Are there published human case reports with numeric CSF or brain tissue ivermectin concentrations, and where can the raw data be accessed?

1. The clearest numeric CSF measurement: one human case with 0.14 ng/mL

A clinical report of disseminated strongyloidiasis in an immunocompromised patient documented pharmacokinetic sampling that yielded a peak serum ivermectin concentration of 49.3 ng/mL and a correlated CSF concentration of 0.14 ng/mL, and these numeric values are reported in the published article indexed on PubMed ^[1]. That article explicitly framed the CSF measurement as a tool to assess absorption and help explain treatment failure in that individual, making it the most direct published human CSF ivermectin concentration available in these sources ^[1].

2. Brain tissue detection: reported but numeric values not clearly published in the sources provided

Multiple reviews and a case series examining serious neurological adverse events cite at least one autopsy in which ivermectin was found in brain tissue 14 days after the last dose and describe this as an “elevated level,” but the excerpts and PDFs supplied here do not contain a specific numeric brain‑tissue concentration or an accessible raw data table for that autopsy finding ^{[2] [3] [4]}. The Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg./systematic review and the PMC review both call out “presence of the drug in brain tissue in one case” as supportive evidence linking ivermectin to neurologic injury, yet do not, in the text excerpts provided, publish the underlying numeric concentration or a link to primary raw data ^{[2] [4]}.

3. Where to find the reported numbers and what raw data are available

The numeric CSF value (0.14 ng/mL) and associated serum concentration are reported in the PubMed article cited above; that article is the primary source for the CSF number and is where readers should look to find the methods and reported results ^[1]. Reviews and case‑series papers that reference brain‑tissue detection are available on PubMed and PMC, and some full PDFs are accessible via ResearchGate or journal websites for inspection of text and references ^{[2] [3] [4] [5]}. However, none of the supplied sources includes a public raw dataset repository (for example, a linked supplementary spreadsheet or data repository) that would allow reanalysis beyond the numbers published in the papers themselves; where tables are referenced (as in some pharmacokinetic animal studies and a Phase study table), those tables appear within the journal articles rather than as separate downloadable raw data files ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

4. Methods, context and caveats that shape interpretation

Measurement of ivermectin in tissues and CSF is typically done by validated chromatographic methods such as HPLC with fluorescence detection and reported in the pharmacokinetic literature and animal studies referenced here, which supports the technical plausibility of detecting low nanogram per milliliter concentrations, while also highlighting that blood–brain barrier transport (P‑glycoprotein/ABCB1) status profoundly affects CNS exposure ^{[7] [8] [9] [10]}. Published human pharmacokinetic trials and toxicology reports sometimes report “detected” versus “not detected” in CSF or present tabulated values (for example, a rhesus macaque study included tabular CSF/plasma results and a Phase table noted ivermectin detection patterns), but the human literature with numeric brain‑tissue concentrations remains limited to case reports and referenced autopsy findings with incomplete public raw datasets in the sources provided ^{[6] [2]}.

5. Bottom line and reporting transparency

The literature reviewed shows at least one explicit numeric human CSF ivermectin concentration (0.14 ng/mL) published in a clinical case report, and multiple reviews document detection of ivermectin in brain tissue in at least one fatal autopsy, but the provided sources do not expose a downloadable raw dataset for reanalysis and do not universally report numeric brain‑tissue concentrations in the accessible text ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. For anyone seeking primary numbers or raw chromatograms, the next step is to consult the full text of the cited PubMed/PMC articles (especially the specific case report at ^[1] and the autopsy‑referencing review at p1_s1) and contact corresponding authors or journal editorial offices to request original data if not published as supplements ^{[1] [2]}.