Talk:COVID-19 drug repurposing research: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 16:32, 17 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 drug repurposing research article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

COVID-19 High‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Society / Pulmonology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Viruses Mid‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject COVID-19 consensus

WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.

General

Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance.

Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on the Case Count Task Force common errors page. (April 2020, April 2020)

For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020)

"Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020)

Page title

COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021).

SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020)

Map

There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020)

There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020)

For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020)

To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Ivermectin and COVID-19

Ivermectin and COVID-19 "Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds".

"Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19". doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2115869. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

2600:1000:B03F:2983:4FD:F300:B6A2:155 (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Zinc

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.756707/full

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037021000660

https://www.dovepress.com/the-implications-of-zinc-therapy-in-combating-the-covid-19-global-pand-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-JIR

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/can-zinc-levels-predict-covid-19-severity

Drsruli (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would need a reliable WP:MEDRS source. Alexbrn (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin C

Complete replacement of the contents and references because of newer references available. Same content change at Vitamin C, a Good Article. David notMD (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{talk page header |archive_age=14|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
+{{talk page header }}
-{{Ds/talk notice|covid}}
+{{Contentious topics/talk notice|covid}}
-{{WikiProject Banner Shell|collapsed=yes|1=
+{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
-{{WikiProject COVID-19|class=B|importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject COVID-19|importance=high}}
-{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=mid|society=yes|society-imp=mid|pulmonology=yes|pulmonology-imp=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid|society=yes|society-imp=mid|pulmonology=yes|pulmonology-imp=mid}}
-{{WikiProject Pharmacology|class=B|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Pharmacology|importance=mid}}
-{{WikiProject Viruses |class=B|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Viruses |importance=mid}}
-{{WikiProject Disaster management |class=B|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Disaster management |importance=mid}}
-{{WikiProject International relations |class=B |importance=Mid |needs-infobox=no}}
+{{WikiProject International relations |importance=Mid |needs-infobox=no}}
 }}
 {{Current COVID-19 Project Consensus|collapsed=yes}}
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 {{COVID-19 treatments (current consensus)}}
+== Ivermectin and COVID-19 ==
-== [[Fluvoxamine#Medical_uses|Fluvoxamine]] ==
+Ivermectin and COVID-19
-Appropriate here? (The article section already cites ''The Lancet Global Health''.) [[User:Mapsax|Mapsax]] ([[User talk:Mapsax|talk]]) 23:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
+{{cite newspaper | title=Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/health/covid-ivermectin-hospitalization.html }}
+{{cite journal | title=Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19 |doi=10.1056/NEJMoa2115869}}
-== New information on ivermectin side effects ==
+[[Special:Contributions/2600:1000:B03F:2983:4FD:F300:B6A2:155|2600:1000:B03F:2983:4FD:F300:B6A2:155]] ([[User talk:2600:1000:B03F:2983:4FD:F300:B6A2:155|talk]]) 22:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
-Hello, as the title suggests new information has revealed the side effects of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2114907 from the New England Journal of Medicine]. I believe this would be a good contribution to the article. [[User:Obama gaming|Obama gaming]] ([[User talk:Obama gaming|talk]]) 08:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
-:It's a letter so not [[WP:MEDRS]], but maybe some of the statistical information may be useful - not here though, as this is an article about research activity. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 08:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
-::Oh I just read it again, there are references within the letters to said statistics. Also, which article do you think I should put this under? Regards [[User:Obama gaming|Obama gaming]] ([[User talk:Obama gaming|talk]]) 08:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::Maybe at [[COVID-19 misinformation#Ivermectin]] ? [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 09:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::Cheers mate I'll take a geez [[User:Obama gaming|Obama gaming]] ([[User talk:Obama gaming|talk]]) 09:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
+== Relevance of Zinc ==
-Missinformation - RCT are not the only way we know things - there was no RTC to show that cigarettes are bad - yet we know they are.  RTCs can be biased as well - and when there are large sums of money involved, even the journals can be twisted. This blanket blocking of other types of papers will not look good for Wikpedia a few years from now - The new Phizermectin has the same pharmacological action as ivermectin (at a much higher price). There is a difference between science and scientisim - real science only progresses when there are multiple theories that are objectively tested. This needs to be edited by someone skilled in the arts that is not getting money from Pharma.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.243.106.82|108.243.106.82]] ([[User talk:108.243.106.82#top|talk]]) 23:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.756707/full
-== Humour content ==
+https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037021000660
-Background: The [[COVID-19 drug repurposing research#Ivermectin|Ivermectin]] section of this article contains a humourous tweet from the FDA with the text "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." I removed this yesterday, with the edit summary "Rm humorous FDA tweet. The FDA's actual position is in the adjacent text, and the joke is very unbefitting for an encyclopedia article on a medical topic." This was then reverted by [[User:TrangaBellam]] with the summary "Disagree."
+https://www.dovepress.com/the-implications-of-zinc-therapy-in-combating-the-covid-19-global-pand-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-JIR
-Wikipedia is intended to present neutral, informative, encyclopedic content, not to make fun of wrong people. Specifically, this article is supposed to explain about COVID-19 drug repurposing research. I have yet to see any possible justification for keeping the  joke tweet in the article. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 09:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
+https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/can-zinc-levels-predict-covid-19-severity
-== Spironolactone ==
+[[User:Drsruli|Drsruli]] ([[User talk:Drsruli|talk]]) 19:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
-"Scientists offer hope after trials show a combination of spironolactone and dexamethasone work far better than dexamethasone alone" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/27/spidex-drug-cocktail-could-defeat-new-covid-variant/ [[Special:Contributions/2600:8804:6600:83:89EB:A1DD:FFCA:B3CA|2600:8804:6600:83:89EB:A1DD:FFCA:B3CA]] ([[User talk:2600:8804:6600:83:89EB:A1DD:FFCA:B3CA|talk]]) 17:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
-:Any [[WP:MEDRS]]? This seems to be a news story based on a tiny trial in an iffy journal. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 17:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
+:Would need a reliable [[WP:MEDRS]] source. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 05:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
+== Vitamin C ==
+Complete replacement of the contents and references because of newer references available. Same content change at [[Vitamin C]], a Good Article. [[User:David notMD|David notMD]] ([[User talk:David notMD|talk]]) 17:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)