What do major health agencies (WHO, FDA, EMA) currently recommend about ivermectin for COVID-19 in 2025?
Executive summary
Major health agencies — the WHO, FDA and EMA — do not recommend ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID‑19 after reviewing clinical trials and safety reports: the Drugs.com summary (reflecting WHO/EMA/NIH positions) states they do not recommend it [1], and the FDA explicitly has not authorized or approved ivermectin for COVID‑19 use and warned about harms from self‑medication [2]. Multiple systematic reviews and reporting since 2023 find no consistent mortality or major clinical benefit from ivermectin in COVID‑19 trials [3] [4].
1. Agency positions: clear non‑endorsement from WHO/FDA/EMA
International and national authorities have converged on a simple stance: ivermectin is not approved or recommended for COVID‑19. The FDA has repeatedly said it has not authorized or approved ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID‑19 and has warned of hospitalizations tied to people self‑treating with veterinary formulations [2]. A public health overview collected by Drugs.com summarizes that NIH, WHO and EMA do not recommend ivermectin for COVID‑19 after reviewing trial evidence [1]. Available sources do not mention any 2025 reversal of those positions.
2. What the evidence base shows: trials and meta‑analyses find no reliable benefit
Large numbers of randomized trials and several meta‑analyses through 2024–2025 have failed to show consistent benefits on key outcomes. A 2025 review in Annals of Medicine & Surgery concluded ivermectin showed no significant impact on critical outcomes such as mortality, ICU admission, hospitalization or viral clearance [3] [4]. Journalistic syntheses likewise report that by 2023 multiple clinical trials "proved beyond a doubt" ivermectin does not reduce COVID symptoms or mortality, a narrative that has persisted in 2024–25 reporting [5].
3. Why agencies keep cautioning: safety, regulatory status, and misuse
Regulators emphasize that ivermectin is approved for parasitic diseases, not viral infections, and that safety at approved doses does not translate to safety for unapproved high‑dose or veterinary use. The FDA stressed its role in ensuring safety and effectiveness and has documented cases of harm when people used veterinary ivermectin or large doses intended for animals [2]. The continued public demand and politicized advocacy for ivermectin have prompted agencies to restate the lack of approval and to discourage self‑medication [2] [6].
4. The politics and misinformation overlaying the science
Ivermectin’s story is as much social as scientific. Coverage in The Atlantic and other outlets traces how ivermectin transformed into a politicized emblem — embraced by some as a dissident "miracle" despite clinical evidence to the contrary [5]. Reporting notes that early in vitro lab results and low‑quality studies seeded hope, but later, higher‑quality trials failed to confirm efficacy [3] [5]. Sources show a continuing divide: some activists and legal actions press the FDA to change access rules, while mainstream agencies and researchers resist based on the trial record [6] [7].
5. What the guidelines actually recommend in practice
Practically speaking, WHO and major regulators have kept ivermectin out of standard COVID‑19 treatment guidelines: WHO’s living guideline process and EMA surveillance of COVID‑19 medicines informed the non‑recommendation summarized in public overviews [1]. The NIH/WHO/EMA stance as reported is to limit ivermectin use to research settings rather than routine care, and the FDA has explicitly not authorized it for COVID‑19 [1] [2]. Available sources do not report that WHO, FDA or EMA now endorse ivermectin for any COVID‑19 indication.
6. Remaining uncertainties and the research record
Systematic reviews continue to question study quality and heterogeneity in ivermectin trials; some meta‑analyses identified signals for secondary endpoints in subsets, but subsequent higher‑quality trials and broader reviews found no reliable mortality or hospitalization benefit [3] [4]. Sources note earlier low‑quality positive studies were often flawed, and later analyses discounted those findings [5] [3]. Agencies say more rigorous randomized evidence is the arbiter; current higher‑quality evidence does not support clinical use [1] [2].
7. What a clinician or patient should take away
Patients should know ivermectin is approved for specific parasitic diseases, not for COVID‑19, and that major public health agencies do not recommend it for COVID‑19 treatment or prevention [2] [1]. Self‑treating with veterinary formulations or high doses has produced harms and hospitalizations, a reason regulators repeatedly warn against such use [2]. If a clinician proposes ivermectin, available sources do not document agency endorsements and recommend it be given only in a formal clinical‑trial setting [1] [2].
Limitations: this analysis relies on the supplied reporting and reviews; available sources do not mention any post‑2025 policy reversal or new agency approvals for ivermectin in COVID‑19.