Observational studyBMC infectious diseases2025
Efficacy of combination therapy with oral Ivermectin and topical permethrin versus permethrin monotherapy in pediatric patients with persistent scabies: a propensity score-adjusted observational study.
Observational study in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative effectiveness of ivermectin versus permethrin for the treatment of scabies: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScabies is a highly contagious parasitic infestation that disproportionately affects children in resource-limited settings. Topical 5% permethrin is first-line therapy, but effectiveness is limited by suboptimal application, rapid reinfestation, and emerging resistance. Adding oral ivermectin to permethrin has shown promise in small series, yet its cost-28-37% of the 2022 minimum wage in Türkiye before generics and still 5-7% after-puts it beyond reach for many families, with similar gaps in other low-income countries. We conducted a propensity-score-adjusted study comparing ivermectin + permethrin versus permethrin alone in children, aiming to quantify clinical benefit, safety and generate evidence to guide policies enhancing financial access to effective therapy.
methodsFrom January 2022 to January 2024, we enrolled 230 children (< 18 years; >15 kg) whose scabies persisted after ≥ 1 permethrin course. After cost counselling, families chose either combination therapy (oral ivermectin at 200 µg/kg on Day 0 and 14 plus permethrin) or continued permethrin monotheraphy. Baseline demographic, socioeconomic and clinical variables were used to derive a propensity score adjusting for non-random treatment allocation. Lesion count and pruritus scale were assessed weekly for 4 weeks then monthly for 3 months; recurrences and adverse events (AEs) were recorded at each visit.
resultsCombination therapy significantly accelerated symptom relief (time to 50% pruritus reduction: 7.2 ± 1.8 vs. 9.8 ± 2.1 days; p < 0.001) and yielded higher Week 2/3/4 cure rates (55.0%/75.0%/83.8% vs. 30.0%/55.3%/66.0%). Three-month recurrence was lower with combination therapy (7.1% vs. 17.1%; p = 0.05). Mild, self-limiting adverse events were more common in the combination arm (14.3% vs. 4.3%; p = 0.04), predominantly transient itch flare and headache; no moderate, serious, or treatment-limiting events occurred.
conclusionsIn this study adding two oral doses of ivermectin to standard permethrin shortened symptom resolution time, raised cure rates, and halved recurrences, with only modest rise in transient mild AEs. Future randomised trials should couple efficacy with cost-effectiveness analyses and evaluate policy options-generic licensure, unit-tablet dispensing, and insurance reimbursement-to ensure equitable access to this regimen. TRIAL REGISTRIATION: Clinical trial number not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.