Talk:Levocetirizine
| WikiProject Pharmacology | (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
This page was nominated for deletion on 23 Jun 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
article has improved considerably, should therefore not be deleted rikXL 22:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Third generation ??
Should this drug be genuinely considered as a third-generation antihistamine. In effect, it's only a minor derivative from the second-generation cetirizine, and nothing like the advance that cetirizine and other second-generation drugs were from the first-generation "sedating" antihistamines. My feeling is that to call it "third-generation" is unjustified hype.. and, as an aside, it's made very little impact on the marketplace.
SunnieBG 11:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the article should be deleted, it contains in a nutshell what is really new about the drug.
I am gonna add an external link giving latest researh showing xyzal can actually prevent asthma attacks.
[edit] Structural formula
Structural formula given in the drugbox is that of an unspecified enantiomer of cetirizine; it can be used for racemic cetirizine, but not for levocetirizine, which is stereochemicaly the (R)-enantiomer (L-isomer); the correct structural formula is:
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7821/levocetirizinedv8.png
--84.163.87.66 10:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Research Statement unsupported by footnote
The claim of 70% reduction in asthma events in children is not related in any way to the linked paper (footnote 2), which measures nasal and asthma symptoms in adults. This statement needs to be supported or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.69.183 (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Poorly constructed sentence.
This sentence is just weird. :
"The manufacturers claim it to be more effective with fewer side effects than the second-generation drugs; however, there have been no published studies supporting this assertion, although other studies have concluded it may be more effective.[1]"
Splitting up side effects and effectiveness would make it clear.
Something like :"Some studies as well as the claims of the manufacturer state it as being more effective. The manufacturer also claims it to have fewer side effects." would make it look better but I'll leave it to the main creator of the article or someone with a better grasp of English to edit the main article instead of me.
The original puts it's effectiveness as being a claim at the beginning of the sentence but by the end it's a conclusion..
83.101.83.96 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
