Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Roman, Yuani M; Burela, Paula Alejandra; Pasupuleti, Vinay; Piscoya, Alejandro; Vidal, Jose E; Hernandez, Adrian V.
  • Roman YM; Health Outcomes, Policy, and Evidence Synthesis (HOPES) Group, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, Connecticut, USA.
  • Burela PA; Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Peru.
  • Pasupuleti V; Centro de Investigación, Instituto Peruano de Oncología y Radioterapia, San Isidro, Lima, Peru.
  • Piscoya A; Cello Health, Yardley, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Vidal JE; Unidad de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Meta-análisis, Guías de Práctica Clínica y Evaluaciones de Tecnologías Sanitarias (URSIGET), Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, La Molina, Lima, Peru.
  • Hernandez AV; Division of Infectious Diseases, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(6): 1022-1029, 2022 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1701751
ABSTRACT

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.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Drug Treatment Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Adult / Humans Language: English Journal: Clin Infect Dis Journal subject: Communicable Diseases Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Cid

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Drug Treatment Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Adult / Humans Language: English Journal: Clin Infect Dis Journal subject: Communicable Diseases Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Cid