Talk:Metoprolol
| WikiProject Pharmacology | (Rated Stub-class) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Does { { antianginals } } actually do something or can it be removed from the page? --WS 05:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Inaccuracies
The article lumps together metoprolol tartrate with succinate. The general pharmokinetics are similar, but not exactly the same. A distinction should be made. --Tarcieri 19:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- It currently says that Toprol XL is "metoprolol succinate, the sustained release formulation". Does this mean that the succinate salt is inherently longer-lasting (like polistirex or something), or is the sustained release mechanical, like most? The tablets are splittable, I believe... --Galaxiaad 03:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding indication in vasovagal syncope, the source points that metoprolol is not effective than conventional treatment in prevention-prophylaxis and no info is given about FDA status. It's more politically correct to remove vasovagal syncope from indications list, until at least some more scientific and legal ground is found for that matter. It may say "found as effective as conventional treatment in one article", but for "indication", isn't it right to wait for more publications and legal assurance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.141.130 (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Consider that source succinate salts are indicated from given FDA status. The general info re: treatment would be conventional, for prevention-prophylaxis (which is similar, but inherantly mechanical.) Publications regarding vasovagal synocope points to sustained tetoprolol tartrate indications (or such synoscopes indicate removal of the status of Toprol XL); therefore, effective pharmokeinetic assurances must be splittable? Please comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.210.75 (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree; this is specious. Sustained-release formulations regarding "publications and legal assurance" aren't right to point to metoprolol as an autosigned preceding contribution. It's more likely that the consensus regarding syncope assurance can be deemed legal on the grounds of effective indicative removals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.210.75 (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of generic names
why remove the various generic names of the drug? i think it's useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drues (talk • contribs) 03:45, 21 July 2006
- Because they are, except in rare cases, not WP:Notable (they have not developed the drug, undertaken any of teh original research into teh underlying condition for which it is used & so treated, pushed & marketed for its use). Generics are presecribed by the INN (or USAN) name, not the generic name (otherwise this would be brand-prescribing) and so it is of little consequence which brand the patient finds their local pharamcy has decided to stock with (specifying brands for antiepileptic medication, slow-release isodorbide mono- or di- nitrates, lithium and a few others are truely not bio-equivalent). David Ruben Talk 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Mr. Ruben. I think including generic producers of the drug are entirely within the confines of wikipedia's goal: information disemination. This file is not complete without the information.
I STRONGLY state that it is part of WP goal to display generic names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PADRAEG (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Patent expired?
Should this be mentioned?
Patent information is historical and should be reported in my opinion. 192.147.67.12 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The TOPROL-XL U.S. patents are due to expire in September of 2007.
external link here: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-30-2005/0004135907&EDATE=
Agreed. should always mension history and when will the drug expire. That is important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.233.254 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Source of Side Effect information
Reference 2 is "^ a b Canadian Online Pharmacy website: Metoprolol" and links to http://minitdrugs.com/quick_search.jsp?criteria=metoprolol. Three problems here. (1) Linking to a Canadian Online Pharmacy website sounds like spam. (2) The site minitdrugs.com no longer exists. (3) The text matches verbatim what other pharmacy sites say about this drug, which raises copyright questions.
