ArticleMedical hypotheses2021
Antihistamine and cationic amphiphilic drugs, old molecules as new tools against the COVID-19?
Article in Medical hypotheses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overview of sleep management during COVID-19.Sleep medicine · 2022Review
- Sigma-1 Receptor Ligands Chlorpromazine and Trifluoperazine Attenuate CaCell and tissue biology · 2022Article
- Chemoinformatic Analysis of Psychotropic and Antihistaminic Drugs in the Light of Experimental Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Activities.Advances and applications in bioinformatics and chemistry : AABC · 2021Article
- Resources and computational strategies to advance small molecule SARS-CoV-2 discovery: Lessons from the pandemic and preparing for future health crises.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Review
- Sphingolipids as Modulators of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Review
- Epidemiological and Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19: A Retrospective Multi-Center Study in Pakistan.Frontiers in public healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several studies have reported that certain psychoactive drugs could have a protective effect against SARS-CoV-2. Herein, we propose that antihistamines (anti-H1) and cationic amphiphilic drugs (CAD), specifically, have the capacity to disrupt virus entry and replication. In addition, several of these molecules have limited side effects and as such could be promising prophylactic candidates against SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.