![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The 'Anti-viral status' in the table is generally imported from the review Journal paper: Discovery and development of safe-in-man broad-spectrum antiviral agents (figure 5). However, if possible, I'd like help in citing the most direct source for each of the cells. This can likely be found within the article itself. ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems the graphic is from https://drugvirus.info/ which guided me to some clinical trial information ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm actually not 100% the Open Label study can't be combined with the RCT section in the label. Need to find examples or understand the term better. ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I've cited all the sources I used, and please check over that the right things made it on the page. I am burnt out right now and may have made mistakes. ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way to store these tables in a json format so that it can be downloaded by researchers? ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Due to the sheer number of co-authors of some of the cited papers, I think it would be a good idea to switch to the Vancouver style citations with "|display-authors=3". This would make the citations easier to read. The Diberri template builder that I have linked on my user page makes it very easy. Are there any editors opposed to this? Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 05:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I was linked this, which allegedly is WHO's Therapeutics Table. Worthwhile importing into the table. https://www.who.int/blueprint/priority-diseases/key-action/Table_of_therapeutics_Appendix_17022020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR15EjPh5YZ-KiFmfhgOcsuqEruQ5QPmHdB9zO4pMrfpm_enGHoGZVkedxI ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
There are a couple of articles that can be used as inspiration for filling out the article, as well as potentially linking here
ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Many processes, such as legal, are slightly different in the approval process for novel versus repurposed drugs. This information would be great to add to this article but may take me some time. If someone is knowledgeable or knows where to find this information, would help a ton. ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we please have a key above the table with what the check marks and Xes mean? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Literaturegeek: and others: there's a discussion at Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Forks_focusing_on_early_research of relevance to this article. Bondegezou (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The article needs to be looked over and changes noted to ensure we're writing to the standard of MEDRS, keeping in mind whatever exceptions allow for including the 'best available sources'. Thanks everyone, I know this is a fluid time on Wikipedia and the world. In particular, I think the section of MEDRS relating to using secondary sources over primary ones is relevant to some sources on this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
"Report something when there's a trial result - the mere fact of a trial should not be reported" I've seen this mentioned in some places around Wikipedia. Is this strict law or are there exceptions? It seems that it is valuable information for a page that explains research progress on drug repurposing research. ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
(Update) I asked on MEDRS and the answer seems that including ongoing newsworthy clinical trials is ok, but we should be using a secondary MEDRS source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#%22%3AReport_something_when_there%27s_a_trial_result_-_the_mere_fact_of_a_trial_should_not_be_reported%22 ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I removed the french study on Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin until it gets published in a peer reviewed journal --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
A combination of Lopinavir 200mg/Ritonavir 50mg twice a day for corona positive patient........... Sharad015 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I've relabelled it as a lipid-conjugated corticosteroid since it doesn't work like most corticosteroids.
Inactive when inhaled: "In contrast to other inhaled corticosteroids that bind directly to the glucocorticoid receptor, e.g. fluticasone propionate, ciclesonide is a prodrug with almost no receptor binding affinity."
Activated in the lower respiratory tract: "Airway esterases convert ciclesonide to its pharmacologically active metabolite desisobutyryl-ciclesonide (des-CIC), which has a 100-fold higher binding affinity for the glucocorticoid receptor than its parent compound"
Lipid conjugated (VERY USEFUL -- See Below) "The conjugation of a corticosteroid with highly lipophilic fatty acids in the pulmonary tissue is a mechanism by which the retention time of a drug is increased. The ester bond between the corticosteroid and the fatty acid is formed via a hydroxyl group at position C-21. Des-CIC, but not fluticasone propionate, has the required group at position C-21"
Peer-reviewed source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5945089_Ciclesonide_Uptake_and_Metabolism_in_Human_Alveolar_Type_II_Epithelial_Cells_A549
Lipidation increases antiviral activities of coronavirus fusion-inhibiting peptides (peer reviewed): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682217302520
This might help to explain the promising news from South Korea and Japan about the drugs effectiveness in treating COVID-19 Pneumonia. Preprint paper https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.987016v1.full.pdf shows it blocking NSP15 and having an anti-viral effect, however this is not peer-reviewed and the mechanism is unknown. Preprint paper https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.20.999730v1.full.pdf presents data suggesting high efficacy with low toxicity, however again this is not peer-reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.202.244 (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Amidst concerns about its effectiveness from scientists, FDA has just issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Chloroquine (and Hydroxychloroquine). We should import some information from here. Thanks everyone. https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization#2019-ncov ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19 drug therapy — updated on April 3 Pharmacists in Elsevier's Clinical Solutions group write about potential treatment options for COVID-19. Contextual web page: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/coronavirus-information-center Paper's link: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/988648/COVID-19-Drug-Therapy_Mar-2020.pdf Another Wikipedian (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Found this article.. should I add it?? The FDA-approved Drug Ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro
Leon Caly1, Julian D. Druce1, Mike G. Catton1, David A. Jans2 and Kylie M. Wagstaff
Sounds like you are giving me green light.. If you don't respond within 3 hours, I will start writing on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.195.8.58 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Just posted this on the Chloroquine article, but seems just as relavent here:
Not published yet, but thought it might be good to give people here a heads up: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v2
https://twitter.com/PeterKilmarx pointed out that it seems to have beneficial results (even though the number of patients in the study is rather low - 42 ; dunno if that is the treatment group, or treatment and control together). Whole thing, as I said has not been peer-reviewed / published in a journal yet, but thought it made sense to make people aware of it. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I read that there is a Canadian trial of using colcichine for it's anti-inflammatory effects in the treatment of COVID-19. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The Research Progression table is well-meaning, but it's a massive violation of WP:MEDRS and indeed WP:SYNTH. More than that, it is not a good summary of the science. We can summarise one of the recent review articles on drug treatments rather than trying to do this ourselves. Bondegezou (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
There was a clear consensus to merge this page with COVID-19 drug development here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Drug name | Original use | Status (as COVID-19 treatment) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trials | Studies | Randomized clinical trial (RCT) | Approved
for COVID-19 | ||||||||
Cell cultures or co-cultures (In-vitro) |
Human primary cells or organoids (Ex vivo) |
Animal models | Open label | Phase 0 | Phase I | Phase II | Phase III | Phase IV | |||
Hydroxychloroquine | Anti-malarial | ✔️[1] | ?[2][3] | ✔️ FDA EUA[4] | |||||||
Chloroquine | Anti-malarial | ✔️[5] | ✔️ FDA EUA[4] | ||||||||
Favipiravir | Broad-spectrum anti-viral | ✘[5] | ✔️[6] | ✔️[7] | ✔️ in Japan[3] | ||||||
Lopinavir/ritonavir | HIV protease inhibitor combination | ✘[5][8] | |||||||||
Remdesivir | Novel broad-spectrum anti-viral | ✔️[5] | ?[9] | ||||||||
Ribavirin | Broad-spectrum anti-viral | ✘[5] | |||||||||
Umifenovir | Broad-spectrum anti-viral | ?[10][3] | |||||||||
Lopinavir | HIV protease inhibitor | ✘[5] | ?[10][3] | ||||||||
Ritonavir | HIV protease inhibitor | ✘[5] | ?[10][3] | ||||||||
Cepharanthine | Anti-inflammatory compound[11] | ✔️[12][12] | |||||||||
Mefloquine | Anti-malarial | ✔️[12][3] | |||||||||
Penciclovir | Herpesvirus anti-viral | ✘[5] | |||||||||
Nitazoxanide | Broad-spectrum anti-viral, antiparasitic | ✔️[5] | |||||||||
Nafamostat | Synthetic serine protease inhibitor | ✘[5] | |||||||||
Corticosteroids | Steroid hormone | ?[13] | |||||||||
Ivermectin | Anti-parasitic | ✔️[14] | |||||||||
Emtricitabine/tenofovir | HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitor | ?[15] | |||||||||
Teicoplanin | Antibiotic | ✔️[16] | |||||||||
Ciclesonide | Lipid-Conjugated Corticosteroid | ✔️ | ?[17] |
[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
About this revert [6]
The only non-primary sources I can find are bad even for press sources - Turkish state news agency, RT and The Daily Beast (the last has already been removed by other editors as "sensationalist"). The only other source is the Russian state. We need a secondary source. Gammapearls (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
This review article contains slightly different content than wikipedia
COVID-19: A promising cure for the global panic, Science of The Total Environment Volume 725, 10 July 2020, 138277 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720317903
For example, it have Sofosbuvir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartrawsonjoeygarcia (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Huh? --Brogo13 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The article claims "While its effectiveness at combating Covid-19 is uncertain, there is an uncanny, drastic reduction in mortality among covid-19 patients who are administered remdesivir, testifying the claims it can indeed inhibit the virus." and then cites a Seeking Alpha article (financial news). My gut says this could be an exaggerated conclusion from a less-than-reliable source that needs to be revised or removed, but I currently don't have free time to investigate. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/high-hopes-drug-for-covid-19-treatment-failed-in-full-trial —Nightstallion 07:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Also posted on the COVID-19 drug development and COVID-19 vaccine talk pages. The Milken Institute has - as best as I can see - the most frequently updated (at least 2x/week) tracker for all COVID-19-related treatment and vaccine candidates, a report that had been a somewhat awkward PDF for the past weeks, but is now a dynamic Google spreadsheet, today's version shown here. Presuming it enables viewing of updates in real time, the Milken tracker will be a "live" update source going forward. Wondering what other editors think about using this as a source for tracking progress of drugs in late-stage clinical trials (and earlier stages), as it is still awkward to use on a cell phone (or even a widescreen desktop), and its sources are hidden behind another click, but I think it's a substantial resource for keeping an eye on progress. For comparison, the next-best sources are either "draft landscape" reports from WHO (too many of which are dead links under "Therapeutics"), and occasional tracking reports, such as this one by Canadian scientists in the April 24th Lancet, proposing real-time tracking of therapeutic research underway using a diagram to aggregate and display various potential therapeutics here. The Lancet authors mention the new COVID-19 literature tracker from the US National Library of Medicine, called "LitCovid", shown here. Zefr (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Zinc addition is missing on the page. I think it should be added after recent study release showing initial favorable/promising results. see link https://www.barrons.com/news/zinc-hydroxychloroquine-found-effective-in-some-covid-19-patients-study-01589234407 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkshires (talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Why open a separate subparagraph for GS-441524? isn't it always the metabolized drug version of the pro-drug remdesivir? Michal. 46.19.85.7 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Given the publication of various reliable sources (newspapers, well respected journals etc), I've created a stub for Surgisphere.
Obviously we need a section in the hydroxychloroquine section about this. I propose:
> The data for some research behind the evidence for heart arythmias was hospital records data provided by Surgisphere. The quality and accuracy of the data has since come under scrutiny.
References:
Philipwhiuk (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Currently, there are 20 drugs listed under the 'Studies' section. Most of them have little information as their research is also very limited at the moment. I suggest all these drugs be moved into a table under 'Other drugs' in the 'Studies section'. This would prevent the section from becoming overly long and the article becoming cluttered, getting in the way of readers accessing the information in an easier manner.
Once there is sufficient research on any of the drugs from various sources, and at least a paragraph with ten or more lines can be written on them, they can be moved from the table. This is what I am proposing:
Drug | Research | ||
---|---|---|---|
Intravenous vitamin C | According to ClinicalTrials.gov, there are six ongoing clinical trials of intravenous vitamin C for people who are hospitalized and severely ill with COVID‑19; three placebo controlled (China, Canada, US) and three with no control (Italy, US, US). | ||
Azithromycin | New York State began trials for the antibiotic azithromycin on 24 March 2020. | ||
Ciclesonide | Japan's National Center for Global Health and Medicine (NCGM) is planning a clinical trial for Teijin's Alvesco (ciclesonide), an inhaled corticosteroid for asthma, for the treatment of pre-symptomatic patients infected with the novel coronavirus.
Ciclesonide was identified as a candidate antiviral in an in vitro drug screening assay done in Korea | ||
APN01 | A form of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, a Phase II trial is underway with 200 patients to be recruited from severe, hospitalized cases in Denmark, Germany, and Austria to determine the effectiveness of the treatment |
•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 01:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
As of now it reads as follows.
Because zinc has properties as a cofactor in the immune response for producing antibodies during viral infections,[34] it is being included among multiple-agent "cocktails" for investigating potential treatment of people hospitalized with COVID-19 infection.[35] One such cocktail is hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc (as a sulfate, 220 mg per day for 5 days, a zinc dose 20 times higher than the reference daily intake level)[34] and an approved antibiotic, either Azithromycin or doxycycline in a Phase IV trial in New York State.[36]There was initial report from NYU Hospital, that patients who received the triple-drug combo had a 1.5 times greater probability of getting better from the disease versus those that have not receive zinc.[37] However, caution was recommended as to the combination of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine with CYP3A4 inhibitors such as Azithromycin.[19]Some researchers have suggested that the combination may be effective with early outpatient illness, which is different than later hospitalized florid disease, and therefore the treatments would differ.[38] Zinc deficiency – which decreases immune capacity to defend against pathogens – is common among elderly people, and may be a susceptibility factor in viral infections.[34] The mechanism for any potential benefit of including zinc in a cocktail treatment for recovery from severe viral infection is unknown.[34][35]
I think it is pretty confusing. Starting with reasoning how zinc works..and why zinc might be beneficial..than describing that there is cocktails of medicine, and going on to dosages, with daily limits.. and finishing up with zinc deficiency. “You wouldn’t find these kind details by any of the other potential treatments options on the page.
A more simple and accurate description would read as follows.
There has been some favorable reports by doctors using a combination of hydroxychloroquine Azithromycin Zinc to treat covid-19 patients, especially when treatment was used outpatient. However, caution was recommended as to the combination of hydroxychloroquine with CYP3A4 inhibitors such as Azithromycin. There are currently several clinical trials testing if this combination is more effective than hydroxychloroquine alone. Results are not expected before Sep 2020. One report from NYU Hospital showed, that patients who received the hydroxychloroquine Azithromycin Zinc combination, had a 1.5 times greater probability of getting better from the disease, versus those that have not received zinc. However this report was retrospective only.
And to finish off. Here is a short quote from Yale Professor Harvey Risch, after reviewing all the studies to date. Does hydroxychloroquine have the potential to be a “game-changer” in the fight against this pandemic? HR: Hydroxychloroquine alone is not the whole story. It needs to be combined with azithromycin or doxycycline and probably with zinc to make it most effective. The game changer is to aggressively treat people as soon as possible, before they are hospitalized, to keep them from becoming hospitalized in the first place. Hydroxychloroquine plus the other medications is what we know about now. In a few months we may have data on other medications that also work. We just have to start with something now.Berkshires (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The NYU study, despite its limitations is an accurate description of the results in the NYU hospital, and no one has questioned the accuracy of the data. I named it as a report and pointed out its retrospective. There is no reason for deletion besides a bias somehow against this combo. Berkshires (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkshires (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm assuming that MEDRS still applies, and this article isn't going to list every study that might be relevant. I've not been paying a great deal of attention to all the promotion of various possible treatments, but if there is some exception for this page, it should be made crystal clear. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hipal (talk) requests that the following article content in section COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Other_drugs be made less promotional in line with WP:SOAP, WP:MEDRS guidelines. Please assist. Many thanks. -- Sdesalas (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Drug | Research | ||
---|---|---|---|
Ivermectin | A study by Monash University in Australia on 10th April 2020 showed Ivermectin inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. [1]
In addition, on June 10th Florida Broward Health released results of a study of 280 hospital patients associating Ivermectin with lower mortality in critical patients with severe pulmonary disease. [2] |
Ok thanks for expressing your point of view. So here is some updated text referring to a recently updated Stanford University literature review of COVID-19 therapies being researched. This is to address your specific request that it meets WP:MEDRS guidelines (meaning, literature reviews instead of first-hand sources), rather than the less specific soapboaxing comments that seem out of context (but I can understand that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail ;)).
See below. If there is no further comment I'll go ahead and post. Regards. --Sdesalas (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Drug | Research | ||
---|---|---|---|
Ivermectin | Ivermectin is one of an increasing number of additional compounds found to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 without a defined mechanism of action. Plasma levels following oral administration appear too low to inhibit replication, however ivermectin use was associated with significantly reduced mortality in a retrospective study of 280 hospital patients, particularly in persons with severe pulmonary disease. As of June 4, ivermectin is being studied in 10 ongoing and 14 planned clinical trials. [3] |
The clinical trial information in the section about vitamin C appears to be some sort of original research extraction from the ClinicalTrials.gov search results referenced in the citation. The citation is over two months old and it may no longer be useful/valid/accurate for the text it is supporting. There may be similar issues with the ClinicalTrials.gov search results used in the section about vitamin D. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
It's been reported by many sources that data presented at a conference about a week ago show that treatment with remdesivir reduces mortality by 62%. If there is a reliable source for this I guess that it should be added. (This is strikingly different from the previous research which had remdesivir having a marginal effect on mortality.) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
As early as February publications out of the PRC, described cinanserin was stated as holding value, as an antagonist on the serotonin receptor site that is responsible for reversing the agonist activity of ergotism and LSD, alongside vasodilating, both serins modulate interleukin releases, Il-6 inflammation via the HT-2A serotonin path. The two compounds did not receive any attention outside of the PRC as far as I can tell, until a few weeks ago Here.
There are no western trials. Though interest is growing as the latter illuminates. Boundarylayer (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-52430/v1 Preprint. Posted 05 Aug, 2020.
Montelukast in Hospitalized Patients Diagnosed with covid-19.
The patients who received montelukast were started on 10 mg/day on Day 1 of admission. Patients receiving montelukast experienced significantly fewer events of clinical deterioration compared to patients not receiving montlukast (10% vs 32%, p = 0.022).
What do you think? A preprint yes, but Montelukast drug is extremely safe and the dose is very low, so why everyone isn't give Montelukast just in case??
--ee1518 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
There is this article on protease inhibitor .......
SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor Hoffmann M1, Kleine-Weber H2, Schroeder S3, Krüger N4, Herrler T5, Erichsen S6, Schiergens TS7, Herrler G8, Wu NH8, Nitsche A9, Müller MA10, Drosten C3, Pöhlmann S11. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30229-4
But Matt Hall wrote this on his tweet "OK so let's talk about camostat, because I'm starting to worry about it as a #COVID19 repurposing candidate. It emerged based on this Cell paper, but a LOT of assumptions are buried in the science." https://twitter.com/cispt2/status/1246856029012361218
So how?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camostat
Camostat is only sold in Japan? Prescription or over-the-counter? Some article mentioned the price is very low.
https://cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org/content/10/6/779.long Bromhexine is also mentioned. So over-the-counter bromhexine cough medicine might also work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromhexine
--ee1518 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
https://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(20)30947-4/fulltext Use of statins prior to admission was associated with a more than 50% reduction in risk of developing severe COVID-19, after controlling for associated comorbid conditions and for concomitant use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs.
... They didn't mention dose or brand of statin.
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/izkeot/statins_reduce_covid19_severity_likely_by/
CK = Creatine Kinase should be monitored when taking statins, but I haven't checked the details how often should it be done when beginning statin therapy. And is it even needed for low-dose or short-time statin therapy.
--ee1518 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Should the article mention Hydrocortisone, in addition to the entry for dexamethasone? See this BBC News story here: [7] Extract: "The latest study brings together all clinical trials involving steroids on coronavirus patients around the world. It confirms dexamethasone works and that another steroid, hydrocortisone, is equally effective." Hallucegenia (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Two editors differ on the best way to summarize a review article on a novel treatment for COVID-19. Should they just take a direct quote from the review article itself? Here are the two version of the article.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Why are you not proposing to also remove the review note, "There is only very weak evidence of ivermectin's benefit when used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19."? Seems biased to me. Especially since this sentence fails to conform to the format of the two previous review notes that clearly indicate that the comment is specifically related to a particular piece of research.
I suggest leaving the two research notes, and changing the other to read, "In November 2020, a review was published that demonstrated that there is only very weak evidence of ivermectin's benefit when used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19." AussiePete56 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Do we still need to keep paragraphs 1-3 in the Ivermectin section? I think there will be significantly less interest in those preliminaries now that they are moving towards large-scale clinical trials.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
This is just a purely conversational point but re-reading the recommendations - that may actually be the green light for the use of Ivermectin - others may know better.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I say that because in an interview I heard Peter McCullough - a fairly influential physician/researcher - suggest that all that was needed from the NIH was a neutral recommendation. That was in the context of the hydroxychloroquine discussion but it applies equally well to Ivermectin.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the tone of the recommendation is just for face-saving since they have been MIA in this field. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
A second RfC on the specific wording on research of ivermectin? While one is still open? Please close this. It's premature. Jdphenix (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
A similar discussion about how to describe this article did already take place at Talk at ivermectin that involved Alexbrn, Adriaandh and AussiePete56. I don't really see the harm in getting community input on this discussion at this point. Can either of you provide reasonable alternative language and we can just settle this? Could we just quote directly from the authors conclusion and remove the original text? --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Ivermectin, Vrtlsclpl (talk · contribs) called for further editors - especially those with more hard-core clinical expertise
to comment. I have been a member of the Medicine project for over a decade, am one of the original developers of WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, and one of the founders of the Pharmacology project. I hope that's enough in the way of expertise. As the RfC has been closed, I am adding my comments here.
The article currently has a direct quotation from the Mccullough et al. review:
there are a number of randomized and prospective studies [of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19] and all have shown efficacy in clinical out-comes at the time [of publication].
Unfortunately, this quote is itself a misrepresentation. Of the five cited studies (Alam, Chowdhury, Gorial, Khan, Nunez), only one was randomized and none placebo-controlled. The others are case series and observational research; two are in non-indexed journals, and one a preprint. All—every single one—would fail WP:MEDRS. Not exactly "a number"—well, I guess one is a number (the loneliest number, as the song goes). Presenting the review authors' incorrect, editorialized summary of the state of the research uncritically in the article simply because it is a "review" and is thus high-quality evidence (it isn't; it is a narrative, unsystematic review) is a misinterpretation of WP:MEDRS, and is not productive. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Talking of misrepresentation, this[8] edit by Vrtlsclpl seems to fail WP:V, and goes against the emergent consensus at ivermectin not to add dates to NIH statements. Alexbrn (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
How so? In NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines updated on August 17. 2020:
In the the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines updated on January 14, 2021:
The statement "...recommends against ..." statement in the earlier recommendation has been removed in the latter. More to the point, the recommendations are boiler-plate language. For interpretation see:( [9], p.17). It is clear from that that the drug is one step closer to full-blown NIH endorsement in COVID-19. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I never used the phrase "...one step closer ..." in the text of the article. I simply stated that the negative recommendation was removed in the update to the NIH treatment guidelines. Are we at a logjam on this language?--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This focus on the drug quantities involved in the original research is pointless. Nowhere was it claimed by the original researchers that the quantities used were the minimum required to achieve their result. The leader of the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute Dr Wagstaff said at the time, "“Ivermectin is very widely used and seen as a safe drug. We need to figure out now whether the dosage you can use it at in humans will be effective – that’s the next step,” [[11]] Since April there have been dozens of studies which confirm that a normal dose of 200 micrograms/kg of bodyweight is effective against Covid 19, so perhaps its time to retire these references to the quantities used in the original in vitro studies. AussiePete56 (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out why Vitamin-D is not featured on this page on the other similar one COVID-19 drug development.
There is a surprising amount of research on the go with trials and published papers. Safety at physiological doses is well proven yet widespread deficiencies remain uncorrected. Demonstrated benefits and learned consensus keeps telling us that it should be on the front line as a prophylactic to minimise severity even it it does nothing else.
Here is a secondary source of sorts that has valuable information in the conclusion. Vitamin D and COVID-19: evidence and recommendations for supplementation
Here are some of the published study results Vitamin D is effective for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 37 studies
Has this simply been forgotten or what is the reason it is a second class citizen to new drugs that have still to be invented?
Idyllic press (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
200 scientists and doctors agree with you... [[12]] AussiePete56 (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that Jdphenix. Apologies - I actually misread the above - I thought it was all written by Fvasconcellos and that he was saying that there was no mention of vitamin D in the "drug repurposing" article. What's actually there is not bad AussiePete56 (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the following under COVID-19 drug repurposing research#Ivermectin,
although it is still prescribed for outpatient use. [13]
to cite this as a source, instead of as a link. Jdphenix (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
We need a section on repurposing psychotropic drugs. Especially Fluvoxamine, other SSRI inhibitors, and successful amantadine use in Poland (adamantanes in general). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.144.208 (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
((edit extended-protected)) Recommend that the Ivermectin section be reordered chronologically, from:
In November 2020, a systematic review found weak evidence of benefit when ivermectin is used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19.[1] A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study.[2]
As of January 2021[update], the U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines state that the evidence for ivermectin is too limited to allow for a recommendation for or against its use.[3] Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for anti-viral use.[3] Additional evidence from RCTs and dose-response studies are needed.[4] At least 45 such trials were listed as of January 2021.[2]
It was reported in June 2020 that despite the absence of high-quality evidence to suggest any efficacy, use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of early-stage COVID-19 has become increasingly widespread especially in Latin America, raising concerns about self-medication, safety, and the feasibility of future clinical trials.[5][6] In response, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases, and Brazilian Thoracic Society all issued position statements in July[7] or January 2021[8][9] advising against the use of ivermectin for this purpose, and the government of Peru rescinded a previous recommendation for the use of ivermectin (alongside azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalized patients,[10] although as of January 2021 it is still prescribed for outpatient use.[11]
to
It was reported in June 2020 that despite the absence of high-quality evidence to suggest any efficacy, use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of early-stage COVID-19 has become increasingly widespread especially in Latin America, raising concerns about self-medication, safety, and the feasibility of future clinical trials.[5][6] In response, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases, and Brazilian Thoracic Society all issued position statements in July[7] or January 2021[8][9] advising against the use of ivermectin for this purpose, and the government of Peru rescinded a previous recommendation for the use of ivermectin (alongside azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalized patients,[10] although as of January 2021 it is still prescribed for outpatient use.[11]
In November 2020, a systematic review found weak evidence of benefit when ivermectin is used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19.[1] A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study.[2]
As of January 2021[update], the U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines state that the evidence for ivermectin is too limited to allow for a recommendation for or against its use.[3] Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for anti-viral use.[3] Additional evidence from RCTs and dose-response studies are needed.[4] At least 45 such trials were listed as of January 2021.[2] Rfkrishnan (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
References
the complication rate and mortality amongst patients with severe disease have been reported to be very high. In such patients the effectiveness of add on ivermectin has not yet been explored
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to suggest to include the following in the article:
Each of the respective wiki pages link provide information on the respective drug in the COVID-19 context with proper references/sources for all statements. I did not copy that content here, as I am not sure which form the inclusion in this article should take (e.g. how much detail/repetition from the individual drug pages).
The article states, "On 15 June, the FDA revoked the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, stating that although the evaluation of both these drugs under clinical trials continues, the FDA (after interagency consultation with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)) concluded that, based on new information and other information discussed "... it is no longer reasonable to believe that oral formulations of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) may be effective in treating COVID‑19, nor is it reasonable to believe that the known and potential benefits of these products outweigh their known and potential risks".[28][29][30][31]". While it does seem to be supported by the citations, it seems to me that if Wikipedia is supposed to be an intelligent summary of existing discussion, there should be some acknowledgement that the alleged statement by the FDA is absurd, even if no one has pointed this out in print. It is absurd because 1. anything *may* be effective, no matter how unlikely and therefore to believe that will always be reasonable, and 2. if it really is impossible that it is effective, why is it stated earlier in the sentence that "the evaluation of both these drugs under clinical trials continues"? Surely there should at least be some acknowledgement that this is paradoxical. And has no reputable source noted the paradox? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest adding the following to the end of the "ivermectin" section... "On the 27th Jan 2021, Slovakia became the first European nation to approve the use of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of Covid 19. The approval is for a six month period."[1] AussiePete56 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn has selectively deleted half of a direct quote that he does not like in his role policing articles on vitamin D and any of its physiological or medical actions. Here is the source first cited by Whywhenwhohow [15] . This is not a comprehensive source but the full context says Dietary supplements aren’t meant to treat or prevent COVID-19. Certain vitamins and minerals (e.g., Vitamins C and D, zinc) may have effects on how our immune system works to fight off infections, as well as inflammation and swelling. I think we need all of this or nothing at all. We have evidence, and not what they are "meant" to do: see the cited systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of vitamin D deficiency PMID 33146028. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It is suggested to add a separate pyramax entry to Antiviral. In addition, the paper of Dr. Sanjeev's research team at St. George's University of London, UK, has been formally listed in Cell magazine's Trends in parasitology. Also, I think the preliminary dissertation is also important because I made the preliminary thesis in July as an important reference thesis in this thesis. I will add the content of the pre thesis in more detail and then suggest the content. If you go to this article I edited, there is a citation paper.
It was announced on 3 April 2020 that artesunate/pyronaridine, the main components of a new ACT antimalarial drug sold under the brand name Pyramax, showed an inhibitory effect on SARS-CoV-2 Pyramax showed a virus titer inhibition rate of 99% or more after 24 hours in vitro tests using Hela cells. , while cytotoxicity was also reduced.[7]
A preprint published in July 2020 reported that pyronaridine and artesunate exhibit antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses using human lung epithelial (Calu-3) cells and Vero cells.[8] This in vitro experiment was very important in that the human lung cell Calu-3 was used, the cells were first infected with SARS-COV-2 and then treated with drugs 1 hour later.
Also, this in vitro experiment is encouraging in that the combination of pyronaridine and artesunate showed 100% inhibition in Vero cells. When each component was tested in Vero cells, the effect was less than that of HCQ, but when the two components were combined, it showed 100% inhibition and the effect lasted 48 hours. This shows that the two ingredients have a synergistic effect.
When tested in calu-3 cells with a single component of PYR and ART, the inhibition rate was 80-90%, especially the SI value of ART was very high, reaching 220.
The combination of pyronaridine and artesunate is being studied as a possible treatment for moderate to severe SARS-COV-2. [9] The preprint[8] published in July 2020 is cited as a reference paper for this paper.[9]
It is currently in phase II clinical trial in South Korea, South Africaand Philippine. phase III clinical trial in Burkina Faso, Kenya. The clinical trials in Burkina Faso, Kenya are led by CDC in the USA and The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaperNerd (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Pyramax Korea Phase 2 clinical trial ends in April, so we'll talk again at that time. PaperNerd (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It's the only subsection containing subsubsections in the present article. It even includes a Controversy section, suggesting that it has attracted significant attention. fgnievinski (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
This statement on study results is false.
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study
Proposed new text: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs but non-statistically significant lower viral load (3 times lower day 4 and 18 times lower day 7) as well as statistically significant earlier recovery from hyposmia/anosmia between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study but concluding that further research is warranted
Quoting from the study: the median viral load for both genes was lower at days 4 and 7 post treatment in the ivermectin group with differences increasing from 3-fold lower at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) to around 18-fold lower at day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N)
At day 7, there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positive patients (RR 0·92, 95% CI: 0·77–1·09, p = 1·0). The ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24). Patients in the ivermectin group recovered earlier from hyposmia/anosmia (76 vs 158 patient-days; p < 0.001).
Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which warrants assessment in larger trials.Adriaandh (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Can somebody, anybody, please explain how 18-fold lower at day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) = found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load ? I am really perplexed. Why was this page editing restricted if such a blatant false statement is still allowed to be left untouched? Adriaandh (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
How is it that the most significant compilation of work done on Ivermectin is not included in this Wikipedia entry? Specifically, <https://hcqmeta.com/> shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Ivermectin has positive effects against COVID 19 regardless of the endpoint used (death, hospitalization, lab results) or stage of the disease (prophylaxis, early/late treatment). Meta-analysis of 42 studies estimates a 75% improvement in outcomes Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page).
According to another hypothesis, it would be the scabies parasite which confers this protective role against Covid-19.
This hypothesis is based on the ability of Sarcoptes scabiei to modulate “for 4 to 8 weeks after initial infestation … the host’s inflammatory and immune responses” [1] [2].
It would be the modulation of the host's inflammatory and immune responses elicited by Sarcoptes scabiei, and not ivermectin, that would have protected EHPAD residents from severe forms of Covid-19 [3]
((edit extended-protected))
template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Good afternoon all Wikipedians; and can I ask your advice please on the following source: https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19/ - this source appears to take a reasonably critical overview of the few studies to have been concluded so far (ie as a secondary source) and goes on to conduct a meta-analysis on the results of some of them (ie in this respect is a primary source). Regards and respect to all, Springnuts (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. The section already contains a lot of information about various bodies recommending and not recommending (mostly) to use ivermectin, how is India's health ministry guidance difference from those of Brazil, Peru and EU which are mentioned in the article? Alaexis¿question? 12:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
“ | In vitro, ivermectin has antiviral effects against several distinct positive-sense single-strand RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.[110] Subsequent studies found that ivermectin could inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2 in monkey kidney cell culture with an IC50 of 2.2–2.8 μM.[91][111] Based on this information, however, doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect.[112] Aside from practical difficulties, such high doses are not covered by current human-use approvals of the drug and would be toxic, as the antiviral mechanism of action is considered to operate via the suppression of a host cellular process,[112] specifically the inhibition of nuclear transport by importin α/β1.[113]
In November 2020, a systematic review found weak evidence of benefit when ivermectin is used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19.[114] Merck, the company from which the drug originated, has said that there is no good evidence ivermectin is plausible or effective as a drug used against COVID-19, and that attempting such use may be unsafe.[115] The WHO say that ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID-19 except in a clinical trial.[129] This is also the position of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the FDA. In a number of countries, including India, ivermectin has been approved by local health authorities. |
” |
Alaexis¿question? 16:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
(responding to the Adriaandh's reverted post) Please note that I opened an RfC at Talk:Ivermectin#Survey. Considering that this is an article about research, I think that the information about different countries' stances belongs there. There is little outside feedback so far, please feel free to add your opinion. Alaexis¿question? 05:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Self-medication has led to..." to "Self-medication with a formula intended for horses has led to..." in order to avoid confusion and to better reflect the cited source. Anthropoentomophagology (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to completely remove the following sentence: "Misinformation, lower degrees of trust, a sense of loss of control and despair over the increase in the number of cases and deaths led to an increase in the use of the drug and the emergence of a black market in Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America"
This sentence is blatantly biased, implying the only reason for people taking Ivermectin is because people are feeling "misinformation, lower degrees of trust, a sense of loss of control and despair", which is not at all an accurate picture of the primary reasons people are taking Ivermectin.
Even the source cited at the end of this sentence states in no unambiguous terms "Self-medication is on the rise because people can easily buy ivermectin at drug stores, says pharmacologist Carlos Calderón Ospina from the University of El Rosario in Bogotá" and "The municipality of Natal, in Rio Grande Do Norte, Brazil, also promoted it as a preventative — to be taken by health-care professionals and people at increased risk of severe illness from the virus, because of “its safe pharmacological profile, clinical experience using it against other diseases, cost and dosage convenience”.", yet the current sentence implies that everyone is getting Ivermectin from their local weed dealer or something. It is one-sided to imply that the black market is the only source of Ivermectin for these countries without mentioning that it is literally an OTC drug in "Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America", to use the vague geographical wording in the current sentence.
I am not against the mentioning of a black market for Ivermectin, but I am against implying that Ivermectin is only a black market drug, as I believe the current sentence does. Perhaps someone can come up with a better way to word the sentence, but as it stands right now, it would be better to remove this sentence since it is incredibly misleading by omission. Zombychicken (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
it is literally an OTC drug in "Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America"if one can provide a good reference. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
the only reason for people taking Ivermectin is because people are feeling "misinformation, lower degrees of trust, a sense of loss of control and despair", which is not at all an accurate picture of the primary reasons people are taking IvermectinSo what are the primary reasons people are taking ivermectin? This article is about COVID-19 only. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
trust refers not to the use of ivermectin per seRight.
but to the conspiracy theory mentioned in the previous paragraphNot exactly. The article says
People only listen to sources that they trustand this is the sense it adopts for this word elsewhere, which is the same sense as in Trust (social science) or even more specifically as in High trust and low trust societies. What Politico is saying is that more fragmented societies are more susceptible to misinformation in general: since these people distrust authorities and/or groups within their societies, they are more likely to believe propositions that suggest someone is trying to deceive them. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
((edit extended-protected))
template. Run n Fly (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Do you think this follows WP:MEDRS? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 22, Jun 2021 philippines president Rodrigo Duterte publicly stated that ivermectin is "used for pigs"[1][2]
Please update the article with this new information. Kreyren (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Propose adding to the ivermectin section: "Despite the lack of FDA approval for COVID-19 treatment, an increase in off-label ivermectin prescriptions occurred in the US[1] following initial publications showing potential benefit. "During March 16, 2019–April 2, 2021, national estimates of ivermectin dispensed from outpatient retail pharmacies increased from an average of 3589 prescriptions per week at the pre-pandemic baseline to a peak of 39,102 prescriptions in the week ending on January 8, 2021 (989% relative percent increase)"[2]
I think this would follow well after "Ivermectin is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in treating any viral illness and is not authorized for use to treat COVID-19 within the European Union" Caprilyc (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Concerning Ivermectin, it seems reasonable to include a statement, such as:
The National Institute of Health (NIH) is currently neutral in its stance on the efficacy of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 therapy: "There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19." "Some observational cohorts and clinical trials have evaluated the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19." See, https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ 2600:8802:330F:A00:895B:ADAD:F26F:315A (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
References
This any use? https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx
Regards all. Springnuts (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Springnuts (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is now peer reviewed evidence that Ivermectin does work for CoVid. https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx 108.243.106.82 (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
For Ivermectin it is correctly written that “some governments have allowed its off-label use”, including India (despite the opinion comments added like “Misinformation”, “despair”…). But this is not written for Chloroquine and hydroxycholoquine, despite the fact that Indian Ministry oh Health advises the use of hydroxycholoquine for mild cases in its latest Clinical management protocol, amended on May 24 2021.
The Protocol https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/UpdatedDetailedClinicalManagementProtocolforCOVID19adultsdated24052021.pdf,
Article about the amended protocol and ivermectin Hindustan Times,
Article about the amended protocol and hydroxycholoquine Times of India.
Could someone add the info, at least for hydroxycholoquine? I have not enough edits to be able to do it myself… Thanks. Ceveris (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
As a result of plaque assay, after 3 days of administration, the amount of viable virus was reduced by 96.3%. (Initial viral load)
The Pyramax group achieved a 100% negative change after 10 days in all patients, whereas the amount of infectious virus on the 3rd day of administration of the infectious virus Pyramax was significantly reduced 2.8-fold compared to the placebo group [the amount of change in the amount of virus before administration, the adjusted mean of the Pyramax group 96.3% reduction vs. 34.5% reduction in placebo group, p=0.0143)]. PaperNerd (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I cannot add it (maybe @Alexbrn:), but a new Cochrane report (PMID 34318930) came to the conclusion that "the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.". --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
can be found on nature news: doi:10.1038/d41586-021-02081-w --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change: Aside from practical difficulties, such high doses are not covered by current human-use approvals of the drug and would be toxic, as the antiviral mechanism of action is considered to operate by the suppression of a host cellular process.
to: Aside from practical difficulties, such high doses of ivermectin that were effective in cell culture are not approved for human-use; administering sufficiently high dosages to reach the dosage in the cell culture medium (in the study) for humans would be toxic, as the antiviral mechanism operates by suppressing required human cellular processes. In fact, currently there are no good quality studies showing that Ivermectin is both safe and beneficial to treat COVID-19 (cite many meta-analyses). Thus, ivermectin is unlikely to be prescribed in many countries to treat SARS-COV-2, the viral agent causing COVID-19, but prescription is likely to result in malpractice lawsuits and human deaths. To explain simply, the study using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 showed that as cells die, they will produce less virus. Uncc23 (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Research, COVID-19, the last paragraph states that the governments of some countries have granted official approval ivermectin for use as a treatment of COVID-19. One country listed is the Philippines. The citation says the exact opposite. The Philippines has approved ivermectin for use as an anti-nematode drug, in line with it historical usage. The citation specifically states that the government of the Philippines has, in no way, shape, or form, approved ivermectin for use as treatment of COVID-19.
I am asking for the line mentioning the Philppines to be deleted. 2601:582:300:2F7E:4C73:CC65:4E98:361 (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
There was research into aspirin (for its blood thinning properties) to treat COVID-19. https://www.ukri.org/news/aspirin-does-not-reduce-deaths-for-hospitalised-covid-19-patients/#:~:text=Aspirin%20does%20not%20reduce%20deaths%20for%20hospitalised%20COVID%2D19%20patients,-10%20June%202021&text=The%20'RECOVERY'%20trial%20has%20released,patients%20hospitalised%20with%20COVID%2D19.
DouglasHeld (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change this line: "Self-medication with a highly concentrated formula intended for horses has led to numerous hospitalizations, and overdose can lead to death, possibly due to interaction with other medications.[94] "
to:
Self-medication with a highly concentrated formula intended for horses has led to at least some hospitalizations, and overdose can lead to death, possibly due to interaction with other medications.[94]"
Because the cited article actually states: "...the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock." 71.167.166.177 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggest that the following conclusion from "Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVOC-19" appearing in the American Journal of Therapeutics (2021)be added:
The findings indicate with moderate certainty that ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant survival benefit. . . . Overall, the evidence also suggests that early use of ivermectin may reduce morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. This is based on (1) reductions in COVID-19 infections when ivermectin was used as prophylaxis, (2) the more favorable effect estimates for mild to moderate disease compared with severe disease for death due to any cause, and (3) on the evidence demonstrating reductions in deterioration. 2601:189:C480:FFB0:0:0:0:CFEE (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
((edit extended-protected))
template. This will be "a whole thing." I suggest you seek consensus here on the talk page for that addition. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think this article deserves to be included. It is a well sourced and reputable newspaper in India. It writes how the State with the highest population in India used Ivermectin to treat Covid-19 and how it was sanctioned by the State's Health Department.
Uttar Pradesh government says early use of Ivermectin helped to keep positivity, deaths low The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to COVID-19 drug repurposing research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “After reviewing the evidence on ivermectin, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) advised against it's use” to “After reviewing the evidence on ivermectin, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) advised against its use”
Remove incorrect apostrophe DarthTaper (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)