soil-transmitted helminth Trichuris trichiura. Ivermectin-albendazole combination has shown promising, but setting-dependent efficacy, with therapeutic underperformance in Côte d'Ivoire. We evaluated whether moxidectin-albendazole could serve as an alternative to albendazole monotherapy in Côte d'Ivoire. METHODS: In this community-based, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial, individuals aged 12-60 years were screened for T. trichiura eggs in their stool using quadruplicate Kato-Katz thick smears. Diagnostically and clinically eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive single oral doses of moxidectin (8 mg) and albendazole (400 mg), ivermectin (200 µg/kg) and albendazole (400 mg), or albendazole (400 mg) and placebo. The primary outcome was proportion cured, ie, cure rate (CR), assessed at 2-3 weeks post-treatment. Safety endpoints were assessed pre-treatment and at 3 and 24 hours post-treatment. RESULTS: For the 210 participants with primary outcome data, we observed CRs of 15.3% in the moxidectin-albendazole arm and 22.5% in the ivermectin-albendazole arm, which did not differ significantly from the CR of 13.4% in the albendazole arm (differences: 1.8%-points [95% confidence interval: -10.1 to 13.6] and 9.1%-points [-3.9 to 21.8], respectively). Most common adverse events were abdominal pain (range across arms: 11.9%-20.9%), headache (4.7%-14.3%), and itching (5.8%-13.1%), which were predominantly mild and transient. CONCLUSIONS: All therapies showed similar low efficacy in treating trichuriasis in Côte d'Ivoire. Alternative treatment options need to be evaluated, and further analyses should be conducted to understand the lack of enhanced activity of the combination therapies in Côte d'Ivoire. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04726969.

Possible Interaction of Opioidergic and Nitrergic Pathways in the Anticonvulsant Effect of Ivermectin on Pentylenetetrazole-Induced Clonic Seizures in Mice.

Ivermectin (IVM) is an antiparasitic drug that primarily works by the activation of GABAA receptors. The potential pharmacological pathways behind the anti-convulsant effect of IVM haven't yet been identified. In this study, intravenous injection of pentylenetetrazole (PTZ)-induced clonic seizure in mice was investigated in order to assess the possible influence of IVM on clonic seizure threshold (CST). We also look at the function of the Opioidergic and nitrergic pathways in IVM anticonvulsant action on clonic seizure threshold. IVM (0.5, 1, 5, and 10 mg/kg, i.p.) raised the PTZ-induced CST, according to our findings. Furthermore, the ineffective dose of nitric oxide synthase inhibitors (L-NAME 10 mg/kg, i.p.), and (7-NI 30 mg/kg, i.p.) or opioidergic system agonist (morphine 0.25 mg/kg, i.p.) were able to amplify the anticonvulsive action of IVM (0.2 mg/kg, i.p.). Moreover, the anticonvulsant effect of IVM was reversed by an opioid receptor antagonist (naltrexone 1 mg/kg, i.p.). Furthermore, the combination of the ineffective dose of morphine as an opioid receptor agonist with either L-NAME (2 mg/kg, i.p.) or 7-NI (10 mg/kg, i.p.) and with an ineffective dose of IVM (0.2 mg/kg, i.p.) had a significant anticonvulsant effect. Taken together, IVM has anticonvulsant activity against PTZ-induced clonic seizures in mice, which may be mediated at least in part through the interaction of the opioidergic system and the nitric oxide pathway.

Comparison of topical benzyl benzoate vs. oral ivermectin in treating scabies: A randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Scabies is an itchy, parasitic infection of the skin. Recent reports indicate there is a decreasing efficacy of the standard treatment of choice, topical 5% permethrin cream. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy, safety and tolerability of topical benzyl benzoate (BB) with oral ivermectin in the treatment of scabies. METHODS: Patients with dermoscopy-verified scabies visiting the dermatologic outpatient clinic were assessed for enrolment in the study. In total, 224 patients were enrolled and sequentially randomized into two equally sized groups. Group A received topical 25% or 10% BB for the daily use over a period of three consecutive days, group B received oral ivermectin (200 µg/kg body weight) twice, 1 week apart. Treatment outcome was evaluated by dermoscopy at a 3-week follow-up visit. RESULTS: Treatment resulted in a cure rate of 87% in group A and 86% in group B. After initial therapy failure in group A, six out of eight patients showed treatment response upon repeated application of BB, five of five when retreated with ivermectin and two of two with BB plus ivermectin, respectively. In group B, successful retreatment was observed in three out of three patients with ivermectin, two of two patients with BB and 11 of 11 patients with the combination of BB plus ivermectin, respectively. Tolerability and safety profile of oral ivermectin was excellent, while BB produced short burning sensations in 14%. CONCLUSION: Topical BB and oral ivermectin have shown comparable good therapeutic efficacy. Therefore, both agents constitute an adequate first-line therapy in the treatment of scabies. A combination of both agents may be considered in recalcitrant and extensively infested cases, additionally to crusted scabies.

Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg (n = 602) daily, or placebo (n = 604) for 6 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results: Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 713 (59.1%) were women, and 1008 (83.5%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.13; P = .68). Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.0 [95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5]; P = .53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of IVM on adult patients with COVID-19 were searched until 22 March 2021 in 5 engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs (SAEs). The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n = 1173) were included. The controls were the standard of care in 5 RCTs and placebo in 5. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in 1, and mild and moderate in 1. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality rates compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.37 [95% confidence interval, .12-1.13]; very low QoE) or LOS compared with controls (mean difference, 0.72 days [95% confidence interval, -.86 to 2.29 days]; very low QoE). AEs, SAEs, and viral clearance were similar between IVM and control groups (low QoE for all outcomes). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality rates in 3 RCTs at high RoB were reduced with IVM. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.

Semiannual Treatment of Albendazole Alone is Efficacious for Treatment of Lymphatic Filariasis: A Randomized Open-label Trial in Cote d'Ivoire.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin (IVM) plus albendazole (ALB), or IA, is widely used in mass drug administration (MDA) programs that aim to eliminate lymphatic filariasis (LF) in Africa. However, IVM can cause severe adverse events in persons with heavy Loa loa infections that are common in Central Africa. ALB is safe in loiasis, but more information is needed on its efficacy for LF. This study compared the efficacy and safety of 3 years of semiannual treatment with ALB to annual IA in persons with bancroftian filariasis. METHODS: Adults with Wuchereria bancrofti microfilaremia (Mf) were randomized to receive either 3 annual doses of IA (N = 52), 6 semiannual doses of ALB 400 mg (N = 45), or 6 semiannual doses of ALB 800 mg (N = 47). The primary outcome is amicrofilaremia at 36 months. RESULTS: IA was more effective for completely clearing Mf than ALB 400mg or ALB 800mg (79%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 67-91; vs 48%, 95% CI: 32-66 and 57%, 95% CI: 41-73, respectively). Mean percentage reductions in Mf counts at 36 months relative to baseline tended to be greater after IA (98%, 95% CI: 88-100) than after ALB 400 mg (88%, 95% CI: 78-98) and ALB 800 mg (89%, 95% CI: 79-99) (P = .07 and P = .06, respectively). Adult worm nest numbers (assessed by ultrasound) were reduced in all treatment groups. Treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated semiannual treatment with ALB is macrofilaricidal for W. bancrofti and leads to sustained reductions in Mf counts. This is a safe and effective regimen that could be used as MDA to eliminate LF in areas where ivermectin cannot be used. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02974049.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life). MAIN RESULTS: We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.

Ivermectin administration is associated with lower gastrointestinal complications and greater ventilator-free days in ventilated patients with COVID-19: A propensity score analysis.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 patients have been reported to have digestive symptoms with poor outcome. Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been used in COVID-19 patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether ivermectin has effects on gastrointestinal complications and ventilator-free days in ventilated patients with COVID-19. METHODS: COVID-19 patients who were mechanically ventilated in the ICU were included in this study. The ventilated patients who received ivermectin within 3 days after admission were assigned to the Ivermectin group, and the others were assigned to the Control group. Patients in the Ivermectin group received ivermectin 200 µg/kg via nasal tube. The incidence of gastrointestinal complications and ventilator-free days within 4 weeks from admission were evaluated as clinical outcomes using a propensity score with the inverse probability weighting method. RESULTS: We included 88 patients in this study, of whom 39 patients were classified into the Ivermectin group, and 49 patients were classified into the Control group. The hazard ratio for gastrointestinal complications in the Ivermectin group as compared with the Control group was 0.221 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.057 to 0.855; p = 0.029) in a Cox proportional-hazard regression model. The odds ratio for ventilator-free days as compared with the Control group was 1.920 (95% CI, 1.076 to 3.425; p = 0.027) in a proportional odds logistic regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Ivermectin improved gastrointestinal complications and the number of ventilator-free days in severe COVID-19 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Prevention of gastrointestinal symptoms by SARS-Cov-2 might be associated with COVID-19 outcome.

Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of ivermectin to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the US with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin, 400 µg/kg, daily for 3 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1591 participants aged 30 years and older with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute infection for 7 days or less, were enrolled from June 23, 2021, through February 4, 2022, with follow-up data through May 31, 2022, at 93 sites in the US. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive ivermectin, 400 µg/kg (n = 817), daily for 3 days or placebo (n = 774). Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite of hospitalization or death by day 28. Results: Among 1800 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 48 [12] years; 932 women [58.6%]; 753 [47.3%] reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1591 completed the trial. The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.96-1.17; posterior P value [HR >1] = .91). The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group. There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group (1.2% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.1 [95% CrI, 0.4-2.6]). The most common serious adverse events were COVID-19 pneumonia (ivermectin [n = 5]; placebo [n = 7]) and venous thromboembolism (ivermectin [n = 1]; placebo [n = 5]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Efficacy and Safety of Albendazole and High-Dose Ivermectin Coadministration in School-Aged Children Infected With Trichuris trichiura in Honduras: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of currently available anthelminthics against Trichuris trichiura infections is significatively lower than for other soil-transmitted helminths. The combination of ivermectin (IVM) and albendazole (ALB) has shown significant improvements in efficacy. METHODS: Safety and efficacy randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 3 experimental regimens against ALB monotherapy for the treatment of T. trichiura infections in northern Honduras. Infected children were randomized to 4 treatment arms: arm 1, single-dose ALB (400 mg); arm 2, single-dose ALB (400 mg) plus IVM (600 µg/kg); arm 3, ALB (400 mg) for 3 consecutive days; or arm 4, ALB (400 mg) plus IVM (600 µg/kg) for 3 consecutive days. Efficacy was measured based on the egg reduction and cure rates, both assessed 14-21 days after treatment, using the Kato-Katz method. Safety was evaluated by analyzing the frequency and severity of adverse events. RESULTS: Of 176 children randomized to 1 of the 4 treatment arms, 117 completed treatment and follow-up. The egg reduction rates for arms 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 47.7%, 96.7%, 72.1%, and 100%, respectively; with P values <.001 for comparisons between IVM groups and ALB-only arms. The cure rates were 4.2%, 88.6%, 33.3%, and 100%, respectively. A total of 48 adverse events (85.4% mild) were reported in 36 children. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of ALB and high-dose IVM is a highly effective and well tolerated treatment for the treatment of T. trichiura infections, offering significantly improved treatment for the control of this infection. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04041453.

A Trial of a Triple-Drug Treatment for Lymphatic Filariasis.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has targeted lymphatic filariasis for global elimination by 2020 with a strategy of mass drug administration. This trial tested whether a single dose of a three-drug regimen of ivermectin plus diethylcarbamazine plus albendazole results in a greater sustained clearance of microfilariae than a single dose of a two-drug regimen of diethylcarbamazine plus albendazole and is noninferior to the two-drug regimen administered once a year for 3 years. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial involving adults from Papua New Guinea with Wuchereria bancrofti microfilaremia, we assigned 182 participants to receive a single dose of the three-drug regimen (60 participants), a single dose of the two-drug regimen (61 participants), or the two-drug regimen once a year for 3 years (61 participants). Clearance of microfilariae from the blood was measured at 12, 24, and 36 months after trial initiation. RESULTS: The three-drug regimen cleared microfilaremia in 55 of 57 participants (96%) at 12 months, in 52 of 54 participants (96%) at 24 months, and in 55 of 57 participants (96%) at 36 months. A single dose of the two-drug regimen cleared microfilaremia in 18 of 56 participants (32%) at 12 months, in 31 of 55 participants (56%) at 24 months, and in 43 of 52 participants (83%) at 36 months (P=0.02 for the three-drug regimen vs. a single dose of the two-drug regimen at 36 months). The two-drug regimen administered once a year for 3 years cleared microfilaremia in 20 of 59 participants (34%) at 12 months, in 42 of 56 participants (75%) at 24 months, and in 51 of 52 participants (98%) at 36 months (P=0.004 for noninferiority of the three-drug regimen vs. the two-drug regimen administered once a year for 3 years at 36 months). Moderate adverse events were more common in the group that received the three-drug regimen than in the combined two-drug-regimen groups (27% vs. 5%, P<0.001). There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The three-drug regimen induced clearance of microfilariae from the blood for 3 years in almost all participants who received the treatment and was superior to the two-drug regimen administered once and noninferior to the two-drug regimen administered once a year for 3 years. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01975441 .).

COVID-19 Pandemic and Dysbiosis: Can the Ivermectin Hysteria Lead to an Increase of Autoimmune Neuroinflammatory Diseases?

The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 has made new treatments a goal for the scientific community. One of these treatments is Ivermectin. Here we discuss the hypothesis of dysbiosis caused by the use of Ivermectin and the possible impacts on neuroinflammatory diseases after the end of the pandemic.

Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19 (IVERCOR-COVID19) a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) has changed our lives. The scientific community has been investigating re-purposed treatments to prevent disease progression in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ivermectin treatment can prevent hospitalization in individuals with early COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in non-hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 in Corrientes, Argentina. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 positive nasal swabs were contacted within 48 h by telephone to invite them to participate. The trial randomized 501 patients between August 19th 2020 and February 22nd 2021. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to ivermectin (N = 250) or placebo (N = 251) arms in a staggered dose, according to the patient's weight, for 2 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The efficacy of ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations was evaluated as primary outcome. We evaluated secondary outcomes in relationship to safety and other efficacy end points. RESULTS: The mean age was 42 years (SD ± 15.5) and the median time since symptom onset to the inclusion was 4 days [interquartile range 3-6]. The primary outcome of hospitalization was met in 14/250 (5.6%) individuals in ivermectin group and 21/251 (8.4%) in placebo group (odds ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.31; p = 0.227). Time to hospitalization was not statistically different between groups. The mean time from study enrollment to invasive mechanical ventilatory support (MVS) was 5.25 days (SD ± 1.71) in ivermectin group and 10 days (SD ± 2) in placebo group, (p = 0.019). There were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes including polymerase chain reaction test negativity and safety outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Low percentage of hospitalization events, dose of ivermectin and not including only high-risk population. CONCLUSION: Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04529525 .

Ivermectin treatment in humans for reducing malaria transmission.

BACKGROUND: Malaria is transmitted through the bite of Plasmodium-infected adult female Anopheles mosquitoes. Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, acts by killing mosquitoes that are exposed to the drug while feeding on the blood of people (known as blood feeds) who have ingested the drug. This effect on mosquitoes has been demonstrated by individual randomized trials. This effect has generated interest in using ivermectin as a tool for malaria control. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of community administration of ivermectin on malaria transmission. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation index - expanded, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER database to 14 January 2021. We checked the reference lists of included studies for other potentially relevant studies, and contacted researchers working in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) that compared ivermectin, as single or multiple doses, with a control treatment or placebo given to populations living in malaria-endemic areas, in the context of mass drug administration. Primary outcomes were prevalence of malaria parasite infection and incidence of clinical malaria in the community. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data on the number of events and the number of participants in each trial arm at the time of assessment. For rate data, we noted the total time at risk in each trial arm. To assess risk of bias, we used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool for cRCTs. We documented the method of data analysis, any adjustments for clustering or other covariates, and recorded the estimate of the intra-cluster correlation (ICC) coefficient. We re-analysed the trial data provided by the trial authors to adjust for cluster effects. We used a Poisson mixed-effect model with small sample size correction, and a cluster-level analysis using the linear weighted model to adequately adjust for clustering.  MAIN RESULTS: We included one cRCT and identified six ongoing trials.  The included cRCT examined the incidence of malaria in eight villages in Burkina Faso, randomized to two arms. Both trial arms received a single dose of ivermectin 150 µg/kg to 200 µg/kg, together with a dose of albendazole. The villages in the intervention arm received an additional five doses of ivermectin, once every three weeks. Children were enrolled into an active cohort, in which they were repeatedly screened for malaria infection.  The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of uncomplicated malaria in a cohort of children aged five years and younger, over the 18-week study. We judged the study to be at high risk of bias, as the analysis did not account for clustering or correlation between participants in the same village. The study did not demonstrate an effect of Ivermectin on the cumulative incidence of uncomplicated malaria in the cohort of children over the 18-week study (risk ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.17; P = 0.2607; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether community administration of ivermectin has an effect on malaria transmission, based on one trial published to date.