Coronavirus disease 2019 was first discovered in December 2019 and subsequently became a global pandemic with serious political, economic, and social implications worldwide. We urgently need to find drugs that can be effective against COVID-19. Among the many observational studies, ivermectin has attracted the attention of many countries. Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic drug that also has some antiviral effects. We reviewed studies related to ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 over the last 2 years (2019.12–2022.03) via search engines such as PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost. Seven studies showed a lower mortality rate in the ivermectin group than in the control group, six studies found that the ivermectin group had a significantly fewer length of hospitalization than the control group, and eight studies showed better negative RT-PCR responses in the IVM group than in the control group. Our systematic review indicated that ivermectin may be effective for mildly to moderately ill patients. There is no clear evidence or guidelines to recommend ivermectin as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19, so physicians should use it with caution in the absence of better alternatives in the clinical setting, and self-medication is not recommended for patients.

Objective Observing pregnancy outcomes of patients who used dual-trigger and single-trigger regimens in different ovarian responders who received ART, and assessing the effectiveness and safety of the regimens to provide insights into the optimization of clinical strategy. Methods The clinical profile of 2778 infertile patients who received ART (IVF/ICSI) were reviewed and collected retrospectively. Patients enrolled with different ovarian responses were divided into single-trigger and dual-trigger groups based on different real-world trigger protocols. The baseline characteristics, ovulation induction and pregnancy outcomes of the patients were statistically analyzed. Results There were no significant differences in characteristics of the baseline and cycle parameters on the two trigger regimen groups for high responders, normal responders and low responders. The number of oocytes and the oocytes retrieval rate by the dual trigger of normal responders and high responders have increased, but there were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes (embryo transfer rate, pregnancy rate, live birth rate) between trigger groups. The dual trigger had a lower transplant cancellation rate due to prevention of OHSS: high responders (P = 0.927), normal responders (P = 0.251). In poor responders, there were no cases of transplantation cancellation for OHSS prevention in both groups. Conclusion The dual trigger is a relatively effective and safe regimen for patients with high response and normal ovarian response. In patients with poor ovarian response, the evidence for reducing the risk of OHSS is not sufficient. Further validation in larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials on whether dual triggering improves pregnancy outcomes in poor responders is needed.