• Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [52‑76%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis
, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis
(which excludes all of the GMK/BBC team studies), with primary outcomes
, and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies
or Randomized Controlled Trials
• Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality
, ICU admission
, and viral clearance
. 30 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.
• Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 52 of 63 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
• While many treatments
have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 24% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
• Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, and other treatments could be more effective, including monoclonal antibodies which may be available in countries not recommending ivermectin (sotrovimab
, and bamlanivimab/etesevimab
• Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used, including treatments, as supported by Pfizer [Pfizer
]. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.
• There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 63 studies is estimated to be 1 in 122 billion.
• Over 20 countries
have adopted ivermectin for COVID-19. The evidence base is much larger
and has much lower conflict of interest than typically used to approve drugs.
• All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix
. See [Bryant
] for other meta analyses with similar results confirming efficacy.