Talk:Chloroquine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chloroquine 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

Pharmacology Start‑class High‑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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Translation C‑class 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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).

COVID-19 C‑class 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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maguro6, JwenUCSF-06, 6oooinotna, Tanujap6 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Grp05rx, BE5ST, Lucky Number 55ish, Thienqn5.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Chloroquine.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Untitled

related to Primaquine—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.240.112 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 19 April 2005

Nick, do you have a good source for the RA mechanism, eg textbook or journal article? JFW | T@lk 13:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of the retinal toxicity may be helpful for readers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.126.18 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 13 April 2006

I have added a remark about retinal toxicity in the side-effect section. Ruerd 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to clearly state the mental side-effects of chloroquine: nightmares, sleep deprivation, anxiety, depression, panic attacks, psychosis. when I was 18 on my year off, the side-effects had been played down as being "changes in moods" "stomach upsets" on the notice included in the box. the side-effects being played down, my doctor actually prescribed me a year's dosage to be taken within six months for extra protection, and I became fully aware of mysteriously and peculiarly feeling tangibly unwell in paradisiac surroundings after only one month and only found the cause four months later. this is why it is important not to play down side-effects. alongside being in unfamiliar surroundings for months, it may be hard to detect any changes unless they are explicitly stated. if people experience serious levels of anxiety and depression and have not had such feelings before, they may not associate it with medication unless it is explicitly stated. I trusted the medication and was worried about malaria, the result of not being informed of the side effects combined with bad luck on my holiday were very serious indeed, I quit my fabulous course at the University of Edinburgh after two years and would have taken another year and a half in familiar surroundings to fully recover in optimal conditions.

I have personally seen a lot of people come back from holiday in very poor shape and although no clinical studies of association have been published, caution should be explicitly overstated if anything. furthermore the effects of such depressions may take years to lift.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gt jaya (talk • contribs) 09:22, 21 October 2006

also for some reason the side-effects of hair loss and liver damage and not mentioned on the web page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gt jaya (talk • contribs) 10:03, 21 October 2006

Hi, I too have heard a lot of rumors of liver diseases from chloroquine, and I've been on it for about 7 months now. I'd like some information on it if anyone has it. Are the rumors completely unfounded? Thanks --gloushire 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has nothing about the invention of this medicine.This site: [CDC and Chloroquine] tell that this medicine was invented in 1934, in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agre22 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "eastern America", which is not in normal usage, is used in the Resistance section. Please revise this phrase to describe accurately the region intended. At present it could refer to eastern USA, east coast of N or S America, etc. etc. Thank you. Hambleton (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author meant "East Africa" instead, otherwise it makes little sense. I am afraid the whole section on resistance is lacking. Chloroquine resistance was not slow in developing: introduced in 1945, drug resistance was reported only 12 years later (see for example Wongsrichanalai C, Pickard AL, Wernsdorfer WH, Meshnick SR. Epidemiology of drug-resistant malaria. Lancet Infect Dis. 2002 Apr ;2(4):209-218.). Its spread is far wider than the article gives away: it is practically useless for P falciparum throughout South-East Asia and New Guinea, and large parts of East Africa and South America. Furthermore, it has arisen independently in multiple geographies (see for example Mita T, Tanabe K, Kita K. Spread and evolution of Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance. Parasitol. Int. 2009 Sep ;58(3):201-209). There is a well-known locus of Chloroquine resistance in the P falciparum PfCRT gene; in addition, copy number variations of the PfMDR1 gene is known to contribute to CQ resistance, and it is likely there are additional genomic components, not yet characterized. 129.67.45.68 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

About my reformatting of the headings of two former talk sections to make them part of this "Reviews" sub- section

I am boldly editting, lest this possibly crucial information possibly remain mysterious, to some non-native users of English (and also even to some of my fellow native speakers). My concern is that (even despite subject matter competence far beyond my own) their understanding might be impeded by its (strictly speaking) incoherant English syntax. That wording had, without explanation, misused (In My Not-very-Humble Opinion) the word "this", when it presented, incompletely, from a sentence it quoted from (what I presume to have been) a reliable source (though I also presume that that source did indeed use, exactly, that word).
However, the quoted sentence (which we can reasonably presume was true, in its original context) became (at best) incoherant (and arguably false) in our context. Readers whose was learned as a foreign language might be confused (and at worst misled) by that quotation (here outside the original context, which surely must have been provided, in the work from which was this passage was being extracted or abstracted) i have edited it to avoid any reason for such misunderstanding of the passage; specfically, to avoiding it being understood as if it intended to imply that the table in question appears as part of the English Wikipedia (let alone in the WP article). (My belief is that no reliable technical journal would permit use of the word "this", where it did stand prior to my edit. ...I also mention that my (arguably overly conscientious) edit may deserve critical analysis, similar to that wnich was applied to Pres. Clinton's famed quibble. (I am referring to his statement, whose wording he may have intended to say approximately that those who questioned his earlier intent would be wise to consider what a person using the word "is" means by choosing it. (I was among those who believed, that his utterance of the phrase "sounded like correct English", yet could not be understood -- at least, not by most of the reasonably careful native speakers of English -- as having any clear meaning, and that his intent may have been a satirical comment that claimed that nitpicking had been done, with devious intent, by those criticizing his behavior.)
--JerzyA (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits from Group 6

Our group has worked together in editing information that lacks sources or citations. We have worked on citing, adding information that we believe people should know about chloroquine, such as pregnancy information, adverse effects, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. We have also edited out information that is not identified for the general public; such as studies derived from primary sources. We have edited grammar and worked on formatting. Maguro6 (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from Group 5

Yes the draft submission reflected a neutral point of view. Yes the points included are verifiable with cited published material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BE5ST (talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC) For adverse events, it would be good to include information on frequency e.g. which side effects are rare vs. common--could be less intimidating for the general public. It may be useful to add a section on potential drug interactions as well. In the PK/PD section, there is a lot of information that is very heavily chemistry-based (e.g. pKa's and percent protonation), which might not be of the greatest relevance/understandable unless you are well-versed in chemistry and pharmacokinetics. Grp05rx (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in treating Covid19

Apparently it has been used for a while now in treating Covid19 Patients. source: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bst/advpub/0/advpub_2020.01047/_article meta-source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019 I suggest this to be added to this article, but i don't think i can do it in a good quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.104.110 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This information is already present in the article, under "Research". It was added on February 24. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring Antivirus section

I have slightly refactored and improved the Antiviral section. Reversions included a sentence where the original editor clearly meant the topic drug but named a different drug.

My changes were reverted by @Materialscientist: without a reason given. So I have re-reverted and created this section to discuss if needed.

If someone can better re-structure the headings back to two-levels, in a way that makes sense, but preserves the importance of the SARS-CoV-2 research, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.12.212.215 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19

A study shows that this drug is also effective against SARS COVID -19. Rethvik (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to link to COVID-19 Repurposing Drug article section on Chloroquine

I want to link the COVID-19 section of the article to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Chloroquine

What's the best way of doing this? ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]