![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This page contains some copied material from COVID-19 vaccine and the two cover virtually the same thing. Sam-2727 ( talk) 17:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thanks for your edit @ Zefr:, here. for my taste this was slightly too much deletion. the scientific article alone seems a little harsh for mere mortals. as well it lacks the context why this stuff is important: to have a spray which prevents that the virus let itself clone. it does not prevent a virus can infect a cell. i would love to add it again - that is "inhibit" if i understood it correctly? -- ThurnerRupert ( talk) 09:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
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 there. Thanks everyone. https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization#2019-ncov ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov ( talk) 15:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
There's another Phase II trial now in progress, APN01. I'd add it to the article myself, but I know next to nothing about this topic, so I'd prefer it if someone else could do it; I'm not even sure what the criteria are for when to add individual Phase II trials to this page. — Nightstallion 09:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Published 2 April in The Lancet: Global coalition to accelerate COVID-19 clinical research in resource-limited settings. As of late March, 536 COVID-19 clinical studies in progress. -- Zefr ( talk) 16:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
These two pages basically cover the same thing. Yes the vaccine article should be kept separate. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This article's structure is so confusing I do not know where to add info about Tofacitinib/Xeljanz, probably something like this: "Laboratory research suggests Tofacitinib (Xeljanz) blocks SARS-CoV-2 from replicating, and experimental testing on patients is to begin in summer 2020, with some Italian patients getting the drug in April." Source. Thanks, WikiHannibal ( talk) 14:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Folding@Home is a distributed computing project, oriented towards medical research. They recently put efforts in simulating molecule folding to help elaborate treatment candidates for COVID-19. Since these are efforts for a future COVID-19 drug, I think it should be mentioned in the article, maybe near the "Efforts to streamline drug discovery" section, and/or in the "See also" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevBowman ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Was shown effective at treating SARS according to at least one study [1] and is currently under investigation as inhaled coronavirus therapy. [2] [3] [4] It's still at phase II however, [5] so I'm not adding it yet. b uidh e 23:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
I'd to say that COVID-19 is not untreatable health challenge. Drug treatment requires real efforts by researchers within the context of rapid repurposing and development of an approved drug against COVID-19 viral proteins. My research team had published a preclinical research (in LPMA. Preprocessing of the candidate antiviral drugs against COVID-19 models of SARS cov2 targets) in which 20 compounds were assessed for their coronavirus target binding energy. Of the most effective inhibitors was a tripeptide compound with wide spectrum of safety (GT). I submitted a project to adopt this compound as a trial for those patients with critical COVID-19.
Thank you Hussein Wik ( talk) 03:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The original intent for this article was to keep a focus on the candidate drugs in pivotal Phase III-IV trials that will provide quick yes-or-no answers for treating COVID-19 infections, and to describe the process and growing global support to expedite pivotal trials during the pandemic. Other editors may disagree, but my instinct is to leave candidates in development stages earlier than Phase III out of the article (too many to describe and track for progress over the coming weeks/months). Let good trackers like the weekly Milken Inst report keep the tab on pre-Phase III progress. Note: a new drug candidate in the lab is still called a " new chemical entity (NCE, not a drug)", until it has been approved first as an IND to allow human studies, and does not become an actual "drug" until successful Phase III-IV trials when it is given NDA designation ( New Drug Application) for marketing in the US. Repurposed COVID-19 drug candidates will each have an NDA, if successful, as a new prescription for treating infections.
We now have a "Therapeutics candidates" section (which should focus on the Phase III-IV trials) and a "COVID-19 drug candidates" section (which should be retitled as "Early-stage COVID-19 drug candidates" and provide information on pre-Phase III development of the NCE-IND). But this latter section is where listing individual candidates, including the hidden table, seems futile because most will fail, persuading that such a section be brief, defer to COVID-19 treatment candidate trackers, and present only the highlights of candidates approaching Phase III trials. -- Zefr ( talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday I pointed out that the mechanism of action of Remdesivir mentioned in the table of this article differs from the Wikipedia article about Remdesivir. My comment was removed as original research and personal insult. I find this slightly strange.-- 2001:14BB:431:20F:D864:AC27:238A:ED72 ( talk) 11:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Done -
Zefr (
talk)
14:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The Milken Institute has - as best as I can see - the most frequently updated (at least 2x/week) tracker for all COVID-19-related treatment and vaccine candidates, a report that had been a somewhat awkward PDF for the past weeks, but is now a dynamic Google spreadsheet, today's version shown here. Presuming it enables viewing of updates in real time, the Milken tracker will be a "live" update source going forward. Wondering what other editors think about using this as a source for tracking progress of drugs in late-stage clinical trials (and earlier stages), as it is still awkward to use on a cell phone (or even a widescreen desktop), and its sources are hidden behind another click, but I think it's a substantial resource for keeping an eye on progress. For comparison, the next-best sources are either "draft landscape" reports from WHO (too many of which are dead links under "Therapeutics"), and occasional tracking reports, such as this one by Canadian scientists in the April 24th Lancet, proposing real-time tracking of therapeutic research underway using a diagram to aggregate and display various potential therapeutics here. The Lancet authors mention the new COVID-19 literature tracker from the US National Library of Medicine, called "LitCovid", shown here. Background on why this is relevant, WP:NOW. Zefr ( talk) 15:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,
I contributed the section "Supercomputer-assisted research" to the page COVID-19 vaccine a while back, with work on the Summit supercomputer and Blue Waters having piqued my interest. I relied extensively on press releases and news articles for sourcing, however; the sources contained no indication of vaccine research, but rather were focused on the discovery of drug candidates, forecasting, and medical protocols. Therefore, the section was removed. (I highly recommend going over the version history for the page.)
If I may ask, where might any information on the effects of COVID-19 on computing research be located? More pertinently, as other users have pointed out to me, would it be most acceptable to add a section here? Jarrod Baniqued ( talk) 02:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 drug development has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Xulian Hongkong ( talk) 23:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Till now, some antibacterial drugs were tested against SARS-CoV-2 and showed activity such as Azithromycin but no previous trials were done using the antifungal medications and while bacterial and fungal share in the structure of SARS-CoV-2 . , it is recommended to start trials with a triple therapy consist of antiviral (e.g. Remdesivir) + antibacterial (e.g. Aithromycin) + antifungal (e.g. fluorocytosine and/or Micafungin) medications. also the ability of virus to form a biofilm as well as the melanogenic activity of SARS-CoV-2 should be deeply stuided. Detect lactose intolerance as risk factor for COVID-19 disease as lactose intolerance test for patients should be processed in order to find out this risk factor which might be a useful diagnostic test to investigate the vulnerability to infection for healthy people and others who have risk factors such as compromised immunity or chronic diseases
Zinc addition is missing on the page and I think it should be added after recent study release showing initial favorable/promising results. see link https://www.barrons.com/news/zinc-hydroxychloroquine-found-effective-in-some-covid-19-patients-study-01589234407 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkshires ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, NYU is one of the leading hospitals in US treating covid-19 cases in the US, the study covered 932 patients which is pretty solid size. While not clinical trial, there is not a single study released yet showing this combo "not" to be helpful, while there is alot of anecdotal evidence that it is helpful. To avoid an edit war i would propose the following language.
On 8 May, NYU Hospital released a retrospective observational study from 932 covid-19 patints treated during March-April at the NYU hospital. The results showing that patients who had the miniral zinc added to their hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin combo, saw a 44% reduction in mortality versus those receiving hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone. This study provided the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19. The authors of the study emphasize that this is retrospective observational study, and not a clinical trial.
The above makes it pretty clear that its not conclusive at all, but in fact the results seem to be promising. Ignoring does not sound reasonable-- Berkshires ( talk) 23:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Will get some more suitable sourcing Berkshires ( talk) 00:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
See link below from science direct relating to this combo.
There seems to be growing evidence that this triple combo works. Your position that as long there is no peer reviewed study/publication it should not be mentioned on Wikipedia even as a potential option to is quite unreasonable. Especially when this whole virus is new.
On Wikipedia the way its now, someone would not be aware that this combo exists when looking on all potential treatment options studied. In fact there are clinical trials going on all over the world for this combo.
I have not interest in edit war, just want it to be on record.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720306435?via%3Dihub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkshires ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
About two weeks ago, the World Community Grid started a COVID-19 research project with Scripps Research called OpenPandemics. While the WCG is pretty notable, it's not as widely known in the media as Folding@home, and its COVID project launch didn't receive nearly as much attention as Folding@home. I was only able to find a single ZDNet article, most of the other sources were either closely associated with the project or seemed kind of bloggy.
Would this be enough to establish sufficient notability and verifiability for a mention to be included in the article? -- Veikk0.ma 08:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
So, I just found an interesting paper that used molecular simulations to find potential SARS-CoV-2 treatments, and which found that alpha-ketoamides should be explored as one. This isn't my area of expertise, so I'd like to get the thoughts of more experienced contributors. MiasmaEternal TALK 05:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 drug development has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following sentence under "Favipravir" header:
In June 2020, India approved the use of a generic version of favipravir called FabiFlu, developed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, in the treatment of mild to moderate cases of COVID-19. [1] 59.95.71.196 ( talk) 16:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I see no mention of aviptadil. Here's an article from a Houston news station.
Houston Methodist reports rapid recovery of critically ill COVID-19 patients with new drug
I'm not really a big expert on medicine. If anyone thinks adding this treatment is warranted, please add it to the article. FunksBrother ( talk) 18:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Leronlimab is the only drug I am aware of that has shown statistically significant positive results in a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. It has also shown amazing results in critically ill patients as referenced in the paper below. If it is approved by the FDA this may be "the" treatment for COVID-19.
Here is a proposed entry:
Table:
COVID‑19: candidate drug treatments in Phase III–IV trials | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Drug candidate | Description | Existing disease approval | Trial sponsor(s) | Location(s) | Expected results | Notes, references |
Leronlimab | humanized monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5 receptor | New drug candidate | CytoDyn | Multiple sites in the United States | August/September 2020 | Aug 15 - Phase 2 mild/moderate study unblinded and preliminary results positive
[1]
[2]
Severe/Critical phase 2b/3 study ongoing and enrolling [3] |
Listing: |- | Leronlimab || colspan="2" | A drug originally developed to treat HIV. [4] On May 5, 2020 a pre-print paper indicated that leronlimab had a significant effect in the 10 critically ill COVID-19 patients studied. [5] This discovery led to a phase 2 study for mild to moderate COVID-19 patients [6] and a Phase 2b/3 study for severe or critical COVID-19 patients. [7] On June 18th. 2020, Dr. Bruce Patterson, M.D. described his research involving the method of action of leronlimab in COVID-19 patients at a TEDx talk. [8] On August 11, 2020 both clinically significant primary endpoint results and statistically significant secondary endpoint results were released from the unblinded mild to moderate phase 2 study. [9] Based on the study results CytoDyn applied for emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US FDA for the treatment of COVID-19. [10]
References
For now, we have the section on Early-stage COVID‑19 drug candidates: Preliminary clinical research: Phase II trials where individual drugs possibly useful for treating severe COVID-19 infection are not listed. PRO 140 (leronlimab) is a monoclonal antibody drug, which is generally included as a potential therapeutic platform in the article. It impresses me as too early to include it in the main Ph III table. Also, let's not cite press releases from sponsor companies (CytoDyn) which are typically WP:PLUG-enthusiastic and promotional. Clinicialtrials.gov reports two small Ph II studies are underway, and there are no PubMed reviews on the use of leronlimab for treating COVID-19 infection. Zefr ( talk) 20:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
-- TwoCandlesInTheDark ( talk) 21:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Thanks for your explanation. I have no confusion. We are not a news site or a comprehensive tracker of possible therapeutics for COVID-19. The Clinicaltrials.gov site I gave above is an adequate source for showing leronlimab in two Ph II trials, far from an interventional Ph III trial needed for proof of efficacy against COVID-19 disease. If you are affiliated in any way with CytoDyn, you have to declare potential WP:COI on your talk page. Zefr ( talk) 22:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
-- TwoCandlesInTheDark ( talk) 01:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
-- TwoCandlesInTheDark ( talk) 06:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The trial is called an "adaptive design" (in the article here), meaning its parameters will change as Phase II results become known. I'm not convinced that it is yet a Phase III trial that should be included in the table, as more data (and a peer-reviewed publication) are needed to qualify for the Phase III. For WP:CON, it's usually best to allow other editors (or to recruit them here for discussion) to have input before making a disputed change to the article. Zefr ( talk) 16:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The link you provided refers to the "Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT)". These trials are clearly labeled on clinicaltrials.gov. For example, here is the trial for remdesivir and the trial for rem/baricitinib. I cannot find any evidence that the leronlimab trial is part of ACTT, ACTT-2, or ACTT-3. Here are three other trials that are phase 2b/3 and also unrelated to ACTT. The "adaptive design" phrase refers to the ability of the sponsor to modify parameters of the study during the trial in a phase 2b/3 trial (referred to as "adaptive seamless phase II/III trial design" in the linked article). Can you find any evidence that there is a delineation between phase 2b and phase 3 in a combined study? Phases_of_clinical_research#Summary refers to both Phase 3 and combined Phase 2/3 studies as "late phase studies." In the context of this page I don't see the difference between an adaptive phase 2b/3 trial and a phase 3 trial. After reviewing the reference above, do you see a difference?
As far as a peer-reviewed publication is concerned, can you please provide links to the peer-reviewed publications corresponding to the other therapeutics in the list. I couldn't find one for many of them. It seems counter-productive to require a peer-reviewed publication for therapeutics that are in development for a recently discovered disease. This requirement is likely to eliminate therapeutics from companies without a large staff of clinicians, extensive university connections, and graduate students who can produce papers and peer review in a fraction of the time normally required. I appreciate your input and have benefited from it. If this content isn't appropriate for this page, I don't have a problem with that. It would help me to know how it is inconsistent with the current content so I do not make a similar mistake in the future. I invited another editor to take a look. Thanks for making that suggestion. -- TwoCandlesInTheDark ( talk) 05:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the 2 studies mentioned which showed lack of efficacy were both on hospitalised patients (i.e. severe SARS-Cov2 already at peak viral load), as for whether it is affective as a preventative is yet to be determined. Cdjknu ( talk) 09:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
It might well be worth addressing the topic of fusion proteins, in case some of the authors of this article have knowledge of the topic. See for example:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Thank you. -- Chris Howard ( talk) 09:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out why Vitamin-D is not featured on this page on the other similar one COVID-19 drug repurposing research.
There is a surprising amount of research on the go with trials and published papers. Safety at physiological doses is well proven yet widespread deficiencies remain uncorrected. Demonstrated benefits and learned consensus keeps telling us that it should be on the front line as a prophylactic to minimise severity even it it does nothing else.
Here is a secondary source of sorts that has valuable information in the conclusion. Vitamin D and COVID-19: evidence and recommendations for supplementation
Here are some of the published study results Vitamin D is effective for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 37 studies
Has this simply been forgotten or what is the reason it is a second class citizen to new drugs that have still to be invented?
Idyllic press ( talk) 21:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Of all the wonders shown to beat this dreadful disease, there's one drug that should be given a mention in this article... molnupiravir. According to this, it stops transmission of COVID-19 in 24 hours and interesting, by its own article here, it's found to stop transmission of SARS and MERS too. I know it's currently an experimental drug and who knows when it can be rolled out to the public, I just want to know if it can be added to this article or not. Bryn89 ( talk) 09:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Still early days (only a 30-patient sample), but looking good! Ref: "New Israeli Covid drug which cured 30 cases of disease hailed by scientists as 'huge breakthrough'" ( The Daily Telegraph). El_C 23:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Sources:
VIR-7831 &
GSK4182136, COVID-19 antibody therapies by
Vir Biotechnology &
GlaxoSmithKline.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
for news search: VIR-7831 EUA.
0mtwb9gd5wx (
talk)
21:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 drug development has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To add to the table of candidates (COVID‑19: candidate drug treatments in Phase III–IV trials)
Drug candidate: Apabetalone
Description: selective BET inhibitor
Existing disease approval: investigational
Trial sponsor(s): Resverlogix Corp
Location(s): United States
Expected results: March 22, 2022
Notes, references:
"An Open-Label Study of Apabetalone in Covid Infection". NIH National Library of Medicine. May 20, 2021. Retrieved May 24, 2021.
"Milken Institute Covid-19 Tracker". May 20, 2021. Retrieved May 24, 2021. Jonzobot ( talk) 19:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Seems several " 3C-like protease inhibitors" (such as " PF-00835231", " PF-07304814" and " PF-07321332") may be under consideration as possible drugs to treat the " COVID-19 disease" - QUESTION: is the following reference [1] worth adding to the main article? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 19:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Recent news (06/02/2021) [1] worth considering for the main article? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 00:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 drug development has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the hatnote, change "For a potential COVID-19 vaccine, see COVID-19 vaccine. " to "For COVID-19 vaccines, see COVID-19 vaccine. " 50.30.176.52 ( talk) 20:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Done.
Zefr (
talk)
21:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
This article currently doesn't mention molnupiravir, which was today approved for therapeutic use in the UK.I've edited the molnupiravir article but I'm unfamiliar with how things are done in these more specific COVID-19 related articles. Can someone else incorporate this information in the correct way? Mike Turnbull ( talk) 12:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This page contains some copied material from COVID-19 vaccine and the two cover virtually the same thing. Sam-2727 ( talk) 17:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thanks for your edit @ Zefr:, here. for my taste this was slightly too much deletion. the scientific article alone seems a little harsh for mere mortals. as well it lacks the context why this stuff is important: to have a spray which prevents that the virus let itself clone. it does not prevent a virus can infect a cell. i would love to add it again - that is "inhibit" if i understood it correctly? -- ThurnerRupert ( talk) 09:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
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 there. Thanks everyone. https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization#2019-ncov ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov ( talk) 15:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
There's another Phase II trial now in progress, APN01. I'd add it to the article myself, but I know next to nothing about this topic, so I'd prefer it if someone else could do it; I'm not even sure what the criteria are for when to add individual Phase II trials to this page. — Nightstallion 09:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Published 2 April in The Lancet: Global coalition to accelerate COVID-19 clinical research in resource-limited settings. As of late March, 536 COVID-19 clinical studies in progress. -- Zefr ( talk) 16:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
These two pages basically cover the same thing. Yes the vaccine article should be kept separate. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This article's structure is so confusing I do not know where to add info about Tofacitinib/Xeljanz, probably something like this: "Laboratory research suggests Tofacitinib (Xeljanz) blocks SARS-CoV-2 from replicating, and experimental testing on patients is to begin in summer 2020, with some Italian patients getting the drug in April." Source. Thanks, WikiHannibal ( talk) 14:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Folding@Home is a distributed computing project, oriented towards medical research. They recently put efforts in simulating molecule folding to help elaborate treatment candidates for COVID-19. Since these are efforts for a future COVID-19 drug, I think it should be mentioned in the article, maybe near the "Efforts to streamline drug discovery" section, and/or in the "See also" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevBowman ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Was shown effective at treating SARS according to at least one study [1] and is currently under investigation as inhaled coronavirus therapy. [2] [3] [4] It's still at phase II however, [5] so I'm not adding it yet. b uidh e 23:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
I'd to say that COVID-19 is not untreatable health challenge. Drug treatment requires real efforts by researchers within the context of rapid repurposing and development of an approved drug against COVID-19 viral proteins. My research team had published a preclinical research (in LPMA. Preprocessing of the candidate antiviral drugs against COVID-19 models of SARS cov2 targets) in which 20 compounds were assessed for their coronavirus target binding energy. Of the most effective inhibitors was a tripeptide compound with wide spectrum of safety (GT). I submitted a project to adopt this compound as a trial for those patients with critical COVID-19.
Thank you Hussein Wik ( talk) 03:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The original intent for this article was to keep a focus on the candidate drugs in pivotal Phase III-IV trials that will provide quick yes-or-no answers for treating COVID-19 infections, and to describe the process and growing global support to expedite pivotal trials during the pandemic. Other editors may disagree, but my instinct is to leave candidates in development stages earlier than Phase III out of the article (too many to describe and track for progress over the coming weeks/months). Let good trackers like the weekly Milken Inst report keep the tab on pre-Phase III progress. Note: a new drug candidate in the lab is still called a " new chemical entity (NCE, not a drug)", until it has been approved first as an IND to allow human studies, and does not become an actual "drug" until successful Phase III-IV trials when it is given NDA designation ( New Drug Application) for marketing in the US. Repurposed COVID-19 drug candidates will each have an NDA, if successful, as a new prescription for treating infections.
We now have a "Therapeutics candidates" section (which should focus on the Phase III-IV trials) and a "COVID-19 drug candidates" section (which should be retitled as "Early-stage COVID-19 drug candidates" and provide information on pre-Phase III development of the NCE-IND). But this latter section is where listing individual candidates, including the hidden table, seems futile because most will fail, persuading that such a section be brief, defer to COVID-19 treatment candidate trackers, and present only the highlights of candidates approaching Phase III trials. -- Zefr ( talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday I pointed out that the mechanism of action of Remdesivir mentioned in the table of this article differs from the Wikipedia article about Remdesivir. My comment was removed as original research and personal insult. I find this slightly strange.-- 2001:14BB:431:20F:D864:AC27:238A:ED72 ( talk) 11:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Done -
Zefr (
talk)
14:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The Milken Institute has - as best as I can see - the most frequently updated (at least 2x/week) tracker for all COVID-19-related treatment and vaccine candidates, a report that had been a somewhat awkward PDF for the past weeks, but is now a dynamic Google spreadsheet, today's version shown here. Presuming it enables viewing of updates in real time, the Milken tracker will be a "live" update source going forward. Wondering what other editors think about using this as a source for tracking progress of drugs in late-stage clinical trials (and earlier stages), as it is still awkward to use on a cell phone (or even a widescreen desktop), and its sources are hidden behind another click, but I think it's a substantial resource for keeping an eye on progress. For comparison, the next-best sources are either "draft landscape" reports from WHO (too many of which are dead links under "Therapeutics"), and occasional tracking reports, such as this one by Canadian scientists in the April 24th Lancet, proposing real-time tracking of therapeutic research underway using a diagram to aggregate and display various potential therapeutics here. The Lancet authors mention the new COVID-19 literature tracker from the US National Library of Medicine, called "LitCovid", shown here. Background on why this is relevant, WP:NOW. Zefr ( talk) 15:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,
I contributed the section "Supercomputer-assisted research" to the page COVID-19 vaccine a while back, with work on the Summit supercomputer and Blue Waters having piqued my interest. I relied extensively on press releases and news articles for sourcing, however; the sources contained no indication of vaccine research, but rather were focused on the discovery of drug candidates, forecasting, and medical protocols. Therefore, the section was removed. (I highly recommend going over the version history for the page.)
If I may ask, where might any information on the effects of COVID-19 on computing research be located? More pertinently, as other users have pointed out to me, would it be most acceptable to add a section here? Jarrod Baniqued ( talk) 02:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 drug development has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Xulian Hongkong ( talk) 23:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Till now, some antibacterial drugs were tested against SARS-CoV-2 and showed activity such as Azithromycin but no previous trials were done using the antifungal medications and while bacterial and fungal share in the structure of SARS-CoV-2 . , it is recommended to start trials with a triple therapy consist of antiviral (e.g. Remdesivir) + antibacterial (e.g. Aithromycin) + antifungal (e.g. fluorocytosine and/or Micafungin) medications. also the ability of virus to form a biofilm as well as the melanogenic activity of SARS-CoV-2 should be deeply stuided. Detect lactose intolerance as risk factor for COVID-19 disease as lactose intolerance test for patients should be processed in order to find out this risk factor which might be a useful diagnostic test to investigate the vulnerability to infection for healthy people and others who have risk factors such as compromised immunity or chronic diseases
Zinc addition is missing on the page and I think it should be added after recent study release showing initial favorable/promising results. see link https://www.barrons.com/news/zinc-hydroxychloroquine-found-effective-in-some-covid-19-patients-study-01589234407 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkshires ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, NYU is one of the leading hospitals in US treating covid-19 cases in the US, the study covered 932 patients which is pretty solid size. While not clinical trial, there is not a single study released yet showing this combo "not" to be helpful, while there is alot of anecdotal evidence that it is helpful. To avoid an edit war i would propose the following language.
On 8 May, NYU Hospital released a retrospective observational study from 932 covid-19 patints treated during March-April at the NYU hospital. The results showing that patients who had the miniral zinc added to their hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin combo, saw a 44% reduction in mortality versus those receiving hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone. This study provided the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19. The authors of the study emphasize that this is retrospective observational study, and not a clinical trial.
The above makes it pretty clear that its not conclusive at all, but in fact the results seem to be promising. Ignoring does not sound reasonable-- Berkshires ( talk) 23:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Will get some more suitable sourcing Berkshires ( talk) 00:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
See link below from science direct relating to this combo.
There seems to be growing evidence that this triple combo works. Your position that as long there is no peer reviewed study/publication it should not be mentioned on Wikipedia even as a potential option to is quite unreasonable. Especially when this whole virus is new.
On Wikipedia the way its now, someone would not be aware that this combo exists when looking on all potential treatment options studied. In fact there are clinical trials going on all over the world for this combo.
I have not interest in edit war, just want it to be on record.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720306435?via%3Dihub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkshires ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
About two weeks ago, the World Community Grid started a COVID-19 research project with Scripps Research called OpenPandemics. While the WCG is pretty notable, it's not as widely known in the media as Folding@home, and its COVID project launch didn't receive nearly as much attention as Folding@home. I was only able to find a single ZDNet article, most of the other sources were either closely associated with the project or seemed kind of bloggy.
Would this be enough to establish sufficient notability and verifiability for a mention to be included in the article? -- Veikk0.ma 08:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
So, I just found an interesting paper that used molecular simulations to find potential SARS-CoV-2 treatments, and which found that alpha-ketoamides should be explored as one. This isn't my area of expertise, so I'd like to get the thoughts of more experienced contributors. MiasmaEternal TALK 05:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 drug development has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following sentence under "Favipravir" header:
In June 2020, India approved the use of a generic version of favipravir called FabiFlu, developed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, in the treatment of mild to moderate cases of COVID-19. [1] 59.95.71.196 ( talk) 16:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I see no mention of aviptadil. Here's an article from a Houston news station.
Houston Methodist reports rapid recovery of critically ill COVID-19 patients with new drug
I'm not really a big expert on medicine. If anyone thinks adding this treatment is warranted, please add it to the article. FunksBrother ( talk) 18:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Leronlimab is the only drug I am aware of that has shown statistically significant positive results in a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. It has also shown amazing results in critically ill patients as referenced in the paper below. If it is approved by the FDA this may be "the" treatment for COVID-19.
Here is a proposed entry:
Table:
COVID‑19: candidate drug treatments in Phase III–IV trials | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Drug candidate | Description | Existing disease approval | Trial sponsor(s) | Location(s) | Expected results | Notes, references |
Leronlimab | humanized monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5 receptor | New drug candidate | CytoDyn | Multiple sites in the United States | August/September 2020 | Aug 15 - Phase 2 mild/moderate study unblinded and preliminary results positive
[1]
[2]
Severe/Critical phase 2b/3 study ongoing and enrolling [3] |
Listing: |- | Leronlimab || colspan="2" | A drug originally developed to treat HIV. [4] On May 5, 2020 a pre-print paper indicated that leronlimab had a significant effect in the 10 critically ill COVID-19 patients studied. [5] This discovery led to a phase 2 study for mild to moderate COVID-19 patients [6] and a Phase 2b/3 study for severe or critical COVID-19 patients. [7] On June 18th. 2020, Dr. Bruce Patterson, M.D. described his research involving the method of action of leronlimab in COVID-19 patients at a TEDx talk. [8] On August 11, 2020 both clinically significant primary endpoint results and statistically significant secondary endpoint results were released from the unblinded mild to moderate phase 2 study. [9] Based on the study results CytoDyn applied for emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US FDA for the treatment of COVID-19. [10]
References
For now, we have the section on Early-stage COVID‑19 drug candidates: Preliminary clinical research: Phase II trials where individual drugs possibly useful for treating severe COVID-19 infection are not listed. PRO 140 (leronlimab) is a monoclonal antibody drug, which is generally included as a potential therapeutic platform in the article. It impresses me as too early to include it in the main Ph III table. Also, let's not cite press releases from sponsor companies (CytoDyn) which are typically WP:PLUG-enthusiastic and promotional. Clinicialtrials.gov reports two small Ph II studies are underway, and there are no PubMed reviews on the use of leronlimab for treating COVID-19 infection. Zefr ( talk) 20:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
-- TwoCandlesInTheDark ( talk) 21:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Thanks for your explanation. I have no confusion. We are not a news site or a comprehensive tracker of possible therapeutics for COVID-19. The Clinicaltrials.gov site I gave above is an adequate source for showing leronlimab in two Ph II trials, far from an interventional Ph III trial needed for proof of efficacy against COVID-19 disease. If you are affiliated in any way with CytoDyn, you have to declare potential WP:COI on your talk page. Zefr ( talk) 22:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
-- TwoCandlesInTheDark ( talk) 01:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
-- TwoCandlesInTheDark ( talk) 06:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The trial is called an "adaptive design" (in the article here), meaning its parameters will change as Phase II results become known. I'm not convinced that it is yet a Phase III trial that should be included in the table, as more data (and a peer-reviewed publication) are needed to qualify for the Phase III. For WP:CON, it's usually best to allow other editors (or to recruit them here for discussion) to have input before making a disputed change to the article. Zefr ( talk) 16:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The link you provided refers to the "Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT)". These trials are clearly labeled on clinicaltrials.gov. For example, here is the trial for remdesivir and the trial for rem/baricitinib. I cannot find any evidence that the leronlimab trial is part of ACTT, ACTT-2, or ACTT-3. Here are three other trials that are phase 2b/3 and also unrelated to ACTT. The "adaptive design" phrase refers to the ability of the sponsor to modify parameters of the study during the trial in a phase 2b/3 trial (referred to as "adaptive seamless phase II/III trial design" in the linked article). Can you find any evidence that there is a delineation between phase 2b and phase 3 in a combined study? Phases_of_clinical_research#Summary refers to both Phase 3 and combined Phase 2/3 studies as "late phase studies." In the context of this page I don't see the difference between an adaptive phase 2b/3 trial and a phase 3 trial. After reviewing the reference above, do you see a difference?
As far as a peer-reviewed publication is concerned, can you please provide links to the peer-reviewed publications corresponding to the other therapeutics in the list. I couldn't find one for many of them. It seems counter-productive to require a peer-reviewed publication for therapeutics that are in development for a recently discovered disease. This requirement is likely to eliminate therapeutics from companies without a large staff of clinicians, extensive university connections, and graduate students who can produce papers and peer review in a fraction of the time normally required. I appreciate your input and have benefited from it. If this content isn't appropriate for this page, I don't have a problem with that. It would help me to know how it is inconsistent with the current content so I do not make a similar mistake in the future. I invited another editor to take a look. Thanks for making that suggestion. -- TwoCandlesInTheDark ( talk) 05:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the 2 studies mentioned which showed lack of efficacy were both on hospitalised patients (i.e. severe SARS-Cov2 already at peak viral load), as for whether it is affective as a preventative is yet to be determined. Cdjknu ( talk) 09:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
It might well be worth addressing the topic of fusion proteins, in case some of the authors of this article have knowledge of the topic. See for example:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Thank you. -- Chris Howard ( talk) 09:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out why Vitamin-D is not featured on this page on the other similar one COVID-19 drug repurposing research.
There is a surprising amount of research on the go with trials and published papers. Safety at physiological doses is well proven yet widespread deficiencies remain uncorrected. Demonstrated benefits and learned consensus keeps telling us that it should be on the front line as a prophylactic to minimise severity even it it does nothing else.
Here is a secondary source of sorts that has valuable information in the conclusion. Vitamin D and COVID-19: evidence and recommendations for supplementation
Here are some of the published study results Vitamin D is effective for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 37 studies
Has this simply been forgotten or what is the reason it is a second class citizen to new drugs that have still to be invented?
Idyllic press ( talk) 21:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Of all the wonders shown to beat this dreadful disease, there's one drug that should be given a mention in this article... molnupiravir. According to this, it stops transmission of COVID-19 in 24 hours and interesting, by its own article here, it's found to stop transmission of SARS and MERS too. I know it's currently an experimental drug and who knows when it can be rolled out to the public, I just want to know if it can be added to this article or not. Bryn89 ( talk) 09:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Still early days (only a 30-patient sample), but looking good! Ref: "New Israeli Covid drug which cured 30 cases of disease hailed by scientists as 'huge breakthrough'" ( The Daily Telegraph). El_C 23:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Sources:
VIR-7831 &
GSK4182136, COVID-19 antibody therapies by
Vir Biotechnology &
GlaxoSmithKline.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
for news search: VIR-7831 EUA.
0mtwb9gd5wx (
talk)
21:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 drug development has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To add to the table of candidates (COVID‑19: candidate drug treatments in Phase III–IV trials)
Drug candidate: Apabetalone
Description: selective BET inhibitor
Existing disease approval: investigational
Trial sponsor(s): Resverlogix Corp
Location(s): United States
Expected results: March 22, 2022
Notes, references:
"An Open-Label Study of Apabetalone in Covid Infection". NIH National Library of Medicine. May 20, 2021. Retrieved May 24, 2021.
"Milken Institute Covid-19 Tracker". May 20, 2021. Retrieved May 24, 2021. Jonzobot ( talk) 19:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Seems several " 3C-like protease inhibitors" (such as " PF-00835231", " PF-07304814" and " PF-07321332") may be under consideration as possible drugs to treat the " COVID-19 disease" - QUESTION: is the following reference [1] worth adding to the main article? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 19:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Recent news (06/02/2021) [1] worth considering for the main article? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 00:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 drug development has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the hatnote, change "For a potential COVID-19 vaccine, see COVID-19 vaccine. " to "For COVID-19 vaccines, see COVID-19 vaccine. " 50.30.176.52 ( talk) 20:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Done.
Zefr (
talk)
21:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
This article currently doesn't mention molnupiravir, which was today approved for therapeutic use in the UK.I've edited the molnupiravir article but I'm unfamiliar with how things are done in these more specific COVID-19 related articles. Can someone else incorporate this information in the correct way? Mike Turnbull ( talk) 12:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)