Talk:COVID-19 drug repurposing research

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.

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)

This study found that zinc supplementation might be helpful

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7923946/#s0020title

I am unable to add it to the main article, insufficient perms. If someone can add it to the article, tag me! --Cripplemac (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The journal is in the field of "Computational and structural biotechnology" and is not MEDLINE indexed. Both of these sugget it isn't a sufficient source for the claim. Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Fluvoxamine: weak sources?

@Alexbrn: In this edit, recommendations by the private JHMI and by the independent Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table (partly funded by Public Health Ontario) were removed because they were considered weak sources. They look like filtered information sources to me, am I wrong? Of course the assessment by the NIH could be mentioned. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, looking again the Ontario source (but not the Johns Hopkins one) is fine - except it's about clinical practice so not really relevant to an article on "repurposing research". Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Since the recommendation is based on low certainty evidence, COVID-19 § Treatment doesn't seem like a good place to mention this. Why not the Johns Hopkins source? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Because of WP:MEDRS. What one hospital does might be weird/wrong (and, in the USA, increasingly so). Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Omega-3

@Alexbrn: You reverted https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32636763/ (Free PCM article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7318894/) -- why do you think it's a weak source? --Bawanio (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

One is not a review in a Frontiers Media journal, the other is in a weak, non-MEDLINE indexed source. If Wikipedia is going to entertain the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that fish oil is an effective treatment for COVID-19 (seriously?) then we're going to need appropriate golden sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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)