Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are the long-term effects of ivermectin use in humans?
Executive Summary
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug with an established safety profile for approved uses but with documented rare serious adverse events and unclear long-term consequences outside licensed indications. Recent clinical trials and pharmacovigilance reports show limited long-term benefit for COVID-19, rising reports of neurological and gastrointestinal adverse events since 2020, and specific severe risks in people with high Loa loa microfilarial loads [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why the debate escalated — the COVID-19 surge and new adverse-event reports
Widespread off-label ivermectin use during the COVID-19 pandemic sharply increased pharmacovigilance reporting, producing an apparent rise in gastrointestinal and neurological adverse-event submissions to WHO databases and prompting safety signal analyses. Pharmacovigilance data show a substantial increase in ivermectin-related reports after May 2020 that correlate temporally with widespread non-prescribed use for COVID-19, though these reports derive from spontaneous reporting systems that are subject to reporting bias and lack denominators for exposure [4]. The uptick in reports does not equal causation, but it flags shifting real-world patterns and underscores a need to separate context-specific harms from baseline safety in regulated use.
2. Established safety in approved antiparasitic use — decades of clinical experience
Ivermectin has a long history as an antiparasitic with generally low toxicity at recommended doses and accepted use in preventive chemotherapy for certain helminth infections, which WHO guidelines continue to endorse for public health control of strongyloidiasis [5] [1]. Expert reviews conclude that adverse effects in licensed contexts are typically infrequent and mild-to-moderate, supporting wide human use for approved indications [6]. Long-term safety data within those indications remain largely reassuring, but those data do not automatically apply to off-label high-dose or veterinary-product use that became common during the pandemic.
3. Documented severe neurological events — the Loa loa exception and beyond
A systematic pharmacovigilance study identified severe encephalopathies linked to ivermectin particularly in individuals with very high Loa loa microfilarial densities, a recognized and specific risk in endemic regions that has guided public health caution [3]. The same study also reported encephalopathies outside Loa loa endemic areas, indicating that while rare, severe neurological reactions can occur beyond the classical risk group. This establishes a concrete, context-dependent long-term safety concern: in affected individuals the neurological complications can be severe and prolonged, and programs using ivermectin in endemic settings must include screening and mitigation strategies.
4. Clinical trials for COVID-19 provide no evidence of long-term benefit
Randomized clinical trial evidence from a large adaptive platform trial showed that ivermectin is unlikely to yield clinically meaningful improvements in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes for community-managed COVID-19, undermining claims that off-label use would provide durable benefits for that condition [2]. The trial addresses short- and longer-term outcomes specifically for COVID-19 and therefore suggests no population-level long-term benefit justifying widespread non-prescribed use. When benefits are absent, even rare harms become more consequential, shifting the risk–benefit calculus away from off-label deployment.
5. Real-world misuse amplifies toxicity — veterinary products and dosing errors
Toxicology analyses contrasting veterinary formulations with prescription human tablets found that people taking veterinary ivermectin experienced more severe and rapid neurotoxicity relative to those on human formulations, highlighting dosing errors and product differences as drivers of harm [7]. The availability of non-pharmaceutical veterinary products and misinformation during the pandemic led to exposure patterns not reflected in pre-pandemic safety datasets. This pattern explains some of the increased severe-event reporting and underscores that product source and dose matter critically for safety and any long-term sequelae.
6. Mechanistic and animal evidence that informs but does not prove human long-term harm
Laboratory and animal studies report ivermectin-related oxidative stress and tissue changes in experimental models—such as brain and skin alterations in treated rats—that suggest potential biological pathways for toxicity under certain exposures [8]. These findings are mechanistic signals, not direct evidence of human long-term outcomes, and must be interpreted cautiously because animal doses, routes, and co-treatments differ from human therapeutic use. Nevertheless, such preclinical data justify vigilance and targeted research where human pharmacovigilance signals have emerged.
7. What’s missing — long-term, systematic human follow-up and context-aware surveillance
Current evidence combines long-standing clinical experience for approved uses, randomized trials showing no long-term COVID-19 benefit, pharmacovigilance signals of increased adverse-event reporting post-2020, and rare but serious encephalopathies in specific settings [5] [2] [1] [3] [4] [7]. The principal gaps are prospective long-term cohort studies for off-label exposures, systematic investigations of neurological sequelae, and denominator-adjusted pharmacovigilance analyses. Policymakers and clinicians must weigh the established safety for licensed parasitic indications against demonstrated risks from misuse, and prioritize studies that can quantify long-term human harms after non-standard exposure.