key: cord-0834284-z8zvdllk
authors: Siedner, Mark J
title: Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 disease: Too good to pass up or too good to be true?
date: 2021-06-14
journal: Open Forum Infect Dis
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofab318
sha: c8c3be3759019a62eda9c0a7251f2f8d1cef61fe
doc_id: 834284
cord_uid: z8zvdllk

nan

M a n u s c r i p t As of early 2021, the search for COVID-19 therapeutics has been characterized by few landmark achievements 12 , and multiple disappointments 34 . After many times bitten from optimism about preliminary and observational data, the scientific community has become increasingly shy about promoting therapeutic interventions prior to the availability of phase III clinical trial data 5(p19) 67 . This philosophy is well-reflected in guidance by the US National Institutes of Health and Infectious Disease Society of America, who have made commendable efforts to ensure exploratory interventions are rigorously evaluated in clinical trials prior to widespread use 8, 9 .

Nevertheless, with persistent global vaccine distribution inequity 10 and regional surges overwhelming health systems 11 , the need to identify low-cost, scalable and effective therapeutics for prevention and management of severe COVID-19 remains as acute as ever. Consequently, there is an obligation to consider early and incomplete data of emerging therapeutics. Moreover, the threshold to consider drugs for public use must not be set so high that demands for unassailable data result in preventable deaths. Where exactly that threshold should be set is among the most vexing challenges for the scientific community at present.

Into this fray enters ivermectin, which, depending on your perspective, is perhaps the most promising or the most fraught new kid on the COVID-19 therapeutic block. Very early enthusiasm for the use of ivermectin for COVID-19, derived from in vitro data 12 , was tempered by subsequent pharmacokinetic data suggesting effective doses to achieve IC 50 against the virus were not readily achievable in humans [13] [14] [15] . More recently, some have proposed alternate mechanisms of action for ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 16 . Such hypotheses, along with an impressively large number of clinical trials assessing the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 disease have brought it back into the spotlight.

In this issue of OFID, Hill and colleagues attempt to summarize that large and growing body of clinical trial data thorough an elegant and multi-faceted meta-analysis. A particular strength of their work is the ambitious methods of data aggregation, which includes the published literature, clinical trial registries and unpublished work garnered through a COVID-19 clinical trials consortium and resulting in 24 total studies and an analytic dataset as large as 2,127 participants for the mortality outcome. They also adopted strict inclusion criteria, limiting analyses to studies that prospectively randomized participants to ivermectin versus comparator arms. Additional strengths include the evaluation of multiple outcomes (time to viral clearance, time to clinical recovery, duration of hospitalization, and survival, among others), assessment of study quality, and use of standardized meta-analytic methods with mixed effects regression and heterogeneity assessments.

The results are compelling. They identify a clinically significant benefit in pooled estimates for most of their selected outcomes. For example, they estimate a mean reduction in time to viral clearance of 3 days (95%CI 1-5), a reduction in time to clinical recovery of 1.5 days (95%CI 0.4-2.8), a reduction in duration of hospitalization of 4.3 days (95%CI 0.0-8.6) and 56% reduced risk of mortality (95%CI M a n u s c r i p t 23-75%). Notably, their estimates remain largely similar after excluding studies at high risk of bias. And, although the included studies do not overlap, their results are largely consistent with many [17] [18] [19] (but not all 20 ) other meta-analytic evaluations of ivermectin conduct by other groups. Even the most ardent skeptic should be given pause by this data.

But as the authors note, despite the large body of analyzed work, extrapolation of results remains limited by the nature of the studies included. Only nine of the 24 studies (n=785) were rated as having a low-risk of bias and fewer than half of studies (10) were placebo-controlled. Moreover, only eight studies have been peer reviewed, with another 11 publicly available through pre-print or clinical trial registry result reporting, and four unpublished at the time of this writing. Many were also not pre-registered on clinical trial repositories. Perhaps the most glaring feature of these studies is the heterogeneity between many aspects of the studies themselves, including ivermectin dose (0.1 mg/kg -24mg fixed dose) and duration (single dose through 1 week), stage of disease for enrolled participants (mild to severe), use of combination therapies in the intervention arm (multiple evaluated combinations of doxycycline with ivermectin) and a remarkably varied set of comparator arms, ranging from placebo alone to use of favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine and/or azithromycin.

Where does this leave us? There are arguments to be made both in support and against a potential benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment. In borrowing from Sir Bradford Hill's causal criteria framework 21 , there are clear elements of strength of association (the pooled estimate of reduction in mortality was over 50%), there is consistency across studies (and meta-analyses) with relatively little heterogeneity in effect sizes, and there is evidence of temporality, which is provided by the prospective randomized study designs. Counterbalancing these arguments are the general lack of biologic plausibility and coherence for the use of ivermectin in the treatment of a viral infection. Since it does not appear to be active in standard doses as a direct-acting anti-viral, we are forced to speculate about anti-inflammatory or indirect antiviral effects. Perhaps most puzzling is the degree and extent of benefit identified -across disease stages, dosing regimens, and viral and clinical outcomes -which strains belief, particularly for a disease that has been characterized by narrow therapeutic windows for most other interventions.

On balance, we are left with a compelling meta-analysis (indeed, a handful of them), suggesting a modest to large benefit of a low-cost, widely available, well-tolerated therapy for COVID-19 -a dream scenario -but based on studies with small sample sizes, design flaws, incomplete results, or some combination thereof. Ultimately, guideline authors must review this data and ask themselves if this information crosses the threshold for support of ivermectin outside of clinical trials. Although some have argued that the minimal risk afforded by a well-tolerated medicine does just that, there are secondary harms of early support for therapies prior to a solid evidence base, such as creating drug shortages of essential medicines 22 and the erosion of trust in the scientific community, which has certainly been degraded over the past year 23 . Nonetheless, if larger clinical trials ultimately confirm the efficacy of this low-cost, widely available drug, we must be willing to add ivermectin to M a n u s c r i p t the long list of therapeutic agents in medicine for which the best we can do is guess the mechanism of action.

As of this writing, there at least five large, placebo-controlled clinical trials on the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 underway that should be powered to allay residual concerns about the available data. Until those data are released, ivermectin might be best considered as an extremely promising therapy, but one not quite ready for public use. Otherwise, there is a real risk that the scientific community will once again be bitten by over-enthusiasm and forced to answer to a public that will not be shy about holding us to account.

Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 -Preliminary Report

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 -Final Report

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 -Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results

Treating COVID-19-Off-Label Drug Use, Compassionate Use, and Randomized Clinical Trials During Pandemics

Optimizing the Trade-off Between Learning and Doing in a Pandemic

Covid-19 -A Reminder to Reason

US National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

From Vaccine Nationalism to Vaccine Equity -Finding a Path Forward

India's COVID-19 crisis: a call for international action. The Lancet. 2021;0(0)

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

Lohmer LRL. The Approved Dose of Ivermectin Alone is not the Ideal Dose for the Treatment of COVID-19

Ivermectin and COVID-19: Keeping Rigor in Times of Urgency

Ivermectin as a potential COVID-19 treatment from the pharmacokinetic point of view: antiviral levels are not likely attainable with known dosing regimens

Anti-COVID-19 efficacy of ivermectin in the golden hamster

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. In Review

Ivermectin for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)

Outcomes of Ivermectin in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)

The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?

Possible Consequences of a Shortage of Hydroxychloroquine for Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 therapeutics: how to sow confusion and break public trust during international public health emergencies

A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t