Table 2.
Summary of Findings on the Effect of Ivermectin Compared With Standard of Care or Placebo in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019
| Anticipated Absolute Effect (95% CI)a | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome (Duration of Follow-up) | Risk With Control | Risk With Ivermectin | Relative Effect (95% CI) | No. of Participants (No. of RCTs) | Certainty of Evidenceb |
| All-cause mortality rate (5–28 d) | 6 per 100 | 2 per 100 (1 to 7) | RR, 0.37 (.12 to 1.13) | 787 (5) | ⊕〇〇〇 Very lowc,d |
| LOS (5–28 d) | Mean LOS, 10 d | MD, 0.72 d (−.86 to 2.29 d) | … | 286 (3) | ⊕〇〇〇 Very lowe,f |
| AEs (5–28 d) | 76 per 100 | 72 per 100 (65–81) | RR, 0.95 (.85–1.07) | 467 (3) | ⊕⊕〇〇Lowg |
| SAEs (5– 28 d) | 0 per 100 | 0 per 100 (0–0) | RR, 1.39 (.36–5.30) | 179 (3) | ⊕⊕〇〇 Lowh |
| Viral clearance (5–28 d) | 410 per 1000 | 394 per 1000 (312–472) | RR, 0.96 (.76–1.15) | 262 (4) | ⊕⊕〇〇 Lowi |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; d, days; LOS, length of stay; MD, mean difference; RCTs, randomized controlled trials; RR, relative risk.
aThe risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
bGRADE Working Group grade of evidence. High certainty indicates confidence that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty indicates moderate confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty indicates limited confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Finally, very low certainty indicates very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. ⊕○○○ means very low certainty of evidence; ⊕⊕○○ means low certainty of evidence.
cThe studies reported by López-Medina et al [36], Niaee et al [30], and Ravikirti et al [37] had a high risk of bias (RoB); that of Beltrán-Gonzalez et al [33] had some concerns; and that of Chaccour et al [34] had a low RoB.
dImprecision: 95% CI, .12–1.13.
eThe studies reported by Ahmed et al [32] and Niaee et al [30] had high RoB, and that of Beltrán-Gonzalez et al [33] had some concerns.
fImprecision: 95% CI, −2.03 to 4.25.
gThe studies reported by Krolewiecki et al [29] and López-Medina et al [36] had high RoB, and that of Chaccour et al [34], low RoB.