Conv. Plasma
Nigella Sativa
Nitric Oxide
Peg.. Lambda

Home   COVID-19 treatment studies for Ivermectin  COVID-19 treatment studies for Ivermectin  C19 studies: Ivermectin  Ivermectin   Select treatmentSelect treatmentTreatmentsTreatments
Alkalinization Meta Lactoferrin Meta
Melatonin Meta
Bromhexine Meta Metformin Meta
Budesonide Meta Molnupiravir Meta
Cannabidiol Meta
Colchicine Meta Nigella Sativa Meta
Conv. Plasma Meta Nitazoxanide Meta
Curcumin Meta Nitric Oxide Meta
Ensovibep Meta Paxlovid Meta
Famotidine Meta Peg.. Lambda Meta
Favipiravir Meta Povidone-Iod.. Meta
Fluvoxamine Meta Quercetin Meta
Hydroxychlor.. Meta Remdesivir Meta
Iota-carragee.. Meta
Ivermectin Meta Zinc Meta

Other Treatments Global Adoption
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Recent:  
Outcomes of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Castaneda-Sabogal et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.01.26.21250420 (Preprint) (meta analysis)
Castaneda-Sabogal et al., Outcomes of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis, medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.01.26.21250420 (Preprint) (meta analysis)
Jan 2021   Source   PDF  
  All Studies   Meta
Meta analysis of a very small subset of studies exhibiting very high bias and significant flaws. Some of the problems:
- As of the publication date, there are 35 studies, authors include only 4. (They list 5, but two are the same study, preprint and published version).
- From the 17 RCTs, authors include 0.
- Authors include only late treatment studies, excluding all 10 early treatment studies and all 10 prophylaxis studies.
- Authors did not locate 13 studies, despite this being trivial from existing meta analyses.
- There is no logic in the exclusion reasons. For example, they include the most biased study to date, Soto-Becerra, and assign the highest weight to it.
- Authors randomly exclude letters but include preprints (excluding letters to help avoid positive results, including preprints to include Soto-Becerra).
- Soto-Becerra has clear evidence of extreme bias. The study presents 30 day results and extended KM curves up to day 43 for ivermectin. At 30 days the result is negative but reverts (as do all treatments in the study) and becomes positive before day 43. Authors of this meta analysis ignore the extended followup. Soto-Becerra is a database analysis that includes anyone with ICD-10 COVID-19 codes which includes asymptomatic PCR+ patients, therefore many patients in the control group are likely asymptomatic with regards to SARS-CoV-2, but in the hospital for another reason. For those that had symptomatic COVID-19, there is also likely significant confounding by indication. In this study all medications show higher mortality at day 30, which is consistent with asymptomatic (for COVID-19) or mild condition patients being more common in the control group. For ivermectin they show 30 day mortality aHR = 1.39 [0.88 - 2.22]. KM curves show that the treatment groups were in more serious condition, and also that after about day 35 survival became better with ivermectin. More than the total excess mortality happened on the first day. This is consistent with treated patients being in more serious condition, and with many of the control group patients being in hospital for something unrelated to COVID-19. Authors use a machine learning based propensity scoring system that appears over-parameterized and likely to result in significant overfitting and inaccurate results. Essentially they test for all interactions between two and three covariates. The nature and large number of covariates means many random correlations may be found. COVID-19 severity is not used. In summary, this is the lowest quality ivermectin study to date. This study also does not compare treatments with a control group not receiving the treatment - authors put patients receiving treatments after 48 hours in the control group. Authors also state that outcomes within 24 hours were excluded, however KM curves show significant mortality at day 1 (only for the treatment groups).
- We checked the reported results for the mortality outcome and found they do not appear to match the actual papers.
- Rajter: authors list mortality as 13/85 (treatment), 24/74 (control), the paper shows (for the matched cohort) 13/98 (treatment), 24/98 (control). The adjusted result in the paper is OR 0.27 [0.09-0.80] (multivariate) or OR 0.47 [0.22-0.99] (PSM). These correspond to RR 0.33 and 0.54 respectively, or logRR -1.1 and -0.62. However authors here show logRR 0.54 and 0.85 - they include the study twice (preprint and published). The preprint and published papers have the same multivariate result, the PSM result was added in the published paper. Neither of the two results the authors use match the actual results.
- Khan: the paper shows RR 0.13, logRR -2.0. Authors show logRR 0.13.
- Soto-Becerra at day 30 shows wHR 1.39 [0.88-2.22], and day 43 weighted KM 0.82 [0.76-0.88]. These correspond to logRR 0.33 and -0.19. Authors show logRR 1.75.
- Gorial: there is zero mortality with treatment in this paper. Using the typical continuity correction, the paper shows RR 0.29 when accounting for the different group sizes, or 0.86 when using naive continuity correction that does not account for the very different group sizes. These correspond to logRR -1.24 or -0.15. Authors show logRR 0.60.
- Authors did not locate and reference the existing widely known meta-analyses from well-known researchers - Kory et al., Hill et al., Lawrie et al.
For more issues see: [, (B)]. Authors on Twitter: [ (C), (D), (E), (F)].
Currently there are 95 ivermectin studies and meta analysis shows:
Mortality51% lower [37‑62%]
Ventilation29% lower [13‑42%]
ICU admission41% lower [16‑58%]
Hospitalization34% lower [20‑45%]
Cases78% fewer [67‑85%]
Castaneda-Sabogal et al., 27 Jan 2021, preprint, 6 authors.
All Studies   Meta Analysis   Submit Updates or Corrections
This PaperIvermectinAll
Abstract: medRxiv preprint doi:; this version posted January 27, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license . Outcomes of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and metaanalysis Alex Castañeda-Sabogal1,2, Diego Chambergo-Michilot3,4; Carlos J. Toro-Huamanchumo5,6, Christian Silva-Rengifo2,9, José Gonzales-Zamora7, Joshuan J. Barboza8,9 Afiliations 1 Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego, Facultad de Medicina, Escuela de Posgrado, Trujillo, Perú; 2 Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego, Facultad de Medicina, Trujillo, Perú; 3 Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú; 4Red Latinoamericana de Cardiología, Lima, Perú; 5Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Unidad para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud; 6Clínica Avendaño, Unidad de Investigación Multidisciplinaria, Lima, Perú; 7 University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA; 8Universidad Señor de Sipán, Escuela de Medicina, Chiclayo, Perú; 9Tau-Relaped Group, Trujillo, Perú. Correspondence to: *Joshuan J. Barboza E-mail: Statement of financial support: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Disclosure statement: Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice. 1 medRxiv preprint doi:; this version posted January 27, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license . Abstract Background: To assess the outcomes of ivermectin in ambulatory and hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: Five databases and websites for preprints were searched until January 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohorts assessing ivermectin versus control in ambulatory and hospitalized participants. The primary outcome was overall mortality. Secondary outcome was recovered patients. For meta-analysis, random-effects and inverse variance meta-analyses with logarithmic transformation were performed. ROBINS-I for cohort studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for trials were used. The strength of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results. After the selection, twelve studies (five retrospective cohort studies, six randomized clinical trials and one case series), were included. In total, 7412 participants were reported, the mean age was 47.5 (SD 9.5) years, and 4283 (58%) were male. Ivermectin was not associated with reduced mortality (logRR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.70, p = 0.04, I2= 84.7%), or reduced patient recovery (logRR 5.52 , 95% CI -24.36 to 35.4, p = 0.51, I2 = 92.6%). All studies had a high risk of bias, and showed a very low certainty of the evidence. Conclusions: There insufficient certainty and quality of evidence to recommend the use of ivermectin to prevent or treat ambulatory or hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Keywords: Ivermectin, Treatment, COVID-19, SARS-Cov-2 2 medRxiv preprint..
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and treatments are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment, vaccine, 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. FLCCC and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop