At the sight of loved ones on ventilators, some families are turning to the drug ivermectin — an anti-parasitic medication used to treat infection by roundworms, threadworms and other parasites — in an attempt to treat COVID-19, despite there being little conclusive evidence of its efficacy. Concerns from medical associations have mounted as the National Poison Data System (NPDS) reports a 212% increase in ivermectin overdoses so far this year compared to 2020. 

While the drug is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating parasitic infections such as head lice, the FDA and Merck, a producer of ivermectin, have warned against using the drug to treat COVID-19. 

Still, some lawsuits — usually concerning friends or family in a critical condition — are demanding the government force hospitals to administer ivermectin to COVID-19 patients who want the drug. Most hospitals refuse to use ivermectin as treatment because of its unproven status.

“As clinicians and scientists, our approach is always going to come from what the data and the science tells us,” said Gary Fong, an infectious disease pharmacist at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and assistant professor at Chapman University School of Pharmacy. 

While medical professionals are focused on clinical trials and test results, the ivermectin debate has broader implications about medical ethics and the ability of judges to override medical decisions.

“Some of where (this debate) comes from is beyond (medical science),” Fong told The Panther. “It’s ideological, (and) it’s political, unfortunately. That is not how we make medical decisions.”

Nevertheless, Kate Worsham believes those decisions should rest in the hands of patients. 

“If somebody thinks that taking ivermectin will help them, then nobody really has any place telling them what they can (or) can’t treat their own illnesses with,” said Worsham, a sophomore broadcast journalism and documentary major.

Conversely, Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University, argues against the validity of allowing people outside of the medical field to counteract a medical decision. 

“They are the experts, the doctors and ... the hospitals,” Caplan said in an interview with the Associated Press. “When you go (to a hospital), you’re not going to a restaurant. You don’t order your own treatments.”

Another subject of debate is the various studies on ivermectin and its ability to treat COVID-19. Some studies found that ivermectin had no significant effect on test subjects, while other studies — some later retracted — concluded the drug has the potential to treat COVID-19.

But, not all clinical trials are created equal, noted Amy Kang, who works alongside Fong both as an assistant professor at Chapman and an infectious disease pharmacist at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.

“Even when (a) study claims certain conclusions, … it (may have) limitations, especially in terms of ivermectin studies,” Kang told The Panther. “They have either a very small (sample) size, or the data analysis was missing crucial information … or the study has serious, faulty aspects where we can’t comprehend the trial conclusion in a meaningful way. It really comes down to the quality of the data.”

One notable publication in the American Journal of Therapeutics has been criticized for concluding “large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin” while having serious flaws in its design. 

Although the paper claimed it had no conflicts of interest, many of its authors are members of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD), which advocates for the “safe medicine ivermectin to be approved to prevent and cure COVID-19 around the world.” 

David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at Wayne State University and the chief of breast surgery at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, notes several of the study’s other design flaws in a recent Science-Based Medicine article.

Both Kang and Fong said larger clinical trials on the effects of ivermectin have yet to be seen.

“The data isn’t there yet,” Fong said. “We don’t have a big, robust trial that tells us (ivermectin) doesn’t work, but we don’t have anything that tells us it does.”

While there may be a lack of definitive conclusions on ivermectin’s efficacy, first-year graduate psychology student Abbey Umali believes that there are still valid reasons for patients to access the drug for COVID-19 treatment. 

“There are a lot of other avenues (for treatment) that I don’t know if we’ve explored yet,” Umali told The Panther, noting the drug’s FDA approval for parasitic diseases. “The media’s very quick to (say), ‘Well, that’s not proven.’”

Umali was also concerned with the confusion surrounding ivermectin’s compatibility with humans. 

“I don’t think the media was helpful in only calling ivermectin ‘horse dewormer,’” Umali said. “I think that’s where a lot of the confusion is coming from.”

When medical groups test COVID-19 treatment with ivermectin, they are using appropriate human dosages, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has still reported the civilian abuse of veterinary formulations in attempts to treat the virus. In one example, an adult patient drank an injectable form of ivermectin meant for cattle and was hospitalized for nine days.

It’s a lack of these general nuances that concern both advocates for and against ivermectin’s usage. 

“We have therapies now that have an impact on patients with COVID-19 that are backed by good data and a lot of research, like dexamethasone,” Fong said. 

Unlike ivermectin, the steroid has been recommended by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for specific COVID-19 treatment therapies. For Umali, these alternatives don’t appear to be well-publicized. 

“If you just ask people, ‘What do you think the (COVID-19) treatment options are?’ — I don’t think many people would have an answer to that,” Umali said.

For those determined to use ivermectin as treatment, Fong suggests signing up for a clinical trial.

“If you’re really bent on ivermectin, contribute to the science that will help us out,” Fong said.