Talk:Antiviral drug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments[edit]

This page could be more conscise, it reads like a high school essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.127.177 (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2004

A good essay at that; but this needs to be rewritten in news style or at least an introduction added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.80.53 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2004‎

How about listing the sources while you're at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.51.28 (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2006‎

Wording on vaccines causing harm to hosts[edit]

This article said that weakened or killed vaccines can in rare cases cause full blown infection. I understand how that would work with weakened, but how could a truly killed vaccine infect a person?24.65.95.239 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NOV-002[edit]

NOV-205 manufactured by Novelos Therapeutics is A new class of Antiviral medication that is approved for use in Russia and currently tested in the USA under FDA clinical studies. This medication follows the Glutathione pathway via GSSG and therefore acts as an immunomodulator, hepatoprotective, and has anti inflammatory properties.

Under oxidative stress (attack by virus at the cellular level) Oxidized Gluatathione (spent side) will modulate inosine causing knock-out of "viral load." Further studies are being conducted with this same Glutathione pathway under FDA SPA (special protocol) and Fast Track Phase III trials for Cancer with another medication manufactered by Novelos called NOV-002 that use the Glutathione pathway along with gold standard adjunctive Chemotherapy

I've moved this to talk, since although this agent does exist, and is under clinical trials, I can't find any suggestion that it has antiviral properties in the literature. It has been applied to hepatitis, but here it is presented as preventing liver damage, rather than inhibiting viral replication. Is there a paper I have missed? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________
Hi, TOM please do not edit my info on Novelos Therapeutics AntiViral Medication NOV-205 as this has been approved in Russia reduce Viral load to zero after one or two months course of treatment for Hep patients that fail to respond to interferons.

TOM, please note NOV-002 is a different medication manufactured by Novelos Therapeutics this medication is currently being tested to treat cancer under FDA SPA amd Fast Track. You can read over their site and gain my info. This compound does not cure cancer, According to the poster from Wistar NOV-002 stops cancer from spreading. TOM, please take a look at the gene blots and conclusion. It is fairly straight forward. NOV-002 is Non Toxic and stops cancer from spreading.

please see this link:

http://www.novelos.com/docs/poster%20Wistar_AACR_2009_1807.pdf

A lot of people with untreatable Hep could benefit with this info about Novelos. Here is the Link for the company:

http://www.novelos.com/

NOV-205, a second compound acts as a hepatoprotective agent with immunomodulating and antiinflammatory properties. Novelos’ IND for NOV-205 as mono-therapy for chronic hepatitis C has been accepted by the FDA, and a U.S. Phase 1b trial in patients who previously failed treatment with pegylated interferon plus ribavirin was concluded based on favorable safety profile. Russian clinical studies in hepatitis B and C patients showed that after relatively short treatment periods (1 to 2 months) with NOV-205, viral load was undetectable in a high proportion of patients and serum biochemical markers of liver damage were significantly decreased.

Thank You and Have a nice day,

Alex Kalman

If you have any questions email me or contact the company.

In which journal has this data been published? We can't use a poster presentation as a source. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Tom,

Today is May 27, 2009

The poster information is verified by the National Cancer Institite (NCI).

http://www.nci.nih.gov/Templates/drugdictionary.aspx?CdrID=494994

Is the National Cancer Institue good enough?
P58 and ERK blots are lab confirmed in vivo.
NOV-002 stops cancer from spreading and is nontoxic.

Regarding the poster presentation, that was presented by the Wistar Institute. That is a valid organization.

NOV-002 test subjects with cancer are currently living longer. Approved in Russia
NOV-205 antiViral PIII tests will be conducted in the future. Approved in Russia

I am contributing this data to help people with Cancer and Viral infections.

I noticed an error in your post. Interferon is not the standard treatment as you have mistakenly posted under "AntiViral Drug" since 50% of people infected with HEP receive no benefits from this medication.

National Cancer Institute dictionary:
glutathione disulfide NOV-002
A stabilized formulation of disodium glutathione disulfide (GSSG; oxidized glutathione) and cisplatin (1000:1) with potential chemoprotective and immunomodulating activities. Mimicking endogenous GSSG, glutathione disulfide NOV-002 acts as a competitive substrate for gamma-glutamyl-transpeptidase (GGT), which may result in the S-glutathionylation of proteins, predominantly actin, a redox stress on endoplasmic reticulum (ER), and ER stress-induced apoptosis; S-glutathionylation may be stimulated by reactive oxygen species (ROS) liberated by a glutathione disulfide NOV-002-induced increase in GGT activity. Glutathione disulfide NOV-002 may also induce phosphorylation of proteins such as ERK and p38, two kinases that play critical regulatory roles in cell proliferation and apoptosis. The cisplatin component of this agent does not provide an effective therapeutic concentration of cisplatin in vivo. Check for active clinical trials or closed clinical trials using this agent. (NCI Thesaurus)

Nice talking to you buddy,

oh, added signed and dated above:

Bixbyte (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Bixbyte

Alex Kalman

one day I have to write myself up a page "about me" maybe you can help me?

Yes, I have found the information on anticancer trials, but there is no peer-reviewed information on antiviral activity. Without a source beyond a poster, wherever that poster was presented, this doesn't belong in this article. Have you considered instead writing that article about NOV-002? That would be a reasonable topic, and there are four articles by Townsend et. al. that you could use as sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

LJ001 against enveloped viruses[edit]

A broad-spectrum antiviral targeting entry of enveloped viruses comment may be worth using somehow. Rod57 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

DRACO against various viruses[edit]

A drug that could kill most viruses? refers to Broad-Spectrum Antiviral Therapeutics. 2011 acts against 2 viral processes: dna replication and reenabling apoptosis of infected cells. - Rod57 (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Was already mentioned in History section of all places, so I gave it a Research subsection heading for now. - Rod57 (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not really sure why this is being included? It seems like an obscure treatment still in early development. I could only find two papers on it at all, and one of those is from five years ago. It would be worth including if it got into clinical trials maybe but there are hundreds of potential antivirals and it seems like the only reason this is included is because it was funded through an indiegogo campaign. I nominate it for deletion unless others disagree69.91.189.99 (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Difference between Anti-Viral Drugs & Virucides[edit]

This Article states a distinction (which I agree with) between Virucides and Anti Viral Drugs, yet the virucides link just loops back to the same page. Could someone try to fix this? If the article is about pharmaceuticals it should not be talking about virucides - and alternatively if it must include virucides it should definitely be re-named something more appropriate that accurately covers this broader set of topics.

Ash243x (talkcontribs) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Herpesvirus drugs[edit]

Br Med Bull JFW | T@lk 20:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comprehensive review[edit]

50 years' worth of antivirals in CMR doi:10.1128/CMR.00102-15 JFW | T@lk 13:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Policy edits[edit]

The antiviral drug page is lacking in policy information as well as other information very relevant to public use, such as stigma and the "anti-vax" movement. I provided four areas of improvement:

  • Within a new policy section, created a subsection that discusses costs of antivirals and other pharmaceuticals, making note of why costs are so high.
  • Within the same policy section, created a subsection that considers negative perceptions (stigma) towards antivirals (and vaccines). Discussed the definition of vaccines, policies surrounding vaccination, and recent rising stigma towards vaccination.
  • Within the same policy section, created a subsection that discusses the use, distribution, and stockpiling of antivirals.
  • Within the existing "Acquired resistance" section, provided more relevant and in-depth information regarding this important topic.

I endeavored to keep the quality of our edits consistent with the rest of the article, accurately referencing relevant literature and providing links to other Wikipedia pages when necessary. In this manner, I hoped to add to the purely biochemical nature of the antiviral drug page, providing a policy, perception, and cost scope while enhancing existing sections on resistance. HPEricSh (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

vaccine stuff in drug article?[edit]

I just can't buy these subsections. As each notes, there's already a main article (several in fact) about vaccines for viral diseases. Drugs and vaccines aren't interchangeable. I'd suggest perhaps moving the sections (if applicable) into the main articles cited, and adding links to those articles in the 'See also' section. I'm not going to do this on my own, without someone else voting for it, because it appears that adding the stuff may have been a personal agenda for someone.Sbalfour (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)