Talk:Amantadine

Time to add a Section on use in Sars-CoV-2

There have been many mainstream press reports in Poland on the use of Amantadine in the treatment of Covid19. Over 500 patients treated by 1 doctor, possibly 2000 by other doctors. It seems mostly to lessen the symptoms and may have weak anti-viral effects. There is already a lot of literature, but RCTs are forthcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.144.208 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The biggest problem with amantadine is that the medication has been known for 50 years, is safe, cheap, and readily available in every pharmacy. A completely new (and almost untested) vaccine is a much more profitable business [because of the huge number of uninfected people]. even uninfected people need it. This is life. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a MEDRS. That's an anecdote. Stories like this can be found to support almost any medication for almost any condition. Do you have a source that has scientific validity? IAmNitpicking (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:IAmNitpicking: There are sources in Polish, though the scientists clearly avoid the subject. By the way, some conspiracy theories tell the truth :-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Some conspiracies are real. You have to provide evidence, though, not just say that there is some. I'm not ruling out that amantadine would be beneficial (which is not my job!), just saying that to be in a Wikipedia medical article, you have to provide MEDRS. Have you considered using your Polish sources (if they're MEDRS) to get the article in Polish Wikipedia updated? IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:IAmNitpicking: Vaccine manufacturers get billions of dollars from the government, so an alternative, cheaper solution would spoil the business. And because most people believe almost everything the government tells, my capacity to make them change their minds is close to zero. Besides they seem to be happy when they believe what they want to believe, and cognitive dissonance is not a pleasant experience. So, I'm not going to do anything about it.

PS. I wrote: some conspiracy theories tell the truth, though I wanted to write: some conspiracy theories are real, like you did. But all of them are real because they all exist in the real word. The only difference between them is that some of them tell the truth about reality, and some of them don't. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to WP:RGW, just to reflect settled mainstream knowledge as published in excellent sources. Any source about medical aspects of COVID-19, especially drug effects, needs the very best WP:MEDRS. Without those, there is nothing to say about the effects of Amantadine. Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer. I am not accusing any government of anything. What I wrote was pure speculation. I have no idea whether amantadine is effective in the treatment of Covid19, and the Polish sources are very vague. I would like to delete all the text in this topic, starting from my first entry. But to do so I need approval from the other contributors to this topic. @User:Alexbrn @User:IAmNitpicking: Are you agreed? 85.193.228.103 (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no text in the article anyway. Comments here will get moved to an archive in time. Alexbrn (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the sooner the better. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You don goofed up! The cyber police are coming for you. Herpesklaus (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

An article (many others can be googled up): https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-02866-9 Mikon (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is an article on a molecular mechanism that makes it a possible candidate as a COVID drug. Large clinical trials are needed before we (or anyone speaking scientifically) can say that amantadine is effective against COVID. As has been mentioned, please see WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's standard of quality, which this article just doesn't meet. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Lack of information about Amantandine used for treating COVID

The Polish wikipedia have large section about this. For example in Morfine article is the large section about "Non-medical use" , so I don't understand why there cannot be seciont "Non-official use". In Poland there is a hot topic - even members of parliament recomends using Amandantine for treatment (but not govmt itself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkan997 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

See the previous section. There has to be hard evidence from clinical trials, not people recommending it (be they members of parliament or whoever), for amantadine to be a serious option for COVID treatment. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added information about the drug, there's no evidence it works for COVID, and I've written just that. I've split information into the scientific background (the studies, metanalysis and a terminated clinical trial) and the phenomenon that surrounds the drug, similar to the more known cases of HCQ and ivermectin. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Amantadine against COVID-19

The edit has been reverted twice, the first time with the summary "Already covered in COVID-19 section" (there has been none before) and the other saying that it fails WP:NOTJOURNAL and notability ("not a substantial part of history").

Should the information about the research on the drug about COVID-19 and the rise of popularity of the drug in Poland be included? The model text is quoted [1] [2] in these two diffs (for the visual version, see here). Some minor modifications are of course possible. See also Polish Wikipedia. I am able to provide translations from Polish, if needed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, we should, both paragraphs. Both are compliant with WP:MEDRS. After making a brief mention of the interest of some scientists in the drug, a metaanalysis is cited which basically says "no good proof yet" (articles being analysed are given for convenience), and a mention of two clinical trials sponsored by the Polish govt is made, one of which was recently discontinued as there was no difference between placebo and amantadine. The paragraph conveys a simple point: there has been some interest, there were some low-quality preliminary studies, a clinical trial showed it was no different from placebo. I don't see how this can fail WP:NOTJOURNAL.

Zefr has dismissed the second paragraph as "not important part of history". I can attest that amantadine is as big a deal in Poland as ivermectin is elsewhere, but don't take my word for it - look at the sources (I haven't cited every source, there are so many of them that it even meets WP:SIGCOV for creating a separate article, and we are speaking of a single paragraph). Sales of the drug more than quadrupled the year following the dubious report by a private practitioner who claimed to have been curing COVID patients before COVID was first detected in Poland (first case was on 4 March 2020), politicians (mostly from the right) pressured the govt to fund two trials (mentioned above), the govt has restricted its sales because of the huge demand in the country; and crucially, it doesn't violate fringe as the paragraph is explicit that there is little support for the drug in the scientific community and that Polish authorities don't recommend the drug (though I can add more information to that effect if needed). WP:FRINGE is therefore not violated, as I didn't present it as a cure - far from it - but rather as an unproven treatment getting some rather heavy promotion. I can agree somewhat in one respect with Zefr though - it's not history, it's happening now. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I will add that the recent announcement of results have been a PITA for right-wing politicians, as evidenced here and here, who insist on a conspiracy to suppress the "true" data New data for the drug prescriptions in Poland available here, showing a five-fold increase in prescriptions (not even sales - prescriptions).

Also, apparently those who were prescribed amantadine are going to get some compensation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The second trial apparently does show some benefit. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, as was mentioned, this isn't history, it's a current event and WP:NOTNEWS covers it, as does WP:Current_Events_Editing. A brief mention would be appropriate, but a controversial, unproven and disputed use of a drug could be mistaken for advocacy for such unproven treatments. Given the general mess hat COVID-19 treatment is in the various journals, the incredible number of retractions, the history of in vitro testing and computational testing not panning out in in vitro usage, let's let the matter become actual history, rather than news that'll change daily before we commit to significant editing on the drug.Wzrd1 (talk)

I'm not aware of any article discussing Wikipedia's editing on amantadine. The Polish version (rather faulty) exists for more than a year, and no one seemed to take attention about it. The "current event" lasting from October 2020 and receiving sustained coverage in Polish media ever since is exactly the type of event that doesn't fall under NOTNEWS. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Background

In the previous two threads, several users have called to include information about the research about amantadine as a possible drug against COVID-19. In Poland, there has been some heavy (and mostly without evidence) promotion of the Viregyt-K pills (as amantadine is commercially sold in Poland) similar to what has been happening elsewhere with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (the latter drugs have even got two separate articles on Wikipedia about speculation on their efficacy and the political clashes about it). The public interest in the drug prompted a metaanalysis of three studies then available (cited) and forced, in a way, financing of two clinical trials, one recently terminated due to the lack of evidence and the other still underway. In any case, the drug shows no evidence of working against COVID so far, which is mentioned in the edit several times.

Use in Autism?

Good morning, I know the Wikipedia Editors as a class really dislike it when people "assign" things to them on the talk page. I'm going to do it anyway. Why? B/c I have in no way, shape, or form the necessary knowledge. I came here to gain it.

Amantadine is also prescribed off-label for patients with autism. The studies for this were first published in 2001. However, I came to wikipedia looking for a less "studies in the journal" explanation in how that was supposed to work, only to not find it listed. Insurance pays for it, which means it's approved to some extent.

I found these and can't understand them

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/cap.2016.0042 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565716/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11392343/ https://www.jwatch.org/jp200106060000003/2001/06/06/new-angle-treatment-autism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.98.30.109 (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's real, I know someone who was prescribed this drug off label, but Wikipedia typically doesn't cover this unless it gets noticed in WP:MEDRS sources. It seems like there's just one study in autistic children which is probably not enough to firmly conclude it has therapeutic value. (t · c) buidhe 09:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

4 papers, ones a review. At least two studies. Papers go back to 2001. 2600:1700:F90:6950:FC8E:206C:7618:A865 (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem to mention that amantadine is being investigated for use in treating neuropsychiatric disorders, with references, but not much beyond that. Clinicians continuously keep experimenting with new therapeutic methods and report results in academic journals; however, this is not a proof of efficacy or a widely accepted use. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Amantadine for depression

Given the vast amount of studies putting in evidence the potential of this molecule to treat depression, I really wonder why this usage has not been mentioned !!! 82.52.60.89 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The review literature indicates its possible use for treating depression remains under preliminary research and may be waning as a possibility, as there is a dropoff in publications on the topic over recent years. What would you consider as a strong enough source to indicate this as a sufficiently encyclopedic topic to discuss? At most, it would be mentioned in a research subsection

Treatment of depression is not mentioned in this clinical review. Zefr (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)