Are there ongoing ivermectin cancer trials in specific countries?
Executive summary
There is evidence of a small number of early‑phase clinical trials testing ivermectin in cancer patients, but they are limited in number, mostly based in the United States, and focused on combination strategies (not ivermectin monotherapy); the leading active study is a Phase I/II trial combining ivermectin with PD‑1–directed immunotherapy for metastatic triple‑negative breast cancer (mTNBC) that is expected to report by 2026 [1] [2] [3]. The broader scientific literature and systematic reviews stress that clinical evidence in humans is scarce and that most anticancer data for ivermectin are preclinical (cell lines and animal models), so any clinical promise remains unproven until larger trials are completed [4] [5] [6].
1. What trials exist now — a narrow active portfolio centered on TNBC
Multiple independent reviews and registries identify a single, actively recruiting Phase I/II study testing oral ivermectin together with PD‑1–directed immunotherapy (balstilimab or pembrolizumab) for patients with metastatic triple‑negative breast cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier cited in ASCO abstract NCT05318469), with the trial framed as a safety/tolerability and early‑efficacy study and listed in ASCO and other trial summaries [2] [3] [7]. Professional summaries and oncology reviews repeatedly conclude there is “only one active clinical trial” of ivermectin in cancer patients (specifically as an adjunct to immunotherapy in TNBC), underscoring that ongoing human research is concentrated and not widespread [1] [8].
2. Where these trials are taking place — the United States as the primary host
The active Phase I/II trial and the registries and trial sponsor pages point to U.S.-based centers and U.S. registrations: the ASCO abstract lists City of Hope investigators and the Gateway for Cancer Research page describes the U.S. trial registration NCT05318469, and multiple reviews note that ClinicalTrials.gov returns U.S.-registered studies [3] [9] [10]. Broader media and internet‑search trend analyses show global public interest spanning countries (US, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Lebanon, Kenya, Ireland, UK, Philippines), but that public interest has not translated into a plurality of registered human cancer trials outside the U.S. as of the compiled reporting [8].
3. What the trials are testing and why — combination immunotherapy, not standalone ivermectin
The active study regimen administers oral ivermectin on a repeated 21‑day schedule alongside intravenous balstilimab or pembrolizumab to evaluate whether ivermectin can augment immune infiltration and sensitize “cold” tumors to checkpoint blockade, a rationale stemming from preclinical mouse models showing increased T‑cell tumor infiltration [2] [3]. The trials are explicitly early‑phase (Phase I/II) and designed to measure safety and preliminary signals of efficacy rather than to establish definitive benefit; authors and reviewers repeatedly emphasize the need for Phase III randomized trials before clinical adoption [1] [6].
4. The evidence gap and competing narratives — preclinical promise vs. clinical scarcity
A clear pattern emerges across reviews: abundant preclinical publications (cell lines and animal models) document potential anticancer mechanisms for ivermectin, but clinical studies in humans remain “scarce,” limited to early‑phase trials or cell‑line observations, and there are no large randomized controlled trials demonstrating benefit in cancer patients to date [5] [4] [6]. Commentary pieces and oncology analyses warn that social‑media interest and pandemic‑era attention to ivermectin have inflated public expectations even though rigorous clinical validation is lacking; most mainstream coverage and scientific reviews therefore counsel caution [8] [6].
5. What to watch next — endpoints, geographic expansion, and phase progression
The near‑term milestones to monitor are the Phase I/II safety and efficacy readouts from the mTNBC combination study (expected by 2026 in several summaries) and any subsequent registration of larger, multicenter Phase III trials if signals justify escalation; registries and oncology meeting abstracts (ASCO) will be the primary sources to verify expansion beyond U.S. centers [1] [3] [9]. If no larger randomized trials are registered, the evidence will remain preclinical/early‑phase and insufficient to support routine clinical use.