Efficacy Of Ivermectin Research Articles

High-dose ivermectin for early treatment of COVID-19 (COVER study): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial

High concentrations of ivermectin demonstrated antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of high-dose ivermectin in reducing viral load in individuals with early SARS-CoV-2 infection. This was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial. Participants were adults recently diagnosed with asymptomatic/oligosymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Exclusion criteria were: pregnant or lactating women; CNS disease; dialysis; severe medical condition with prognosis <6 months; warfarin treatment; and antiviral/chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine treatment. Participants were assigned (ratio 1:1:1) according to a randomised permuted block procedure to one of the following arms: placebo (arm A); single-dose ivermectin 600 μg/kg plus placebo for 5 days (arm B); and single-dose ivermectin 1200 μg/kg for 5 days (arm C). Primary outcomes were serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) and change in viral load at Day 7. From 31 July 2020 to 26 May 2021, 32 participants were randomised to arm A, 29 to arm B and 32 to arm C. Recruitment was stopped on 10 June because of a dramatic drop in cases. The safety analysis included 89 participants and the change in viral load was calculated in 87 participants. No SADRs were registered. Mean (S.D.) log10 viral load reduction was 2.9 (1.6) in arm C, 2.5 (2.2) in arm B and 2.0 (2.1) in arm A, with no significant differences (P = 0.099 and 0.122 for C vs. A and B vs. A, respectively). High-dose ivermectin was safe but did not show efficacy to reduce viral load.

Tests on the efficacy of amitraz, ivermectin and eprinomectin for control of lice in goats

Ectoparasitic infestations with Linognathus stenopsis and Bovicola caprae are a serious concern in goat farms, especially during the winter and spring. This study tested the efficacy of three modern insecticide drugs (ivermectin, eprinomectin and amitraz) applied via different routes for control of sucking and chewing lice in naturally co-infected goats. Each of drugs was tested on 30 goats. The animals from the first flock were treated with a single dose of ivermectin, applied subcutaneously at 0.2 mg/kg, the second one received a single spot on treatment with 1 mg/kg еprinomectin and the third flock was treated twice with amitraz, through spraying at a dose of 4 mL/1 L water. The results were evaluated before the treatments and at post treatment days 3, 14 and 60. On post treatment day 60, the application of ivermectin resulted in reduction of Bovicola caprae population by 73.05%, and for that of Linognathus stenopsis: by 92.70%. Eprinomectin demonstrated 100% reduction of both lice. The reduction of L. stenopsis and B. caprae caused by amitraz was by 92.20% and by 98.61% respectively. The macrocyclic lactone eprinomectin showed the highest efficacy (Р&lt;0.05), was not toxic for goats and therefore, may be used as a treatment of choice for lice control.

Repurposing Ivermectin to augment chemotherapy's efficacy in osteosarcoma.

Osteosarcoma is the most frequent malignant bone malignancy and the current treatments are ineffective. Ivermectin, an anti-protozoal drug, has been shown to have anti-cancer activity. This work investigated the potential of repurposing ivermectin to augment chemotherapy's efficacy in osteosarcoma. Proliferation, migration and apoptosis assays were performed in ivermectin-treated osteosarcoma cells. Combination studies were performed. Osteosarcoma xenograft mouse model was established to investigate the in vivo efficacy of ivermectin. Intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) and mitochondrial superoxide, membrane potential, ATP, 8-OHdG level, protein carbonylation and lipid peroxidation were determined after ivermectin treatment. Ivermectin was effective and acted synergistically with doxorubicin in osteosarcoma cells regardless of cellular origin and genetic profiling. This was achieved through suppressing inhibiting growth and migration, and inducing caspase-dependent apoptosis. Ivermectin also significantly inhibited osteosarcoma growth in vivo and its combination with doxorubicin resulted in much greater efficacy than doxorubicin alone. Importantly, the effective dose of ivermectin was clinically feasible and did not cause significant toxicity in mice. Mechanistical analysis showed that ivermectin induced oxidative stress and damage, and mitochondrial dysfunction. Our findings indicate that ivermectin has utility in treating patients with osteosarcoma, especially those resistant to chemotherapy.

Re: “Commentary” by Rothrock et al. “Meta-Analyses Did Not Establish Improved Mortality With Ivermectin Use in COVID-19”

Re: “Commentary” by Rothrock et al. “Meta-Analyses Did Not Establish Improved Mortality With Ivermectin Use in COVID-19”

Detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes infecting dairy heifers in Puerto Rico

The efficacy of the anthelmintic albendazole (ALB), doramectin (DOR) and ivermectin (IVM) were evaluated in Holstein and Holstein crossbreed dairy heifers using the fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT). Dairy heifers (n=420; ~6 months of age; BW = 149 ± 39.6 kg) were evaluated in 21 dairy farms. All heifers were required to be on pasture and not have been exposed to anthelmintic treatment for a minimum of 3 months. At each dairy farm, a priori, groups of at least 18 heifers were randomly divided to be treated with IVM, or DOR, or ALB following manufacturer's instructions. Fecal samples were collected directly from the rectum 7 days before anthelmintic treatment (d-7), at the time of the treatment (d0), and 14 days after treatment (d14). Only heifers that had an average FEC ³ 100 eggs per gram of feces (average of FEC from day d-7 and d0) were considered in the FECRT. The FECRT was determined by the modified McMaster technique. Of the three-anthelmintic used, ALB (n=142) proved to be the most effective (P &lt; 0.0005) with an efficacy of 67.47% ± 8.43. The efficacy of DOR and IVM did not differ (P = 0.8713). While DOR (n = 130) exhibited a efficacy of 25.50% ± 18.00, IVM (n = 148) exhibited a efficacy of -8.13% ± 19.89 due to an increase in FEC after treatment. Dairy farmers should implement integrated methods of nematode control to preserve the effectiveness of currently available anthelmintics.

COMPARACIÓN ENTRE EL MODELO PROBIT Y EL MODELO DE HILL PARA DETERMINAR LA EFICACIA DE IVERMECTINA SOBRE LARVAS DE Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (ACARI, IXODIDA: IXODIDAE) MEDIANTE LA TÉCNICA DE INMERSIÓN.

The aim of this study was to propose an alternative statistic treatment for the results obtained by testing the in vitro efficacy of ivermectin (IVM) against R. microplus using the larval immersion test in order to detect the emergence of resistant strains. The statistical analysis of the results obtained by this technique is standardized by the FAO who proposes the use of the Probit model. However there are alternative mathematical models that allow a more precise analysis of experimental data generating more information as nonlinear logistic equation, also called the Hill model. The results of the IVM efficacy against a sensible strain of R. microplus were analysed whit both model. A comparison between the results obtained with PROBIT and Hill model showed that the last one was able to make a more precise fit of the experimental data, generating more information about small IVM concentrations. The C50 (13.58 ppm) obtained with Probit model result smaller than the obtained with the Hill model (14.24 ppm), however the C90, C99 and the discriminant dose (19.31 ppm, 25.74 ppm, 51.48 ppm) obtained with de Hill model were bigger than the obtained with the Probit model (17.50 ppm, 21.98 ppm, 43.96 ppm).

A Reevaluation of the Tolerability and Effects of Single-Dose Ivermectin Treatment on Onchocerca volvulus Microfilariae in the Skin and Eyes in Eastern Ghana.

ABSTRACT.Mass administration of ivermectin (IVM) has significantly reduced onchocerciasis prevalence, intensity, and morbidity in most endemic areas. Most IVM clinical trials were performed long ago in persons with high-intensity infections that are uncommon in West Africa today. This cohort treatment study recruited participants from a hypoendemic area in eastern Ghana to reevaluate the efficacy and tolerability of IVM with a special focus on the kinetics of microfilaria (Mf) clearance. Mf in the skin and anterior chambers (AC) were assessed by skin snip and slit lamp examinations at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after treatment with IVM 150 μg/kg. Most participants (184–231, 79.7%) enrolled were treatment-naïve. The baseline geometric mean skin Mf count was 12.67/mg (range 3–86). Although persons with MfAC at baseline (64/231, 27%) had significantly higher skin Mf counts than people without MfAC, 7 of 39 (15%) of persons with skin Mf counts in the range of 3–5 Mf/mg had MfAC. Skin Mf were detected in 14% (31/218) and 45% (96/216) of participants 3 and 6 months after IVM treatment, respectively. MfAC were detected in 12 of 212 (5.7%) study participants at 6 months. 81% (187 of 231) of participants experienced 439 adverse events within 7 days after treatment; all adverse events were mild (96.1%) or moderate. This study has provided new data on the kinetics of Mf in the skin and eyes after IVM treatment of persons with light to moderate intensity Onchocerca volvulus infections that are common in Africa at this time.

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19: Erratum.

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19: Erratum.

Potential impact of 5 years of ivermectin mass drug administration on malaria outcomes in high burden countries

IntroductionThe global progress against malaria has slowed significantly since 2017. As the current malaria control tools seem insufficient to get the trend back on track, several clinical trials are investigating...

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

SummaryBackgroundIvermectin became a popular choice for COVID-19 treatment among clinicians and the public following encouraging results from pre-print trials and in vitro studies. Early reviews recommended the use of ivermectin based largely on non-peer-reviewed evidence, which may not be robust. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 based on peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs).MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were searched from 1 January 2020 to 1 September 2021 for relevant studies. Outcomes included time to viral clearance, duration of hospitalization, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation and incidence of adverse events. RoB2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. GRADE was used to evaluate quality of evidence.ResultsThree OSs and 14 RCTs were included in the review. Most RCTs were rated as having some concerns in regards to risk of bias, while OSs were mainly rated as having a moderate risk of bias. Based on meta-analysis of RCTs, the use of ivermectin was not associated with reduction in time to viral clearance, duration of hospitalization, incidence of mortality and incidence of mechanical ventilation. Ivermectin did not significantly increase incidence of adverse events. Meta-analysis of OSs agrees with findings from RCT studies.ConclusionsBased on very low to moderate quality of evidence, ivermectin was not efficacious at managing COVID-19. Its safety profile permits its use in trial settings to further clarify its role in COVID-19 treatment.Protocol registrationThe review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021275302).

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19.

Development of emodepside as a possible adulticidal treatment for human onchocerciasis-The fruit of a successful industrial-academic collaboration.

Current mass drug administration (MDA) programs for the treatment of human river blindness (onchocerciasis) caused by the filarial worm Onchocerca volvulus rely on ivermectin, an anthelmintic originally developed for animal health. These treatments are primarily directed against migrating microfilariae and also suppress fecundity for several months, but fail to eliminate adult O. volvulus. Therefore, elimination programs need time frames of decades, well exceeding the life span of adult worms. The situation is worsened by decreased ivermectin efficacy after long-term therapy. To improve treatment options against onchocerciasis, a drug development candidate should ideally kill or irreversibly sterilize adult worms. Emodepside is a broad-spectrum anthelmintic used for the treatment of parasitic nematodes in cats and dogs (Profender and Procox). Our current knowledge of the pharmacology of emodepside is the result of more than 2 decades of intensive collaborative research between academia and the pharmaceutical industry. Emodepside has a novel mode of action with a broad spectrum of activity, including against extraintestinal nematode stages such as migrating larvae or macrofilariae. Therefore, emodepside is considered to be among the most promising candidates for evaluation as an adulticide treatment against onchocerciasis. Consequently, in 2014, Bayer and the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) started a collaboration to develop emodepside for the treatment of patients suffering from the disease. Macrofilaricidal activity has been demonstrated in various models, including Onchocerca ochengi in cattle, the parasite most closely related to O. volvulus. Emodepside has now successfully passed Phase I clinical trials, and a Phase II study is planned. This Bayer–DNDi partnership is an outstanding example of “One World Health,” in which experience gained in veterinary science and drug development is translated to human health and leads to improved tools to combat neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) and shorten development pathways and timelines in an otherwise neglected area.

Evaluation of Ivermectin as a Potential Treatment for Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Double-Blind Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial in Eastern India

There has been a growing interest in ivermectin ever since it was reported to have an in-vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This trial was conducted to test the efficacy of ivermectin in mild and moderate coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). A double blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted among adult COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate disease severity on admission in a COVID dedicated tertiary healthcare of eastern India. Enrolment was done between 1st August and 31st October 2020. On day 1 and 2 post enrolment, patients in the intervention arm received ivermectin 12 mg while the patients in the non-interventional arm received placebo tablets. About one-fourth (23.6%) of the patients in the intervention arm and one-third (31.6%) in the placebo arm were tested reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RTPCR) negative for SARS-CoV-2 on 6th day. Although this difference was found to be statistically insignificant [rate ratio (RR): 0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4-1.4; p=0.348]. All patients in the ivermectin group were successfully discharged. In comparison the same for the placebo group was observed to be 93%. This difference was found to be statistically significant (RR: 1.1; 95% CI; 1.0-1.2; p=0.045). Inclusion of ivermectin in treatment regimen of mild to moderate COVID-19 patients could not be said with certainty based on our study results as it had shown only marginal benefit in successful discharge from the hospital with no other observed benefits.

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

BackgroundSevere 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.ObjectiveTo 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.InterventionPatients 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 measuresThe efficacy of ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations was evaluated as primary outcome. We evaluated secondary outcomes in relationship to safety and other efficacy end points.ResultsThe 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.LimitationsLow percentage of hospitalization events, dose of ivermectin and not including only high-risk population.ConclusionIvermectin 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04529525.

First report on reduced efficacy of ivermectin on Oesophagostomum spp. on Swedish pig farms.

Anthelmintic efficacy was investigated in nine sow herds that had been identified with high faecal egg counts in a prevalence study. Faecal samples were collected from a total of 104 individual sows, and analysed using a centrifugal flotation McMaster technique. Samples positive for strongyle eggs were cultured to third stage larvae (L3) for genus identification and then further identified to Oesophagostomum species by sequencing. Following the initial sample collection, the sows were treated with either fenbendazole (FBZ, n=5 farms) or ivermectin (IVM, n=4 farms) at the recommended dosing and sampled again 14days post treatment. Faecal Egg Count Reduction (FECR) was used to determine the treatment efficacy. With respect to Ascaris suum, the anthelmintic treatment was successful (FECR >90%) on the five farms where this parasite was detected, regardless of what drug had been used. In contrast, 4/9 farms were positive for Oesophagostomum spp. post treatment, out of which three had a FECR of <90%. These three herds had all been treated with injectable IVM. Out of the six farms where treatment showed good efficacy (FECR 95-100%), five herds had used FBZ and one herd IVM. This study is the first to recognise reduced efficacy to IVM on Oesophagostomum spp. in Swedish pigs. Sequencing of the Oesophagostomum L3 showed that both O. dentatum and O. quadrispinulatum were present on 5/9 farms pre-treatment and on 2/9 farms post-treatment, unrelated to what anthelmintic had been used. Given these findings we could not correlate the reduced efficacy by the species of Oesophagostomum present in the herd. Prolonged usage of only one class of anthelmintic may predispose selection of resistance and has been suspected as a cause of treatment failure of porcine Oesophagostomum spp. in other studies. On all three farms showing reduced efficacy, IVM had been used as the sole anthelmintic drug for several years, and two of the farms also used IVM twice or more per year to control sarcoptic mange. A reduced efficacy to the available anthelmintic drugs used in the control of Oesophagostomum spp., may result in a subsequent surge of the possible negative effects caused by this parasite.

Comparison of Oral Ivermectin and Permethrin 1% Shampoo in the Treatment of Pediculosis Capitis

Objective: To compare the efficacy of Oral Ivermectin with Permethrin 1% Shampoo in the treatment of Pediculosis Capitis&#x0D; Study Design: Randomized controlled trial&#x0D; Setting &amp; Study duration: This study was conducted at the Department of Dermatology, Bolan Medical College/ Sandeman Provincial Hospital, Quetta from December 24, 2016 to June 23, 2017 (6 months)&#x0D; Materials and Methods: All children of either gender having age 5 and above weight more than&#x0D; 15 kg presented with head-lice infestation confirmed by combing the wet hair with a fine-toothed detection comb were enrolled. All patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Patients in group A received oral Ivermectin in dose of 200mcg/kg while patients in group B received application of 1% Permethrin Shampoo. They were called after one week and they received second dose of oral Ivermectin in same dose of 200mcg/kg and application of Permethrin 1% Shampoo and re-evaluated after one week. Treatment was considered effective by absence of live lice by day 15 of treatment.&#x0D; Data was analyzed in SPSS version 17.Mean age of the patient in the sample was calculated. Male to female ratio was determined in the sample. In both the groups, frequency of patients having no live louse in the head on 15th day was calculated. The frequency in both groups was compared by applying chi square test keeping p-value≤ 0.05.&#x0D; Results: Majority of the patients presented were females in both group, i.e. 20 (66.7%) and 23 (76.7%) respectively. Insignificant difference was observed in the mean age in between group (p- value 0.482). Efficacy was found significantly higher in oral Ivermectin group 26 (86.7%) as compared to 1% Permethrin Shampoo. (p-value &lt;0.001).&#x0D; Conclusion: The efficacy of oral Ivermectin group was considerably higher as compared to 1% Permethrin Shampoo in our cohort.

Efficacy of Topical Ivermectin 1% in the Treatment of Demodex Blepharitis.

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of topical ivermectin 1% cream application on the eyelashes in combination with eyelid hygiene in the treatment of Demodex blepharitis.Methods:One hundred two eyes of 102 patients with symptomatic Demodex blepharitis were divided into 2 groups according to the use of topical ivermectin in this retrospective case–control study. The ivermectin group (n = 51) applied topical ivermectin 1% cream on the eyelashes for 15 minutes once weekly, but the control group (n = 51) did not. In both groups, eyelid hygiene was performed once daily. The Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) symptom questionnaire score, Oxford staining score, eyelid debris, eyelid redness/swelling, and telangiectasia were assessed during the follow-up visits.Results:The mean follow-up periods of the ivermectin and control groups were 15.1 ± 9.7 weeks and 14.8 ± 8.6 weeks, respectively. The SPEED score and eyelid debris grade were significantly improved in both groups during the follow-up, although the SPEED score and eyelid debris grade showed greater changes in the ivermectin group than in the control group. The Oxford staining score, eyelid redness/swelling grade, and telangiectasia grade were significantly improved only in the ivermectin group but not in the control group.Conclusions:In patients with Demodex blepharitis, the use of topical ivermectin 1% cream for 15 minutes once weekly in addition to eyelid hygiene had more significantly improved symptoms, ocular surface staining, eyelid debris, redness/swelling, and telangiectasia as compared with eyelid hygiene alone. These findings support the efficacy of topical ivermectin 1% cream application in the treatment of Demodex blepharitis.

Clinical study evaluating the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment: A randomized controlled study.

Researchers around the world are working at record speed to find the best ways to treat and prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of hospitalized mild to moderate COVID‐19 infected patients. This was a randomized open‐label controlled study that included 164 patients with COVID‐19. Patients were randomized into two groups where Group 1 (Ivermectin group) included patients who received ivermectin 12 mg once daily for 3 days with standard care and Group 2 (control group) included patients who received standard protocol of treatment alone for 14 days. The main outcomes were mortality, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. All patients were followed up for 1 month. Overall, 82 individuals were randomized to receive ivermectin plus standard of care and 82 to receive standard of care alone. Patients in the ivermectin group had a shorter length of hospital stay (8.82 ± 4.94 days) than the control group (10.97 ± 5.28 days), but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.085). Three patients (3.7%) in each group required mechanical ventilation (p = 1.00). The death rate was three patients in the ivermectin group (3.7%) versus four patients (4.9%) in the control group without any significant difference between the two groups (p = 1.00). Although there was no statistically significant difference in any endpoints by ivermectin doses (12 mg/day for 3 days); there was an observed trend to reducing hospital stay in the ivermectin‐treated group.

Ivermectin and outcomes from Covid‐19 pneumonia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trial studies

SummaryIvermectin is an FDA‐approved drug for a parasitic disease that has broad antiviral activity. This study aims to analyse the efficacy of ivermectin in improving the Covid‐19 outcomes. We systematically searched the PubMed, Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov database using specific keywords related to our aims until 10th May 2021. All published randomized clinical trial studies on Covid‐19 and ivermectin were retrieved. The quality of the study was assessed using Jadad scale assessment tool for clinical trial studies. Statistical analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 software. A total of 19 studies with 2768 Covid‐19 patients were included in this meta‐analysis. This meta‐analysis showed that ivermectin was associated with reduction in severity of Covid‐19 (RR 0.43 [95% CI 0.23–0.81], p = 0.008), reduction of mortality (RR 0.31 [95% CI 0.15–0.62], p = 0.001), higher negative RT‐PCR test results rate (RR 1.23 [95% CI 1.01–1.51], p = 0.04), shorter time to negative RT‐PCR test results (mean difference [MD] −3.29 [95% CI −5.69, −0.89], p = 0.007), higher symptoms alleviations rate (RR 1.23 [95% CI 1.03−1.46], p = 0.02), shorter time to symptoms alleviations (MD −0.68 [95% CI −1.07, −0.29], p = 0.0007) and shorter time to hospital discharge (MD −2.66 [95% CI −4.49, −0.82], p = 0.004). Our study suggests that ivermectin may offer beneficial effects towards Covid‐19 outcomes. More randomized clinical trial studies are still needed to confirm the results of our study.

Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon.

Objective: This study was designed to determine the efficacy of ivermectin, an FDA-approved drug, in producing clinical benefits and decreasing the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic subjects that tested positive for this virus in Lebanon. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received. Results: There was no significant difference (p = 0.06) between Ct-values of the two groups before the regimen was started (day zero), indicating that subjects in both groups had similar viral loads. At 72 h after the regimen started, the increase in Ct-values was dramatically higher in the ivermectin than in the control group. In the ivermectin group, Ct increased from 15.13 ± 2.07 (day zero) to 30.14 ± 6.22 (day three; mean ± SD), compared to the control group, where the Ct values increased only from 14.20 ± 2.48 (day zero) to 18.96 ± 3.26 (day three; mean ± SD). Moreover, more subjects in the control group developed clinical symptoms. Three individuals (6%) required hospitalization, compared to the ivermectin group (0%). Conclusion: Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.