Ivermectin Against Bacteria: The Laboratory Research

Ivermectin is a medicine against parasitic worms and mites. The avermectins, the family of molecules it belongs to, were “traditionally believed to be inactive against all bacteria” [1]. Laboratory studies published from 2012 onward report that ivermectin and some of its relatives can hold back or kill certain bacteria in a dish: the bacterium that causes tuberculosis [1], some strains of Staphylococcus aureus [2], and Chlamydia trachomatis growing inside cells [3]. Other laboratory studies found no significant activity [4], and in the one animal test among the studies on this page, ivermectin was not active [5].

This page labels each finding by where it was seen: in a laboratory dish, in animals, or in people. None of the studies gathered here tested ivermectin as a treatment for a bacterial infection in people. The page also covers Wolbachia, bacteria that live inside filarial worms, which in river blindness are targeted by the antibiotic doxycycline, not by ivermectin [6]. The question comes up on the site’s page about ivermectin for gum disease, because dentistry explains gum disease mainly through bacteria in dental plaque.

Table of Contents

  1. Why Researchers Test a Deworming Drug Against Bacteria
  2. Tuberculosis and Other Mycobacteria
  3. Staphylococcus aureus, Including Methicillin-Resistant Strains
  4. Chlamydia, a Bacterium That Lives Inside Cells
  5. Wolbachia: The Bacteria Inside Filarial Worms
  6. Other Avermectins: Emamectin Benzoate and Selamectin
  7. The Concentration Question
  8. Bacteria of the Gums
  9. Key Research Papers
  10. Connections
  11. Featured Videos

Why Researchers Test a Deworming Drug Against Bacteria

A drug thought to have no effect on bacteria

Ivermectin is made from the avermectins, molecules produced by a soil bacterium, Streptomyces avermitilis, that came from a soil sample in Japan. Ivermectin’s discoverer, Satoshi Ōmura, shared the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with William C. Campbell [7]. Chemically, ivermectin is a macrocyclic lactone, a large ring-shaped molecule [2], the same broad kind of molecule as macrolide antibiotics such as azithromycin. Even so, the avermectins were “known for their anthelmintic activities”, meaning activity against parasitic worms, not against bacteria [1].

As late as 2012, the group behind the Chlamydia trachomatis study described below wrote that “ivermectin has never been shown to be effective against bacterial pathogens” [3]. A 2025 study still opened with the view that the family “is largely considered to lack antibacterial activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria” [8].

Reasons to look again

A 2017 review described ivermectin’s “unexpected potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent” [7]. The appeal is practical. Developing a new drug is “costly and lengthy”, and drug repurposing, testing an existing medicine against a different disease, is an alternative [9]. The avermectins are approved for clinical and veterinary use, with “documented pharmacokinetic and safety profiles” [1]; pharmacokinetics is how a drug is absorbed, spread through the body and removed. One laboratory group called them “well tolerated, widely available and inexpensive” [10].

Drug resistance drives the search. Mycobacterium tuberculosis “accounts for one third of the worldwide deaths from antimicrobial resistance” [11], and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is now “resistant to most of the available antibiotics” [2].

There is also a reason for caution. Ivermectin is “widely employed for mass administration”, given to whole communities at once, and its main field of use is veterinary medicine. A 2022 perspective article argued that it is therefore “mandatory to broaden the knowledge of its possible interaction with bacterial growth and its generation of antimicrobial resistance” [12]. The 2025 study, noting the use of these drugs in agriculture, aquaculture (fish farming) and medicine, wrote that “examination of their off-target effects on various bacterial communities is warranted” [8]. Effects on gut bacteria are covered on the companion page about ivermectin and the gut microbiome; related pages cover topical ivermectin and ivermectin’s anti-inflammatory research.

Terms used on this page

Tuberculosis and Other Mycobacteria

Mycobacteria are bacteria with a thick, waxy cell wall. Mycobacterium tuberculosis causes tuberculosis. Mycobacterium ulcerans causes Buruli ulcer, “a debilitating infection of subcutaneous tissue”, the tissue under the skin [10]. All results in this section come from laboratory work, except one test in mice.

Tuberculosis bacteria in the laboratory

In a 2013 laboratory study, ivermectin, selamectin and moxidectin were bactericidal against mycobacterial species. These included multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis taken from patients: strains that resist the main first-line tuberculosis drugs and, in the extensively resistant ones, key second-line drugs too. The authors suggested repurposing the avermectins for tuberculosis [1]. In the same year, a research letter by a different group was published under a title stating the opposite, “Ivermectin lacks antituberculous activity”. PubMed holds no abstract for it, so its methods cannot be summarized here [13].

Searching for how the drugs act

Two studies used selamectin, a veterinary antiparasitic of the same family. In 2022, Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains with mutations in DprE1, an enzyme the bacterium uses to build its cell wall, were more susceptible to selamectin, and biochemical tests confirmed that selamectin interacts with the enzyme. But in Mycobacterium smegmatis, a related mycobacterium that does not cause disease, strains built with the matching enzyme changes did not show the expected differences in sensitivity. Treated cells also lacked the pattern of fats (lipids) expected if the enzyme were blocked. The authors concluded that selamectin “could be a multi-target anti-mycobacterial compound” [11].

In 2025, some of the same researchers tried to make Mycobacterium smegmatis resistant to selamectin. Less-sensitive mutants appeared only in a “mutator” strain that mutates unusually often, and small amounts of ethambutol, a standard tuberculosis drug, made them sensitive again. Resistance required an intact cell envelope, the wall and membranes around the cell. The authors concluded that resistance is unlikely to emerge, that selamectin’s target is not in the cell’s fluid interior, and that the avermectins’ mode of action in mycobacteria “remains unknown” [9].

A 2025 study combined computer modeling with laboratory work on ESX-3, a protein-export system that Mycobacterium tuberculosis needs to grow and to manage iron and zinc. The modeling picked selamectin, avermectin, ivermectin and moxidectin as candidate drugs. In Mycobacterium smegmatis, silencing one gene of the system (eccD3) made the bacteria more sensitive to ivermectin, but the changes were “modest”. The authors called for further laboratory and preclinical studies, those done before testing in people [14].

Buruli ulcer: two laboratory answers and a test in mice

In 2015, the World Health Organization-recommended treatment for Buruli ulcer was 8 weeks of the antibiotics streptomycin and rifampicin, relying on daily streptomycin injections and with side effects such as hearing damage. That year, a laboratory study reported minimum inhibitory concentrations of 4–8 μg/mL for ivermectin and moxidectin against Mycobacterium ulcerans. In time-kill tests, which count surviving bacteria over time, viability fell significantly and in a dose-dependent way over 8 weeks. The drugs also showed synergy with rifampicin: together they killed more than expected from each alone. The authors proposed further evaluation for Buruli ulcer [10].

Another 2015 laboratory study tested nearly all the macrocyclic lactones used in human or veterinary medicine against Mycobacterium ulcerans from patients, and reached a different answer. Selamectin (2–4 μg/mL) and milbemycin oxime (2–8 μg/mL) were the most active. “In contrast, ivermectin and moxidectin, which are both in clinical use, showed no significant activity”, with minimum inhibitory concentrations above 32 μg/mL. Drawing also on published pharmacokinetic information, the authors named selamectin the most promising macrocyclic lactone for Buruli ulcer [4].

In a 2020 study in infected mice, selamectin and ivermectin “were not active” against Mycobacterium ulcerans. An experimental drug, telacebec, given twice a week with rifapentine or bedaquiline, sterilized the mouse footpads after 16 doses over 8 weeks [5]. The two laboratory studies disagree about ivermectin, and their abstracts give no reason. The mouse study is the only animal test of ivermectin against bacteria among the studies on this page, and none of them tested ivermectin as a treatment for these infections in people.

Staphylococcus aureus, Including Methicillin-Resistant Strains

Staphylococcus aureus causes “a number of diseases in a wide variety of hosts including humans and animals” [2]. Strains that resist methicillin and related antibiotics are called methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. All findings in this section come from laboratory dishes.

Bacteria from cows’ milk, 2018

A 2018 study tested deworming drugs including levamisole, albendazole and ivermectin against 21 isolates (bacterial samples) of Staphylococcus aureus from cows’ milk collected in Lahore and Faisalabad, Pakistan. Ivermectin, but not levamisole or albendazole, showed “a potent anti-staphylococcal activity” at 6.25 and 12.5 μg/mL against two isolates, one sensitive and one resistant to methicillin. The authors wrote that why ivermectin “did not inhibit the growth of all Staphylococci needs further investigation”. They called its further development “potentially appealing” because ivermectin’s pharmacology and toxicology are well known [2].

Strains that resist ivermectin, 2022

In 2022, some of the same researchers compared a strain that ivermectin inhibited with one that resisted it. Of 1,849 proteins detected, eight transport proteins were made in different amounts in the resistant strain. Three of them were efflux pumps, which push drugs back out of the cell, confirmed with a gene-activity test. The authors proposed that the resistant strain may overproduce these pumps and wrote that further experiments are required [15].

A modified ivermectin against biofilm, 2021

In 2021, chemists made a compound called D4 by swapping in an amino group (a small nitrogen-containing group) at one position of ivermectin, and tested both against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The minimum inhibitory concentration was 20 μg/mL for ivermectin and 5 μg/mL for D4. D4 was better than ivermectin at destroying the cell wall, getting through the cell membrane and binding the bacteria’s DNA. Against biofilm, 24 hours of D4 at 10–40 μg/mL cut the biofilm by 21.2–92.9%, while ivermectin caused no significant change even at 40 μg/mL. The authors wrote that “the higher hemolysis makes D4 a safety risk for intravenous injection” and named other routes as options [16]. Hemolysis is the bursting of red blood cells; intravenous means into a vein.

Scabies and the bacteria that follow it

Scabies is a skin infestation by the mite Sarcoptes scabiei. Scratching the lesions can lead to bacterial skin infections such as impetigo (sores and crusts), most commonly caused by Streptococcus pyogenes or Staphylococcus aureus. These can have fatal consequences such as septicemia (blood poisoning), glomerulonephritis (kidney inflammation) and rheumatic heart disease (heart damage after a streptococcal infection) [17].

A 2022 laboratory study tested scabies medicines against these bacteria with a standard dilution test. Ivermectin, a current scabies treatment, “offers some antimicrobial activity” and could inhibit the growth of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus dysgalactiae subspecies equisimilis and Acinetobacter baumannii. Two newer treatments, abametapir and mānuka oil, also showed antimicrobial properties. The abstract gives no concentrations [18].

Chlamydia, a Bacterium That Lives Inside Cells

Chlamydia trachomatis can grow only inside the cells it infects. It causes a common sexually transmitted infection and, in the eye, trachoma, “the world’s most frequent cause of blindness from an infectious agent” [19].

In cells in the laboratory, 2012

In a 2012 laboratory study, ivermectin inhibited infection of epithelial cells, the cells that line body surfaces, by Chlamydia trachomatis. The authors wrote that this happened “at doses that could be envisioned clinically for sexually-transmitted or ocular infections by Chlamydia”; the abstract gives no concentration [3]. A 2022 perspective article counted the Chlamydia and mycobacteria findings as ivermectin’s “huge, unexpected potential as an antibacterial” [12].

Trachoma, flies and mass treatment, 2023

Trachoma is controlled through the Surgery, Antibiotics, Facial cleanliness and Environmental improvement (SAFE) strategy, which includes giving the antibiotic azithromycin to whole communities. A fly, Musca sorbens, is a suspected carrier of the infection and breeds mainly in human feces left in the open. Ivermectin has a known inhibitive effect on insects that breed in dung, and in Ethiopia it is also given to whole communities against river blindness and lymphatic filariasis [19].

A 2023 analysis of existing campaign data from Ethiopia looked at areas where trachoma had persisted or returned. Areas that received both ivermectin and azithromycin showed an association with better trachoma control than areas that received azithromycin alone. The authors called it an “initial investigation” and wrote that ivermectin’s effect on the fly’s breeding needs confirming in controlled laboratory and field studies [19]. The proposed route is the fly, not ivermectin acting on the bacterium. It is the only study on this page in people that links ivermectin with the control of a bacterial disease.

Wolbachia: The Bacteria Inside Filarial Worms

This section is about bacteria that live inside parasitic worms. Filarial worms are thread-like roundworms spread by biting insects. Onchocerca volvulus, spread by blackflies, causes onchocerciasis, or river blindness, “the second leading infectious cause of blindness in endemic areas”. Inside the worms live Wolbachia bacteria, “crucial to the survival” of the adult worms [6]. Bacteria living inside another organism’s cells as partners are called endosymbionts.

Ivermectin is a microfilaricide: it kills the microfilariae, the microscopic young worms in the skin and eyes. The antibiotic doxycycline targets the Wolbachia, sterilizes adult female worms and has a macrofilaricidal (adult-worm-killing) effect [20]. When the two are combined, ivermectin is believed to kill the young worms directly and doxycycline to kill the adults indirectly [6]. In this treatment, the drug acting on the bacteria is doxycycline, not ivermectin.

Ivermectin is given to whole communities against river blindness. In 2010, the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control of the World Bank and the World Health Organization gave it yearly in 19 African countries, and a review that year called the development of ivermectin resistance “a concern” [20]. A 2019 review calls antibiotic treatment against Wolbachia a promising approach for onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis, one that kills adult worms and prevents worm embryos from developing. It describes doxycycline as “readily available, cheap and safe to use in adult non-pregnant patients” and notes that other antibiotics are being investigated [21].

The trials in people are few. A 2016 Cochrane systematic review, which gathers qualifying trials by set rules, found three randomized controlled trials (participants assigned to treatments by chance) with 466 participants in Cameroon, Ghana and Liberia, comparing doxycycline plus ivermectin with ivermectin alone. It judged all three at high risk of bias, meaning flaws in how they were run could skew their results. One trial left it uncertain whether adding doxycycline improved visual impairment at six months (risk ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.39; 240 participants; very low-quality evidence). A risk ratio of 1 means no difference, and the confidence interval, the range where the true effect probably lies, includes 1. Two trials reported that six weeks of doxycycline may deplete Wolbachia and kill and sterilize adult female worms, but their data were too incomplete to analyze [6].

In one trial, 16 of 135 participants (12%) reported side effects such as itching, headaches, body pains and vertigo, with no difference between groups. Another reported bloody diarrhea in one participant (1.3%) given doxycycline plus ivermectin. The reviewers found the evidence unclear: limited, very low-quality evidence indicates that six weeks of doxycycline followed by ivermectin “may result in more frequent macrofilaricidal and microfilaricidal activity and sterilization of female adult Onchocerca compared with ivermectin alone”, while effects on vision are uncertain [6].

Other Avermectins: Emamectin Benzoate and Selamectin

Ivermectin is one of several avermectins. Others are used in veterinary medicine and farming, and moxidectin belongs to a closely related family, the milbemycins [8].

The 2025 screen

A 2025 laboratory study screened six avermectins (ivermectin, eprinomectin, doramectin, abamectin, selamectin and emamectin benzoate) and the milbemycin moxidectin against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. The abstract names two avermectins as active. Emamectin benzoate was active against several gram-positive species and was the only avermectin active against Escherichia coli cells made leaky in the laboratory (hyper-permeabilized). Selamectin was active against Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. The abstract does not single out ivermectin. It sums up that avermectins have activity against gram-positive bacteria, “albeit with differing levels of potency and selectivity” [8].

In Bacillus subtilis, a harmless soil bacterium used as a laboratory model, emamectin benzoate was bactericidal. It burst the cells (lysis), damaged the cell envelope and blocked the making of peptidoglycan, the mesh of the cell wall. Several methods failed to produce resistant bacteria. It showed synergy with four antibiotics that target the cell wall (nisin, fosfomycin, daptomycin and tunicamycin). A membrane fat, phosphatidylglycerol, blocked its effect, suggesting it acts on the fats of the cell membrane. The authors wrote that, as some avermectins and milbemycins are approved for human and animal use, these drugs “may be repurposed for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections” [8].

For gram-negative bacteria the studies differ. The only such activity in the 2025 abstract is emamectin benzoate’s, against leaky Escherichia coli [8], while the 2022 scabies study reported ivermectin inhibiting the gram-negative Acinetobacter baumannii [18].

Selamectin across the studies

Selamectin was bactericidal against Mycobacterium tuberculosis [1] and among the most active against Buruli ulcer bacteria in the laboratory [4], yet not active in infected mice [5].

The Concentration Question

A laboratory dish can hold any concentration of a drug. For a result to matter in a body, the concentration that works in the dish has to be reached, and kept, where the bacteria live. The 2018 Staphylococcus aureus study gives this as a possible reason that ivermectin’s activity against bacteria “has been less known”: “micromolar concentrations at tissue levels are required to achieve a therapeutic effect” [2]. Micromolar is a chemist’s unit of concentration. Ivermectin’s molecular weight is about 875, so one micromolar of ivermectin is a little under 1 μg/mL.

The laboratory concentrations reported

Only the Chlamydia trachomatis abstract states that the effective doses “could be envisioned clinically”, and it gives no figure [3].

What the body reaches

None of the abstracts gathered for this page reports the concentrations ivermectin reaches in human blood or tissue at the doses used against parasites, so this page cannot set the two figures side by side. The 2013 tuberculosis study cited the avermectins’ documented pharmacokinetics and safety in support of repurposing them [1]. The 2015 Buruli ulcer study weighed published pharmacokinetic information and named selamectin the most promising macrocyclic lactone for that disease [4]. In the one animal test, ivermectin and selamectin were not active in infected mice [5].

Resistance in the laboratory

Some Staphylococcus aureus strains resist ivermectin in laboratory tests, possibly through efflux pumps [15]. The 2022 perspective article asked whether ivermectin’s effects on the immune system and on bacteria, in a drug widely used for mass administration, could “promote both bacterial growth and the occurrence of resistance mechanisms” [12]. In the other direction, resistance to selamectin proved hard to produce in a mycobacterium [9], and no bacteria resistant to emamectin benzoate could be selected [8].

The evidence by type

Bacteria of the Gums

Dentistry explains gum disease mainly through bacteria living in dental plaque, a biofilm on the teeth, with Porphyromonas gingivalis among the best known. None of the studies gathered for this page tested ivermectin, or any other avermectin, against Porphyromonas gingivalis or any other gum-disease bacterium, whether in a laboratory dish, in animals or in people. The nearest result is the 2021 biofilm test, in which ivermectin itself made no significant change to a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilm at 40 μg/mL [16]. What people report about ivermectin and their gums, and the parasites found in diseased gum pockets, are covered on the page Ivermectin for Gum Disease. A different deworming drug, oxantel, has been studied against Porphyromonas gingivalis; that work is described on the oxantel pamoate page.

Key Research Papers

  1. Lim LE, Vilchèze C, Ng C, Jacobs WR, Ramón-García S, Thompson CJ. Anthelmintic avermectins kill Mycobacterium tuberculosis, including multidrug-resistant clinical strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(2):1040-6. PubMed PMID: 23165468
  2. Ashraf S, Chaudhry U, Raza A, Ghosh D, Zhao X. In vitro activity of ivermectin against Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2018;7:27. PubMed PMID: 29468054
  3. Pettengill MA, Lam VW, Ollawa I, Marques-da-Silva C, Ojcius DM. Ivermectin inhibits growth of Chlamydia trachomatis in epithelial cells. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e48456. PubMed PMID: 23119027
  4. Scherr N, Pluschke G, Thompson CJ, Ramón-García S. Selamectin Is the Avermectin with the Best Potential for Buruli Ulcer Treatment. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(8):e0003996. PubMed PMID: 26270480
  5. Chauffour A, Robert J, Veziris N, Aubry A, Pethe K, Jarlier V. Telacebec (Q203)-containing intermittent oral regimens sterilized mice infected with Mycobacterium ulcerans after only 16 doses. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(8):e0007857. PubMed PMID: 32866170
  6. Abegunde AT, Ahuja RM, Okafor NJ. Doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone for treatment of patients with onchocerciasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(1):CD011146. PubMed PMID: 26771164
  7. Crump A. Ivermectin: enigmatic multifaceted 'wonder' drug continues to surprise and exceed expectations. J Antibiot (Tokyo). 2017;70(5):495-505. PubMed PMID: 28196978
  8. Ahmad R, Lewis D, Verellen LA, Yin R, Scott A, Fruci M. The avermectin, emamectin benzoate, kills gram-positive bacteria and targets the cell envelope of Bacillus subtilis. Microbiol Spectr. 2025;13(10):e0027425. PubMed PMID: 40891893
  9. Ezquerra-Aznárez JM, Gašparovič H, Chiner-Oms Á, Lucía A, Blázquez J, Comas I, et al. The emergence of resistance to the antiparasitic selamectin in Mycobacterium smegmatis is improbable and contingent on cell wall integrity. Microbiol Spectr. 2025;13(5):e0233224. PubMed PMID: 40197087
  10. Omansen TF, Porter JL, Johnson PD, van der Werf TS, Stienstra Y, Stinear TP. In-vitro activity of avermectins against Mycobacterium ulcerans. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(3):e0003549. PubMed PMID: 25742173
  11. Ezquerra-Aznárez JM, Degiacomi G, Gašparovič H, Stelitano G, Sammartino JC, Korduláková J, et al. The Veterinary Anti-Parasitic Selamectin Is a Novel Inhibitor of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis DprE1 Enzyme. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(2). PubMed PMID: 35054958
  12. Piras C, Gugliandolo E, Castagna F, Palma E, Britti D. Ivermectin (IVM) Possible Side Activities and Implications in Antimicrobial Resistance and Animal Welfare: The Authors' Perspective. Vet Sci. 2022;9(1). PubMed PMID: 35051108
  13. Muhammed Ameen S, Drancourt M. Ivermectin lacks antituberculous activity. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68(8):1936-7. PubMed PMID: 23587653
  14. Granados-Tristán AL, Carrillo-Tripp M, Hernández-Luna CE, Herrera-Rodulfo A, González-Escalante LA, Arriaga-Guerrero AL, et al. Mycobacterium susceptibility to ivermectin by inhibition of eccD3, an ESX-3 secretion system component. PLoS Comput Biol. 2025;21(4):e1012936. PubMed PMID: 40245093
  15. Ashraf S, Parrine D, Bilal M, Chaudhry U, Lefsrud M, Zhao X. Proteomic Comparison of Ivermectin Sensitive and Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clinical Isolates Reveals Key Efflux Pumps as Possible Resistance Determinants. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(6). PubMed PMID: 35740165
  16. Tan X, Xie H, Zhang B, Zhou J, Dou Z, Wang X, et al. A Novel Ivermectin-Derived Compound D4 and Its Antimicrobial/Biofilm Properties against MRSA. Antibiotics (Basel). 2021;10(2). PubMed PMID: 33672669
  17. Welch E, Romani L, Whitfeld MJ. Recent advances in understanding and treating scabies. Fac Rev. 2021;10:28. PubMed PMID: 33817697
  18. Taylor S, Walther D, Fernando DD, Swe-Kay P, Fischer K. Investigating the Antibacterial Properties of Prospective Scabicides. Biomedicines. 2022;10(12). PubMed PMID: 36552044
  19. Selby R, Jeyam A, Tate A, Kebede F, Downs P. Potential mitigating role of ivermectin on the spread of Chlamydia trachomatis by Musca sorbens. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023;17(10):e0011662. PubMed PMID: 37883529
  20. Murdoch ME. Onchodermatitis. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2010;23(2):124-31. PubMed PMID: 20071985
  21. Wan Sulaiman WA, Kamtchum-Tatuene J, Mohamed MH, Ramachandran V, Ching SM, Sazlly Lim SM, et al. Anti-Wolbachia therapy for onchocerciasis & lymphatic filariasis: Current perspectives. Indian J Med Res. 2019;149(6):706-714. PubMed PMID: 31496523

PubMed Topic Searches

  1. PubMed: Ivermectin and antibacterial activity
  2. PubMed: Avermectins and Mycobacterium tuberculosis
  3. PubMed: Ivermectin and Staphylococcus aureus
  4. PubMed: Ivermectin and Chlamydia trachomatis
  5. PubMed: Wolbachia, doxycycline and river blindness

Back to Table of Contents

Connections

Back to Table of Contents