Talk:COVID-19 drug repurposing research

Table needs to be updated, drilled down

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)

Open Label vs RCT

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)

Please look over the table for accuracy in importing results.

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)

Enabling easy download for researchers?

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)

Importing information from WHO Therapeutics Table

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 several interferons in the list which are not in the article yet. I have seen a few articles from not-so-reliable sources saying that places like Cuba have been using interferon alfa-2b to treat the outbreak. In looking for a better source I found and added a guardian article which refers to a trial of "interferon beta" in the UK. I'm not sure if that beta 1 or beta 3 (beta 2 doesn't exist) or if there's another one I am unaware of. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Removed french study

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)

So there is safe therapy that has been shown to be 100% effective in a study of significant number of patients by a world renown French physician and you decided to hide it from people? 71.83.26.180 (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the study has gained some notice through press, is it worthwhile including it under a section such as 'Unpublished Claims'. Wondering if it's worthwhile including if it is not notable to medicine but notable as an event? Seems strange to completely not have anything on it. ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly the only thing "strange" with Wikipedia, either, is it? 71.83.26.180 (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s listed[1] as Pre-Proof in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, which means it has been peer-reviewed[2]. —Wulf (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Vancouver style citations

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)

As long as it doesn't go against any Wikipedia best practices, I think making the citations better to read is a good cause. Go for it! From my understanding the main difference is shortening the amount of displayed authors, right? ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I would be okay with it --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Checks and Xes

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)

I'll see what I can do, maybe there's a good template out there. If anyone knows of a good example page, I'd love to take a look. I chose ascii characters since using words makes the table super wide. ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov: Looks good! I might tinker with the icons a bit --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles to check out

There are a couple of articles that can be used as inspiration for filling out the article, as well as potentially linking here

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_drug_development (although this article should focus more on drug repurposing specifically).
• The 'Research/COVID-19' section of any drug listed in the article
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development

ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Need Domain Experts that Can Write/Transfer Drug Development for Repurposing Drugs Process

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)

MEDRS, NOTNEWS and other guidance

@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)

Thanks for the link ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Research progression

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)

I agree completely. We should enforce the MEDRS policy even more vigilantly during a pandemic to avoid any possibility of misinforming people or leading them astray. Carlstak (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we need to strictly adhere to MEDRS, but I haven't seen any review articles about drugs yet. Is there a way we can turn it into prose? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Not opposed to a reasonable solution, and strongly believe in keeping to the guidelines. However, removing this information from Wikipedia entirely seems like we're holding something back from readers that is of significant interest. Is there a way we can disclaim or reword things to make it clearer? Could you please elaborate on "Summarise one of the recent review articles on drug treatments"? I'd be happy to help if there was solution that keeps information available and accessible to readers. ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

"Report something when there's a trial result - the mere fact of a trial should not be reported"?

"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)

Checking article for MEDRS and understanding exceptions

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)

For once I'll write a word I almost never use. Absolutely. Carlstak (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Cure Coronavirus Patient with HIV drugs

A combination of Lopinavir 200mg/Ritonavir 50mg twice a day for corona positive patient........... Sharad015 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That drug combo only works modestly well if started early in the disease. Benefits do not reach statistical significance when disease is more advanced and serious as it failed a randomised clinical trial for the latter group. Anyway, do you have a reference that you would like to use to edit this article or are you just expressing some thoughts?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Ciclesonide

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)

FDA has just issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Chloroquine,Hydroxychloroquine

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)