Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies

Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 69% [54‑79%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.

•Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 29 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.

	Studies	Prophylaxis	Early treatment	Late treatment	Patients	Authors
All studies	63	86% [75‑92%]	69% [54‑79%]	40% [24‑52%]	26,422	623
Peer-reviewed	45	86% [74‑93%]	70% [52‑81%]	43% [21‑59%]	17,316	490
Randomized Controlled Trials	31	84% [25‑96%]	64% [48‑74%]	30% [2‑50%]	6,561	369
Percentage improvement with ivermectin treatment

•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 1 trillion.

•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 27% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.

•Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Those denying the efficacy of treatments share responsibility for the increased risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and the increased mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.

•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, Hariyanto, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli] for other meta analyses with similar results confirming efficacy.