CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 79COVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchLong-Term Effects of COVID-19

Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Naggie, Susanna, Boulware, David R., Lindsell, Christopher J., Stewart, Thomas G., Slandzicki, Alex J., Lim, Stephen C., Cohen, Jonathan, Kavtaradze, David +242 more·2023·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2023.1650PMC PMC9941969
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Importance: It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1432 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg (n = 708) daily, or placebo (n = 724) for 6 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results: Among 1432 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 854 (59.6%) were women, and 1188 (83.1%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 12 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.12; P value for efficacy = .65). Among those receiving ivermectin, 39 (5.5%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 42 (5.8%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% credible interval, 0.60-1.45]; P = .55). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 6 were hospitalized (1.0%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2023.1650

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 14 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    By day 7, 88% (532/602) in ivermectin and 91% (549/604) in placebo were not hospitalized and did not report limitation of activities.

    “For example, by day 7, a total of 532 of 602 participants (88%) in the ivermectin group and 549 of 604 (91%) in the placebo group were not hospitalized and did not report limitation of activities (eFigure 6 in Supplement 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Time from symptom onset to receiving the study drug showed no significant overall effect (P=.15 for heterogeneity).

    “The overall effect of timing from symptom on- set to receipt of the study drug was not significant (P = .15 for heterogeneity).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Mean time feeling unwell was estimated to be 3 hours 20 minutes shorter with ivermectin than placebo (95% CrI, 12 hours better to 6 hours worse).

    “The difference in the amount of time spent feeling unwell with COVID-19 was estimated as 3 hours and 20 minutes faster with ivermectin (95% CrI, 12 hours better to 6 hours worse) than placebo (Figure 2C).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The median time to sustained recovery was 11 days (IQR 11-12) in both the ivermectin and placebo groups.

    “The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group.”
    • Also stated in: § Primary Outcome · plain
      “The median (IQR) time to recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin (targeted max 600 μg/kg per day for six days) did not improve time to sustained recovery compared with placebo.

    “Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
      “Among a largely vaccinated outpatient population with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a targeted maximum dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo was not shown to improve time to recovery in more than 1200 participants in the US during a period of Omicron variant/subvariant circulation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 21
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No evidence of differential treatment effect of ivermectin vs placebo was found for symptom severity, sex, age, BMI, calendar time, or vaccination status.

    “Similarly, no evidence existed for a different treatment effect of ivermectin compared with placebo for se- verity of symptoms, sex, age, BMI, calendar time, or vaccina- tion status (eFigure 8 in Supplement 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Few participants were hospitalized or died: five events in the ivermectin arm (one death judged unrelated to COVID-19 or treatment) and two events in the placebo arm (no deaths).

    “Hospitalizations and deaths were uncommon, with 5 events (including 1 death not attributable to COVID-19 or treatment) in the ivermectin group and 2 events (no deaths) in the placebo group (eFigure 5A in Supplement 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The posterior probability of benefit for the primary outcome of time to recovery was .68, below the prespecified threshold of .95.

    “The posterior probability for benefit was .68 for the primary outcome of time to recovery, with an HR of 1.02 (95% credible 2 and Figure 2A).This posterior probability was below the prespecified threshold of .95(Supplement 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The remote design meant that 60% of participants took the study drug within five days after symptoms began.

    “Also, due to the remote nature of the trial, 60% of participants received the study drug within 5 days of symptom onset.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mean time unwell was 11.21 days with ivermectin and 11.35 days with placebo, a difference of -0.14 days (95% credible interval, -0.51 to 0.24), with P=.77.

    “Time unwell, mean (95% CrI), d e | 11.21 (11.01 to 11.41) 11.35 (11.16 to 11.54) Difference, -0.14 (-0.51 to 0.24) .77”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The 600 μg/kg ivermectin dose was safe and generally well tolerated.

    “The 600-μg/kg dose was safe and generally well tolerated”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Hospitalization, urgent care, emergency department visit, or death through day 28 occurred in 34 (5.65%) ivermectin participants and 36 (5.96%) placebo participants, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.0 (95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5) and P=.53.

    “Hospitalization, urgent care, ED visit, or death through day 28 34 (5.65) | 36 (5.96) | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.5) | .53”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Hospitalization or death through day 28 occurred in 5 (0.83%) ivermectin participants and 2 (0.33%) placebo participants, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.51 (95% credible interval, 0.49-12.96).

    “Hospitalization or death through day 28 | 5 (0.83) | 2 (0.33) | 2.51 (0.49 to 12.96) c”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mean days of benefit was 3.42 with ivermectin and 3.26 with placebo, a difference of 0.16 days (95% credible interval, -0.28 to 0.61), with P=.77.

    “Days of benefit, mean (95% CrI), d f | 3.42 (3.18 to 3.64) | 3.26 (3.03 to 3.48) | Difference, 0.16 (-0.28 to 0.61) | .77”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The ivermectin 600 μg/kg group enrolled quickly amid Omicron variant and subvariant surges and was mostly vaccinated.

    “The ivermectin 600 μg/kg group of the platform trial enrolled rapidly due to ongoing Omicron variant/ subvariant surges and largely included vaccinated people”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In this study, 84% of participants had completed vaccination, compared with 47% in the earlier ivermectin 400 μg/kg group.

    “the completed vaccination rate, which was 84% for this study and 47% for the prior ivermectin 400 μg/kg group.16”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Each site's institutional review board approved the protocol, and an independent data monitoring committee monitored safety and trial conduct.

    “The trial protocol was approved by each site's institutional review board.”
    • Also stated in: § Trial Design and Oversight · plain
      “An independent data monitoring committee oversaw participant safety and trial conduct.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The trial was randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled.

    “Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) is an ongoing, fully remote (decentralized), double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled platform trial investigating repurposed drugs for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    An in vitro study suggesting possible antiviral activity initially prompted interest in ivermectin as a repurposed COVID-19 drug.

    “Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug used worldwide for onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis, emerged in 2020 as a potential repurposed drug for COVID-19 initially informed by an in vitro study suggesting possible antiviral activity.11”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Randomization used a random number generator and a two-step procedure.

    “Participants were randomized using a random number generator in a 2-step process (Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Primary analyses used a modified intention-to-treat set: everyone who received study drug, analyzed according to assignment.

    “For this trial, the modified intention-to-treat analysis set for the primary analyses included all participants who received the study drug, and participants were analyzed as assigned.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A phase 2 trial that gave ivermectin 600 μg/kg per day for seven days and used an oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR virologic end point found no measurable antiviral activity and was halted for futility.

    “however, a phase 2 trial testing ivermectin, 600 μg/kg daily for 7 days, and assessing a virologic end point of oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result did not show measurable antiviral activity and was stopped for futility.21”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Most outpatient antiviral trials for COVID-19 have enrolled only participants who were within five days of symptom onset.

    “Most outpatient COVID-19 antiviral trials have limited enrollment to participants within 5 days of symptom onset.1,2”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Secondary end points were exploratory and not used for formal decision-making because of multiple comparisons.

    “Secondary end points were not used for formal decisionmaking, and no decision threshold was selected.Due to an increased potential for type I error due to multiple comparisons, secondary end points should be interpreted as exploratory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    Weight-based dosing introduces additional variability in the range of doses administered.

    “With weight-based dosing, there is additional variability in the range for dosing”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    No optimal dose of ivermectin for COVID-19 had been established, because early-phase and animal-model studies needed to determine optimal dosing for a therapeutic drug were lacking.

    “Due to the lack of early-phase studies or animalmodel studies to determine optimal dosing for a therapeutic drug, the appropriate dosing of ivermectin for COVID-19 was never determined.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The trial was nationwide, double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled; it had 93 enrolling sites and a call center that recruited from all 50 US states.

    “This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled nationwide trial with 93 enrolling sites and a call center that recruited participants from all 50 US states.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The adjusted model for the primary end point did not include underlying comorbidities.

    “Lastly, the primary end point-adjusted model did not include underlying comorbidities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This mostly vaccinated population is highly relevant and helps address a limitation of many other studies that excluded vaccinated individuals.

    “thus representing a highly relevant study population that also addresses a weakness of many other studies that excluded vaccinated people.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Age and BMI were expected to modify treatment effect; both were included as covariates and assessed for heterogeneity of treatment effect.

    “Treatment effect was putatively expected to differ based on age and BMI, and these were included as covariates and evaluated for heterogeneity of treatment effect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Hospitalization was infrequent, so this study cannot determine the intervention's effect on that outcome.

    “Due to infrequent hospitalization, this study cannot assess the effect of the intervention on this clinical outcome.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study permitted standard-of-care therapies, but few participants used them.

    “Furthermore, standard-of-care therapies were allowable in this study, although utilization was low.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
27 of 27

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Achieving drug levels sufficient for in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 will translate into clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.

    “Modeling studies and a proof-of-concept clinical study have suggested that doses up to 600 μg/kg daily may achieve levels sufficient for in vitro antiviral activity 18,19”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Time to sustained recovery is a clinically meaningful end point for outpatients with mild or moderate COVID-19.

    “Among outpatients with mild or moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a targeted maximum dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, was not shown to improve time to sustained recovery compared with placebo.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The earlier null results for ivermectin at 400 μg/kg for 3 days were due to insufficient dose or duration rather than lack of efficacy.

    “This large clinical trial addresses a potential gap in knowledge by testing (1) a higher daily dose (targeted maximum dose of 600 μg/kg) and ( 2) a longer (6-day) duration of ivermectin.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • During the COVID-19 pandemic, systematic reviews for ivermectin suggested an impressive benefit of the drug for reducing mortality on the basis of potentially problematic trials, while subsequent high-quality evidence appears to show modest or no benefit.

    “During the COVID-19 pandemic, systematic reviews for ivermectin suggested an impressive benefit of the drug for reducing mortality on the basis of potentially problematic trials (25), while subsequent high-quality evidence appears to show modest or no benefit (26, 27).”

    From INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials (2025) · cites this paper as [27]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Reported recovery IQR conflicts with patients still at risk on day 14

    Minor

    An IQR of 11 to 12 days implies that at least 75% of participants had recovered by day 12. Yet the figure lists 232 of 602 ivermectin participants and 244 of 604 placebo participants still at risk on day 14-more than 25% in each group.

1 of 1

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Elgazzar A. Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 pandemic. Research Square. Preprint posted July 14, 2021. Accessed June 8, 2022. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v4

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Naggie, S., Boulware, D. R., Lindsell, C. J., Stewart, T. G., Slandzicki, A. J., Lim, S. C., Cohen, J., Kavtaradze, D., Amon, A. P., Gabriel, A., Gentile, N., Felker, G. M., Jayaweera, D., McCarthy, M. W., Sulkowski, M., Rothman, R. L., Wilson, S., DeLong, A., Remaly, A., Wilder, R., Collins, S., Dunsmore, S. E., Adam, S. J., Thicklin, F., Hanna, G. J., Ginde, A. A., Castro, M., McTigue, K., Shenkman, E., Hernandez, A. F., Accelerating Covid-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-6 Study Group and Investigators, Vincent, W. (., Vincent, R., Bianchi, R., Premas, J., Cordero-Loperena, D., Rivera, E., Gupta, M., Karawan, G., Ziomek, C., Arena, J., DeAlmeida, S., Ramin, S., Nataraj, J., Paasche-Orlow, M., Henault, L., Waite, K., Miller, D., Brounce, G., George-Adebayo, C., Adebayo, A., Wallan, J., Vogel, C., Munoz, S., Watson, C., Singleton, D., Rivon, M., Sevier, A., Del Pilar, A., Spangler, A., Rao, S., Cantu, L., Krishna, A., Evans, K., Falkner, T., Kerr, B., Spees, R., Marta, M., Harrington, A., Dolor, R., Frazier, M., Vergara, L., Wilson, J., Burruss, V., Hurst, T., Ofotokun, I., Rebolledo, P., Prabhu, R., Klicka, K., Lightfeather, A., James, V., Rogers, M., Parihar, P., Torress, D., Oragwu, C., Oguego, N., Pillai, R., Juma, M., Ghaly, E., Al-Haddadin, D., Ramirez, C., Hassanien, G., Ismail, S., Meltzer, A., Moran, S., Brehaut, S., Roche, A., Mehta, M., Koppinger, N., Baez, J., Pagan, I., Abdelsayed, D., Aziz, M., Robinson, P., Nguyen, J., Pardue, V., Hammons, L., Ruiz-Unger, J., Gonzalez, S., Reyes, L., Cienki, J., Jimenez, G., Wong, M., Yuan, Y., Li, J., Szeto, J., Stelmash, L., Haight, D., Lamb, D., Harper, A., Pyram-Bernard, N., Quintero, A., Adhami, E., Maria, J., Paudel, D., Raymond, O., Summers, J., Turner, T., Lenert, L., Gallegos, S., Szwast, E. A., Abdulghani, A., Vasoya, P., Miller, C., Wiley, H., Shah, N., Klein, T., Castex, J., Feliciano, P., Olivo, J., Ghaly, M., Javed, Z., Nawrocki, A., Vecchiarelli, A., Vigil, N., Cherukuri, V., Burden, E., Linn, D., Fisher, L., Patel, V., Patel, P., Patel, Y., Ellison, L., Harrison, J., Shah, B., Shah, S., Singh, U., Donahue, J., Jazayeri, Y., Gupta, A., Chandrasekar, N., Moritz, B., Fortt, T., Fortt, A., Jones-Ince, I., McKee, A., Schattinger, C., Wilson, J., Farlow, B., Finlaw, L., Richwine, R., Williams, T., Paizer, P., Carson, L., Michelson, E., Austin, D., Khetpal, S., Cantrell, T., Franklin, D., Marshall, K., Mahadevan, A., Rosequist, M., Gnoni, M., Daffner, C., VandeWeerd, C., Roberts, M., D'Andrea, M., Swink, W., Powers-Fletcher, M., Mukunzi, S., Hensley, J., Manning, B., Isache, C., Bowman, J., Callaghan-Brown, A., Scott, T., Schwasinger-Schmidt, T., Cornejo, A., Almanzar, M., Ginsburg, L., Hajaz, A., Bramante, C., Robinson, M., Seithel, M., Sekikawa, A., Klawson, E., Ostrosky, L., Umana, V., Patterson, T., Tragus, R., Jackson, P., Hallowell, C., Haughey, H., Vaidya-Tank, B., Gould, C., Goyal, P., Gatewood, C., Williamson, J., Seagle, H., Salsgiver, E., Armas, E., Cheng, J., Huerta, P., Garcia-Diaz, J., Aamodt, D., Ayers, J., Collins, J., Graves, J., Grindstaff, J., Lai, J., Lopez, I., Marlin, J., Merkel, A., Nwosu, S., Obregon, S., Orozco, D., Perez-Torres, Y., Prato, N., Ratcliff, C., Rhode, M., Shirey-Rice, J., Vermillion, K., Tan, H.-N., Tregoning, S., Vance, M., Vongsamphanh, A., Weir, M., Zaleski, N., Bozzette, S., & Passamani, G.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Clinical Trials Center of Middle Tennessee, Franklin
  • University Medical Center New Orleans (US)
  • Jadestone Clinical Research, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland
  • David Kavtaradze, Inc, Cordele, Georgia
  • Lakeland Regional Medical Center (US)
  • Focus Clinical Research Solutions, Charlotte, North Carolina
  • Temple University (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Stakeholder Advisory Committee, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • University of Missouri–Kansas City (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • for the Accelerating Covid-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-6 Study Group and Investigators
Corresponding author
Naggie, Susanna
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2023-03-21
Volume
329
Issue
11
Pages
888
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2023.1650
PMC
PMC9941969
OpenAlex
W4321369786
Cited by
79
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 1
FWCI
16.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (U24TR001608, UL1TR002736, UL1TR002243)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, outpatients, mild to moderate COVID-19, drug repurposing, symptom duration, hospitalization, urgent care utilization, antiparasitic treatment, age and sex differences
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, Female, Humans, Ivermectin, Male, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Vaccines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-05.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-05.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review