Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35870876›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2022

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19: evidence beyond the hype.

Milena Soriano Marcolino, Karina Cardoso Meira, Nathalia Sernizon Guimarães, Paula Perdigão Motta, Victor Schulthais Chagas, Silvana Márcia Bruschi Kelles, Laura Caetano de Sá, Reginaldo Aparecido Valacio, Patrícia Klarmann Ziegelmann

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Milena Soriano MarcolinoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Medical School and Telehealth Center, University Hospital, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Avenida Professor Alfredo Balena 190, sala 246, Belo Horizonte, 30130-100, Brazil. milenamarc@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4278-3771
Karina Cardoso MeiraHealth School, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Av. Sen. Salgado Filho, s/n-Lagoa Nova, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1722-5703
Nathalia Sernizon GuimarãesInstituto de Saúde Coletiva da Universidade Federal da Bahia, R. Basílio da Gama, s/n-Canela, Salvador, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0487-0500
Paula Perdigão MottaFaculdade de Farmácia da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, R. Prof. Moacir Gomes de Freitas S/N-Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5757-7255
Victor Schulthais ChagasDepartment of Internal Medicine, Medical School and Telehealth Center, University Hospital, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Avenida Professor Alfredo Balena 190, sala 246, Belo Horizonte, 30130-100, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9058-2803
Silvana Márcia Bruschi KellesPontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, R. do Rosário, 1.081 Bairro Angola, Betim, Brazil.
Laura Caetano de SáDepartment of Internal Medicine, Medical School and Telehealth Center, University Hospital, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Avenida Professor Alfredo Balena 190, sala 246, Belo Horizonte, 30130-100, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0845-5814
Reginaldo Aparecido ValacioHospital Metropolitano Odilon Behrens, R. Formiga, 50, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2666-7092
Patrícia Klarmann ZiegelmannInstitute for Health Technology Assessment (IATS/CNPq), Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2359, Prédio 21|Sala 507, Porto Alegre, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2851-2011
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRNational Council for Scientific and Technological Development · BRPontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais · BRUniversidade Federal da Bahia · BRUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte · BR

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 310561/2021-3Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 465518/2014-1Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais APQ-01154-21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is still under debate, yet the drug has been widely used in some parts of the world, as shown by impressive market data. The available body of evidence may have changed over the last months, as studies have been retracted and "standards of care" (SOC) used in control groups have changed with rapidly evolving knowledge on COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin, assessing clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

methodsRCTs evaluating the effects of ivermectin in adult patients with COVID-19 were searched through June 22, 2022, in four databases, L.OVE platform, clinical trial registries and pre-prints platforms. Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and invasive ventilation requirement. Secondary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis included only studies which compared ivermectin to placebo or SOC. Random-effects were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of individual trials. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The protocol was register in PROSPERO (CRD42021257471).

resultsTwenty-five RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria (n = 6310). Of those, 14 compared ivermectin with placebo, in night ivermectin associated with SOC was compared to SOC and two studies compared ivermectin to an active comparator. Most RCTs had some concerns or high risk of bias, mostly due to lack of concealment of the randomization sequence and allocation, lack of blinding and high number of missing cases. Ivermectin did not show an effect in reducing mortality (RR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.52-1.11) or mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.48-1.16). This effect was consistent when comparing ivermectin vs. placebo, and ivermectin associated with SOC vs. SOC, as well as in sensitivity analysis. Additionally, there was very low quality of evidence regarding adverse effects (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.84-1.35).

conclusionsThe evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentAdultHumansIvermectinRespiration, ArtificialIvermectinCOVID-19Evidence-based medicineIvermectinMeta-analysisMortalityNovel coronavirusSARS-CoV-2Systematic reviewTherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID35870876
PMCPMC9308124
OpenAlexW4286716043

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.