Ivermectin may not be the ‘silver bullet’ antiviral against COVID-19

Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), cases worldwide have crossed the hundred million mark, with over 2.2 million deaths recorded.

The overwhelming demands of the pandemic on public health and healthcare systems have made it a matter of the utmost urgency to identify safe and effective antivirals that target this infection.

*Important notice: medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.

A team of researchers based in Peru and the U.S. recently examined the role of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin in treating COVID-19. The team has released their findings on the medRxiv* preprint server.

The aim of the study

Ivermectin is a semisynthetic drug, used to treat helmintic infestations. Its mode of operation is via binding to glutamate-gated chloride ion channels, found in invertebrate nerve and muscle cells.

As part of the avermectins, ivermectin is extensively used to treat and control parasitic infestations in large animals, including tick infestations and scabies. It has also been used to prevent human filariasis and to treat scabies in humans. With a good safety profile at recommended dosages, and with FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) approval, it became a mainstream drug in the treatment of COVID-19.

Earlier reports suggested that it had antiviral activity in both RNA and DNA viruses. This was followed by another study examining its pharmacokinetics, which concluded that even at tenfold the approved human dosage, the compound could not inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in lung tissue.

The current study aimed to review the range of studies that reported the clinical efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment of the illness.

Study details

The researchers included 12 qualitative and five quantitative studies, mostly preprints. These studies originated from all over the world, two being from the U.S., two from Spain, two from South America, one each from Iraq and Iran, and four from Bangladesh.

Altogether, there were around 7,400 participants, with a mean age of 47.5 years. About 60% were male. The treatment protocols for all included studies comprised ivermectin either alone or in combination with another anti-inflammatory, antibiotic or blood-thinning drug like azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, enoxaparin, aspirin or dicloxacillin.

The majority of patients had been diagnosed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT PCR), and were hospitalized, though one study included asymptomatic families.

Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had missing data on study outcomes, leading to a serious risk of bias. Four cohort studies also showed a high risk of bias.

In one analysis of four preprints, based on retrospective studies, there was no evidence of reduced mortality following ivermectin use. Patient recovery was also not affected.

The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence, using mortality and recovery outcomes. The mortality outcome was evaluated in over 3,600 participants, while recovery was assessed in about 400 participants. The first was based on five retrospective studies, and the latter from three preprint retrospective studies.

In both analyses, the degree of certainty of evidence was low, with a high risk of bias.

What are the implications?

Ivermectin was not significantly associated with a lower mortality or higher recovery of patients in this meta-analysis. However, the majority of studies were preprints, allowing for later changes in the data on which these conclusions are based.

The basis of ivermectin use was because of a study published in Australia that reported this drug’s in vitro efficacy in Vero cells in culture. The clinical applicability of this finding is far from certain, but physicians rapidly began to use ivermectin in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

This was more likely in hard-hit countries such as Peru, where ivermectin became a first-line treatment and preventive against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

However, the safety and efficacy of this drug in preventing and treating this illness is not yet proven, especially because the studies were poorly designed. This has cast doubt on the accuracy of the effect measures. Even when the odds ratio showed a significant benefit for ivermectin use in terms of an 85% reduction in mortality, the certainty of evidence was conceded to be very low.

Thirdly, the dose effective in human SARS-CoV-2 infections is still unknown, with the study doses ranging from 120 uM/kg to 200 uM/kg per dose, and the route of administration varying from intramuscular to oral. Such high doses have not been approved for human use.

Finally, efficacy testing of ivermectin in humans must be based on a dose-response trial with a placebo control group. In the absence of such studies, the optimal high dosage of ivermectin remains unclear.

The heterogeneous study populations and methods may also grossly reduce the accuracy of the review’s findings. After adjusting for such differences, the researchers found that their assessment of biases and effect measure size was close to the actual results. The lack of certainty of evidence for the estimated effect, as shown by GRADE criteria, indicates a serious difference between the true and estimated effect.

More randomized clinical trials need to be included in a meta-analysis, with fewer biases. At the moment, there is no evidence that the use of ivermectin changes the clinical outcome of inpatients or outpatients.”

*Important notice: medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.

Journal reference:
Dr. Liji Thomas

Written by

Dr. Liji Thomas

Dr. Liji Thomas is an OB-GYN, who graduated from the Government Medical College, University of Calicut, Kerala, in 2001. Liji practiced as a full-time consultant in obstetrics/gynecology in a private hospital for a few years following her graduation. She has counseled hundreds of patients facing issues from pregnancy-related problems and infertility, and has been in charge of over 2,000 deliveries, striving always to achieve a normal delivery rather than operative.


Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

  • APA

    Thomas, Liji. (2021, February 02). Ivermectin may not be the ‘silver bullet’ antiviral against COVID-19. News-Medical. Retrieved on July 18, 2024 from https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210201/Ivermectin-may-not-be-the-e28098silver-bullete28099-antiviral-against-COVID-19.aspx.

  • MLA

    Thomas, Liji. "Ivermectin may not be the ‘silver bullet’ antiviral against COVID-19". News-Medical. 18 July 2024. <https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210201/Ivermectin-may-not-be-the-e28098silver-bullete28099-antiviral-against-COVID-19.aspx>.

  • Chicago

    Thomas, Liji. "Ivermectin may not be the ‘silver bullet’ antiviral against COVID-19". News-Medical. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210201/Ivermectin-may-not-be-the-e28098silver-bullete28099-antiviral-against-COVID-19.aspx. (accessed July 18, 2024).

  • Harvard

    Thomas, Liji. 2021. Ivermectin may not be the ‘silver bullet’ antiviral against COVID-19. News-Medical, viewed 18 July 2024, https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210201/Ivermectin-may-not-be-the-e28098silver-bullete28099-antiviral-against-COVID-19.aspx.


  1. Victoria Gates Victoria Gates United States says:

    The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance has a great deal of doctor provided data on Ivermectin usage and dosing. Has that been evaluated? They make strong claims about it's effectiveness.

  2. Adriaan De Haan Adriaan De Haan Brazil says:

    This meta analysis used the most unreliable studies, not a single RCT.
    For some reason they also took the short term mortality instead of the long term mortality of the study which they gave the most weight.
    The researchers are not specialists in doing meta analysis.
    Rather report on the meta analysis done by more experienced expert such as dr Andrew Hill.

    • Chris Nobles Chris Nobles United States says:

      —December 16, 2020:—The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) announces that their highly effective, combination therapy treatment protocol developed for hospitalized patients called MATH+ just passed peer-review and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JIC).

    • Fourti Mesayear Fourti Mesayear United States says:

      They have patient records readily available. I'm sure they've carefully documented the cases or he would not have made a presentation to the Senate committee - the one that the Democrats walked out on.

    • Fourti Mesayear Fourti Mesayear United States says:

      We need real treatment records - of people who have used it to recover. The HCQ studies were supposedly "valid", but they seemed designed to fail. If that's the kind of study they would do on Ivermectin, we need to stop doing them altogether. I am absolutely appalled that they gave it w/o zinc, gave it too late, etc. There is a law here in the US that we are supposed to use what is proven to be effective. We have that information in the records of the people who have been given Ivermectin.

  3. M Samman M Samman Jordan says:

    I have read most studies on ivermectin, while I agree on the poor design and hence low quality evidence on most studies but the number of studies and the diversity of populations and researchers involved, all pointing to the same outcome makes this evidence stronger and we can say with confidence that there is a benefit of ivermectin, what we really need a large well designed study to confirm what we suspect.

    • Fourti Mesayear Fourti Mesayear United States says:

      They didn't wait for such a study with the vaccines. It is unethical to wait until such a study to be done in the climate that exists surrounding COVID. It would be nothing short of murder not to use it now.

  4. Ivan Sudofsky Ivan Sudofsky United States says:

    The way a competent meta analysis is performed is to first form criteria for rejection of poorly designed studies. Instead these researchers included studies that were of questionable value so they could then criticize them... and they accuse those researchers of bias?

  5. Carlton Weber Carlton Weber South Africa says:

    3.7 BILLION DOSES and counting of Ivermectin, 16 or so deaths only SUSPECTED. One of, if not the safest, drug ever developed.  Globally used as prophylaxis, we can be rid of COV-SAR2 within 10-14 days ( 20 days on the outside) , what have we to lose if FLCCC super-doctors are wrong? NOTHING?
    Commercial vaccine manufacturers hate a filthy cheap, unpatentable competitor, and just on this alone I question the nay-sayers! If those super-doctors of the FLCC are CORRECT however, feel for those super-profiteers and their crocodile tears holding governments to ranson...

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
COVID-19 lockdown reduced childhood wheezing and bronchiolitis cases