Talk:Chloroquine

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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. Peer reviewers: Grp05rx, BE5ST, Lucky Number 55ish, Thienqn5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Help! This article has been taken over by covid!

This article (albiet not as badly as Hydroxychloroquine) has been taken over by covid. Given the jury has come back and recommends against its use, it only merits a few sentences in this article, but obviously a lot of work went into this and I hate to just delete it.

As a result I'd like to fork some content into a new article for historical interest -> Draft:Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19. If you see stuff being deleted, don't worry, that's where it's going. Mvolz (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It's probably too specific to keep its own page. I figure it will end up as part of the page on the social effects/reaction to the pandemic along with other examples of "folk epidemiology" and the phenomena of covid shot hesitancy. It's extremely important to document. It will happen again.--66.190.13.201 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Snyonymy with 2,4-Dihydroxybenzoic acid

There is a chemistry question that I am unable to understand here: Talk:2,4-Dihydroxybenzoic acid#Synonymy with chloroquine. Invasive Spices (talk) 16 January 2022 (UTC)