Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Contents

Bacopa monnieri[edit]

This article got a huge amount of text added by an IP and I am not sure whether this is appropriate (it's about the pharmacological properties of this plant). It seems well sourced, but perhaps someone from this project could also have a look? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Let's just say that this plant needed some pruning. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Haha, clever Nimptsch3 (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

Could you have a look at this submission? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Backlink removal[edit]

Hi, can somebody help fix the talk page of Ipratropium bromide/salbutamol? It has a backlink leading to the talk page of Ipratropium_bromide, because the software thinks it's a subpage of the latter. Thanks! Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no solution for that, to the best of my knowledge. Unless we can find a character in the charset that looks like a forward slash but isn't parsed by the wiki as a subpage. JFW | T@lk 17:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
One possibility would be to move Ipratropium bromide/salbutamol to Ipratropium bromide–salbutamol. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow. I just checked AC/DC and it also has the same problem. How about Ipratropium bromide+salbutamol? Or moving it to a page without the slash and using {{displaytitle}}, would that work? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That would mean changing most of the page titles in Category:Combination drugs and its subcategories, plus the links in the relevant navboxes (and modifying WP:PHARMMOS, of course). Is that worth the trouble? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, about the existing consensus for naming at PHARMMOS. Unlike the rock band, it's not clear to me that the source material, as opposed to Wikipedia, follows a convention of using the slash. To me, the slash sort of implies "or", when this is obviously a matter of "and". Personally, I prefer the n-dash over either the plus sign or the slash, but I agree that it's not very important. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The recognised name of these combination drugs is with a forward slash. I don't actually care what the talkpage looks like, as long as readers can find what they want. I think we need resounding consensus on this WikiProject before officially moving all pages to a title without a slash, using {{displaytitle}} and leaving behind redirects to use from the search bar.
It is just not important enough, I'm affraid. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine with me, and I agree that it's no big deal. However, it's not really the "recognized name" outside of this WikiProject, insofar as I can tell. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
So what about "amoxicillin/clavulinic acid" and "piperacillin/tazobactam"? JFW | T@lk 21:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomenclature-based renaming[edit]

See Talk:NBOH-2C-CN where several articles are requested to be renamed using a different nomenclature -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Should we have info on brand names in Wikipedia articles?[edit]

I've been working on the page for Ondansetron and I'm inclined to delete the "Brand names" section, but I don't want to just commandeer the article.

First, there's a somewhat random and not at all comprehensive list of manufacturers of the drug around the world. Since fluoxetine is a pretty commonly used drug, I assume that article must be pretty solid and well-maintained, so I thought I'd just do what they did and include all the available manufacturers/brands like they did here. However, as it turns out, a similar list for ondansetron would just be massive. The fluoxetine list can't be comprehensive, then, if the list for the much less widely-used ondansetron would rival fluoxetine's. Is it really useful for an encyclopedia to have this info, then--especially if it's not comprehensive or at least not current? Here are the brands & manufacturers of ondansetron around the world:

http://www.drugs.com/international/ondansetron.html

It's insanity. Do we really need to reproduce this info in the articles? Especially since it's difficult to keep current and is easily accessible on the web. For the sake of consistency, can we just put external links to these lists at drugs.com at the bottoms of our pages?


The rest of the section is just a blurb about Baxter's approval status for manufacturing ondansetron:

On May 29, 2006, Baxter Healthcare received tentative approval[21] to market its own label of Ondansetron Injection, USP, 8 mg/50 mL and 32 mg/50 mL iso-osmotic sodium chloride solution, beginning upon expiration of GSK's patent later that year.

It seems pretty random to have info on one pharmaceutical company's FDA approval process. It's more like a news item that would have been relevant in 2006. Update: I've deleted this from the article.

So, I just want to delete the entire section. Nimptsch3 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


I don't see why having such a section is necessarily bad; on the contrary, some people might be interested in reading a drug article to learn about available brands. However, in the interest of time for the editor (and the reader), it would probably be more useful to constrain the list to medications that are currently available in different regions. If that list is too big, another constraint like the "top X brands by (some measurement factor, e.g. sales)" brands per region might make for a more feasible list size. If there's no clear way to filter a list, linking out might be best. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, those suggestions would make the list size more reasonable. Still, I'm not sure if that kind of data (e.g., top sellers) is available, or if it's wortwhile to do that kind of work and constant maintenance. Top sellers are probably in constant flux to some degree, and what's the point of an outdated encyclopedia?Nimptsch3 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit: As to your second question, if it's about the approval process for the prototype brand (first time the drug goes through the process), then it's probably worth keeping it - possibly in the history section. Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I took out the bit about Baxter. It wasn't even about the prototype brand--it was just one of the [now many] available generics
I have no concerns with a brand name section at the end of the article. Only the first one or two should be mention in the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. No concerns in the sense of, you think it's a good section, or as in, those sections don't interest you? I'm inclined to just have mention of the one or two brands in the lead IMO.Nimptsch3 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am okay with people creating exhaustive lists of brand names and placing it at the end of the article. When there they should not be capitalized though. The first one or two brand names should be mentioned in the lead but not any more. English Wikipedia is used by many people in primarily non English speaking countries. We are a global encyclopedia and therefore I think we should have this global information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything above except the capitalization of brand names. Brand names are proper nouns hence following standard English grammar conventions, brand name should be capitalized. Also the convention used within the pharmaceutical industry is lower case for non-proprietary names and capitalized for proprietary brand names. Finally the difference in capitalization provides a quick visual clue to help distinguish between non-proprietary and brand names. Boghog (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry mis typed. I meant should not be bolded. They should definitely be capitalized. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, we seem to have a consensus for including brand names. Thank you for the feedback, everyone! Nimptsch3 (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

Is this drug notable? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We have articles on all manner of substances that are not (yet) in clinical use. There are secondary sources that support its potential use but I can't find any trials (even phase 1/2). The content could be merged into Platinum-based antineoplastic. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Lists of side effects by User:Fuse809[edit]

See for example Imatinib, Axitinib, Nilotinib, Doxepin. In my opinion, such lists are practically unusable. They also are against WP:PHARMMOS ("Extract the pertinent information rather than just dumping low-level facts in a big list.") What do others think? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I pruned Imatinib since it had way too many extremely low incidence symptoms listed. Still could use a little work cutting down the size of uncommon. Otherwise, I don't think the approach is necessarily bad; it just needs to be limited to what's useful to the reader. Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Many of these side effects are very low incidence. Need to focus on the common ones and delete the rest. Boghog (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of these pages that I edited were poorly referenced and written, for that matter, prior to when I edited them. The reason why I edited them the way I did was because I don't know about you's but I find it easier to find side effects in lists than in prose. The other reason is that to write about every single side effect in prose would take forever. If you want to change the adverse effects sections without reducing them to the couple of sentences they were before I edited these pages feel free. The WP:PHARMMOS mostly referred to the layout of the articles. Fuse809 (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and, btw, have a peakaboo at this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazopanib) where I've left a little adverse effect summary section. Fuse809 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just want to state that I'm not going to do anything about these (meanwhile dozens of) articles because if I would I'd just be rude and delete most of the side effects. These lists seem to contain any side effect down to and below 0.1% frequency. Not to mention the standard "Contraindicated in patients with hypersensitivity to the substance X or any of its excipients" which is not only a lawyers' claim without a scientific basis, it is also simply wrong when we are writing about, say, paricalcitol as opposed to Zemplar. Please think before copypasting. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I propose we move these lists to a page call "List of side effects of X". Per the MOS large lists should not be within articles. We can than put a "see also" tag at the top of the section. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have made these changes to trazodone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. Maybe we should use a columns layout, but that's a minor question. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Also support. Boghog (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
What are the guidelines that would make it clear that we shouldn't have long lists of adverse effects? What are the guidelines that would make it clear that we shouldn't have wholesale copying of side effects from the product label? What's the resolution process if someone keeps reverting and putting them back in? Nbauman (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that this sort of thing belongs in a summary article, as we are not taking the time and space to explain the nuances of how to interpret these data dumps. For example, in the Fluoxetine article, Fuse has listed the following side effect incidences:
  • Headache: > 10%. The incidence of headache per the label was 22% in the treatment arm and 19% in the placebo arm, so I would think that the atrributable rate of headache was 3%.
  • Anxiety: > 10%, but its 12% in the treatment arm and 6% in the placebo arm
  • Diarrhea: > 10%, but the incidence in the treatment group was 11% and that in the placebo arm was 7%.
  • There are 24 side effects listed for which an incidence of 0.1 to 1% is given. With only 4000 or so patients in the safety database, it is not statistically possible to even determine for most of these whether the prevalence in treated patients is really greater than that in placebo treated patients. (I have no idea where this data even came from, the article contains AEs that aren't even listed in the U.S. Prescribing Information). There are an additional 32 side effects listed that have even lower or unknown incidence.
However well intention this may be, I don't think it is helpful to our readers, and in fact, it is to some extent misleading. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Explanation in prose is best IMO. These lists can go in a list article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm trying to find WP guidelines to support that position in case of disputes with well-intentioned editors. What are the links to WP guidelines that make it clear that these data dumps don't belong in the article? Can you cite a guideline and text? If not, should we rewrite the guideline to make it clear? --Nbauman (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Lenalidomide[edit]

A bunch of IP-based editors is adding the same bunch of primary research studies as references, despite attempts to engage. JFW | T@lk 11:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks peaceful now, but have watched that page and will chime in, RL permitting. -- Scray (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

New transclusion template[edit]

Just putting this notice here due to this being too much work for just myself.

I made a new wikilink-annotated metabolic pathway transclusion template {{phenylalanine biosynthesis}} which is applicable to a lot of articles, including several (groups) not in the template itself (e.g., trace amine, catecholamine, tyrosine hydroxylase, phenylalanine hydroxylase). It's too much work for me to customize a caption for all relevant articles that this template could be used on, so I'm just putting it here in the event anyone has any editing interest in a relevant article and cares to add it.
For technical reference, the cofactor information on all enzymes except COMT is in Dopamine#Biochemical mechanisms, the citations for the image pathways are in the commons page description, and the compounds that are off the typical "catecholamine pathway" are phenethylaminergic trace amines (TAAR1 agonists).

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks amazing. Clever tricks - using a bitmap for the pathway and annotations for the text/links. How much time did that take you? JFW | T@lk 20:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I think I spent about 2-3 hours creating and double-checking/verifying the pathway info the image and about another 2 hours making the annotation template. Making {{Annotated image 4}} took me somewhere between like 12-20 hours though - I did lots of intermittent work on it.Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit:That includes the time I spent making the documentation.Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

complexes[edit]

I came across the term complex in article Gintonin but could find no obvious place to point it. Complex is a disambiguation page which lists several specific types of complex, none of which seem to fit the bill, but there is no single article that explains in more general terms what a complex is in a chemical sense. From a layman's perspective I think that this term, or probably Complex (chemistry) needs an article of its own. I made this suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Complex and it was suggested that I include pharmacology experts too. --Derek Andrews (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SkinPro[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article SkinPro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

all the sources seem to be press releases or otherwise from this cosmeceutical company itself. There is nothing that indicates that the company is notable. I couldn't find anything independent or reliable in web searches either. See WP:CORP

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Does Matrixyl skin care active ingredient belong in the encyclopedia?[edit]

There was a recent addition to peptide that I and another editor reverted. However conversation with the original editor made be me read this popular press article that made me think there may be some notability to this product.

Should we instead write about Matrixyl in its own article, or as a part of skin care or cosmeceutical?

Conversation at Talk:Peptide#Beauty_products.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Paroxetine article misinterprets research, article seems to be getting hijacked by anti-paxil activists[edit]

Hi, I am not a wiki or psychopharm expert, but when reading the wikipedia page on Paroxetine, I spotted a few red flags compared to other references. Looking further I believe false statements have made their way into the page with dishonest footnote attribution. I don't know what the right response is so I'm bringing it to your attention. Again, I am not an expert so please check that I'm interpreting these papers correctly!

The second paragraph of the article on Paxil includes the following statement:

"In both adults and children the efficacy of paroxetine for depression is comparable to that of placebo."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2211353

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/2004-4065b1-10-TAB08-Hammads-Review.pdf (p30)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1001%2Farchpsyc.63.3.332

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/drugsafetymessage/con019472.pdf

This is a very strong claim and followed by 4 footnotes to make it look like it is well supported. But the footnotes certainly do not support this claim. Furthermore, 3 of the 4 footnotes are side-effect studies that do not measure efficacy at all, but rather suicidal behavior. Their inclusion as footnotes is dishonest, since the casual reader will assume all 4 studies back up the quote.

  1. The first footnote is a meta-study that actually shows the the drug is more effective than placebo (see the efficacy graph, all but one of the tests have paxil beating placebo) but the researchers' opinion in the conclusion suggests the major side effects may outweigh the minor benefits. It's certainly worthwhile to include this conclusion and the study is legitimate, but it's been misinterpreted - the results actually prove the opposite, the opinion in the conclusion has been mislabeled as a proven result.
  2. The second study only concerns side effects and not efficacy.
  3. The 3rd and 4th studies only cover side effects in pediatric patients and have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the medication, and nothing to do with adult testing.
  4. "

I conclude that these four references certainly do not support such an extreme claim sitting at the head of the article.

When I looked at Talk:Paroxetine, it is extremely contentious with editors accusing each other of being "shills" or promoting "spin". FWIW, there is a large anti-paxil community online which may explain why this talk page is so opinionated. This is a science article and if someone has a contrary opinion they need to accurately cite a peer-reviewed article.

Check my reading of those footnotes, it seems to me that this page needs to be locked and reviewed by an expert, the quote has been there for a while. Thank you!

50.46.158.65 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The first ref is a systematic review of both published and unpublished literature ( a key in this topic area as half of the studies go unpublished and it is typically all the negative studies which full into this group ).
This 2008 review states "Among adults with moderate to severe major depression in the clinical trials we reviewed, paroxetine was not superior to placebo in terms of overall treatment effectiveness and acceptability. These results were not biased by selective inclusion of published studies." [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply! You have quoted from the result text of the abstract. I would encourage you to look at the result text of the paper's conclusion -- the abstract conclusion oddly conflates leaving the test early with failure. Here is the full conclusion:

In this systematic review of published and unpublished studies comparing paroxetine with placebo in adults with major depression, we found that the drug was not superior to placebo in terms of the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment for any reason. However, when we examined the results using specific measures of depression, we found that paroxetine was significantly superior to placebo.

The key point is that their Primary Outcome is leaving the trial early. That is the first sentence of the conclusion. Those results are in Figure 2. You can see that they are indistinguishable from placebo. The Secondary Outcome is actual change in depression scores on two psychological tests. Those results are in Figures 3 and 4 and, as noted, significantly favor paroxetine.
In the interpretation following, they note that the side effects may outweigh the benefits. But the paper does not show that the efficacy on psychological tests is equivalent between placebo and paroxetine, it shows the opposite. While the assertion that "all antidepressants are no more effective than placebo" as popularized by Irving Kirsch got a lot of mass media attention, it is not the dominant opinion of psychiatry at this point:

American Psychiatric Association President-elect Nada Stotland, MD, maintained that studies like those reviewed by Kirsch and colleagues, which compare a single drug to placebo, do not accurately reflect the way doctors prescribe antidepressants. "We know that many people who are depressed do not respond to the first antidepressant they try," she says. "It can take up to an average of three different antidepressants until we find the one that works for a particular individual. Therefore, testing any single antidepressant on a group of depressed individuals will show that many of them do not improve."

50.46.158.65 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
With respect to "no evidence in children" we have "Ten publications, comprising a total of 2,046 patients, evaluated the efficacy of four SSRIs (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline and citalopram) in child and adolescent depression. It is noted that an additional 6 trials (with a total of 1,234 patients) were not reported by the industry because of a lack of efficacy or problematic side effects, including suicidal behaviors. Meta-analyses revealed no data supporting the use of SSRIs, except for fluoxetine." [2] Have looked at a lot of the available review articles for children and all of them are hesitant like this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This new paper looks better. The FDA currently does not recommend the use of paroxetine in adolescents. Thank you! 50.46.158.65 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree in adults whether or not SSRIs are effective in mild to severe depression is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The overall efficacy also needs to take into account adverse effects thus "For continuous measures, the effect of paroxetine was small. However, it could be argued that concluding that paroxetine is not effective on the basis of a small mean difference may be erroneous, given that a small difference may have an important impact on a substantial number of patients.26 For dichotomous measures, we found that, for every 100 adults with depression who received treatment with paroxetine, 53 experienced a favourable response; of these, however, 42 would have had a favourable response to placebo, such that the response was attributable to paroxetine in only 11 cases. This means that physicians would need to expose 100 patients to paroxetine to provide benefit to 11. This modest effect was offset by tolerability problems, as indicated by patients who left studies because of adverse effects and by patients who reported adverse effects (even though they remained in the study)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Have clarified with "In adults while there is a small improvement in depression symptoms this appears to be balanced by an increase in adverse effects" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes look good and correctly reflect the paper, thank you. 50.46.158.65 (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Many of the pharmacology articles on Wikipedia get very little attention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sertraline[edit]

Have nominated for FAR. It is mostly supported by primary sources. This concern was brought up by Anthony months ago and has not been addressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Oleptro[edit]

I just wondered if we really need an article for every pharmaceutical brand name... What is general consensus? SelfishSeahorse (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Redirected back to trazodone. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
User:SelfishSeahorse Thanks for picking this up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Resveratrol article[edit]

More eyes on the Resveratrol (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) article are needed. New editor Local4554 is repeatedly blanking material at the article without justifying his edits, and despite warnings not to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen an article this bad for a long time. It is a mess of primary research whose use is attempting to promote medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Norepinephrine[edit]

This article should have a drug box rather than a chem box IMO. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My two cents worth is that yeah, a drugbox is appropriate. Frankly I think a drugbox should be used for any compound that is either used in medicine or as a recreational drug. Fuse809 (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I've converted it to a drugbox and updated the revid here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Index. That said, it needs these fields filled out (I added licence_US):
<!--Clinical data-->
| tradename = 
| Drugs.com = 
| pregnancy_US = 
| legal_AU = 
| legal_CA = 
| legal_UK = 
| legal_US = 
| licence_US = Norepinephrine
| legal_status = 
| dependency_liability = 
| routes_of_administration= 

<!--Pharmacokinetic data-->
| bioavailability =
| protein_bound =
| metabolism =
| elimination_half-life = 
| excretion = 
Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 03:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

SVG image replacement[edit]

This is my first real attempt at an svg diagram (AADC is annotated/wikilinked). Anyone have any feedback or suggestions? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 07:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A nicely improved improved diagram. I like the improved annotations. I would make directed paths a bit thicker, as they tend to disappear when the image is shrunk to thumbnail size. "Efflux" is the proper technical term, but "release" may be easier to understand for the general reader. --Mark viking (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I updated the wording and made the paths 60% thicker. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 02:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth nominating this image for WP:FP? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 13:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

NM - I ended up nominating it anyway. Wish me luck. :) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/TAAR1-Dopamine neuron Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Manual of style discussion[edit]

WP:MEDMOS and WP:PHARMMOS do not align; a discussion is here regarding aligning them (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Ordering). --LT910001 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Following Recent changes in the WP Pharmacology pages[edit]

Rx symbol border.svg
Pharmacology recent changes
List overview · Updated: 2014-02-23 · This box: view · talk

Please see the box on the right, and risk a click. You can put the box on a page by adding

{{Pharmacology recent changes}}

See the template's page for documentation. Talks at the Template talkpage please, the development continues. Suggested for PHARM by Anthonyhcole. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones nominated for deletion[edit]

Reasoning explained at the nomination page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones Formerly 98 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

NOACs[edit]

I've been seeing the changes made by Truebreath to the articles on new anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban). So far I've not tried to interfere, but I have some worries about excessive detail, weak sourcing, and other content issues. Anyone interested in having a look? JFW | T@lk 00:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 05/03[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bemitil aka Metaprot. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the combination of copyright violation and manifest lack of notability, I don't think that it is salvageable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeking agreement about disambiguation[edit]

There is a recent article about a U.S. Navy aircraft squadron called VP-16, which at this moment is named VP-16 (U.S. Navy). It is one of about 20 articles on squadrons named "VP-nn", and the only one that isn't named just "VP-nn". I would love to be able to rename the Navy article as plain "VP-16", and include in it a disambiguation link to Etoposide. Right now, VP-16 is a disambiguation link to Etoposide, which has a disambiguation link to VP-16 (U.S. Navy). I think that doing it the other way would be what's best for all concerned, but I don't know if Etoposide people would agree. Lou Sander (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, so long as there is a hatnote to both Etoposide and to the Herpes viral protein. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 13/03[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Titanocene Y. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This one has potential conflict of interest and notability problems. I have left comments there. Boghog (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Methandrostenolone[edit]

This is a pretty popular illicit steroid and is listed as high importance but the article reads like a dodgy advert. I'm gonna give it a rewrite but don't have good knowledge to improve the content. Could someone help? Testem (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Xasodfuih:

AfC submission - 20/03[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Drug2Gene. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 24/03[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/N-Methylacetamide Salvinorin. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ketoprofen[edit]

Hello. Having consulted the Ketoprofen "Efficacy" section yesterday [3], I decided to rewrite it [4]. However, I see PHARMMOS does not actually contemplate this section. Maybe this sort of information should be comprised in "Medical uses"? Or maybe the project has good reason to avoid it? Some clean up needed perhaps... Cheers, 86.169.210.196 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Drug-emerging[edit]

I just discovered {{Drug-emerging}}. I'm not sure how helpful this is (we've got about 0.9 bazillion articles about experimental drugs), but maybe someone wants to use it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is already being misused. I just removed it from articles about marketed pharmaceutical drugs in which a "lack of published research" should not be an issue. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm concerned about any use of this template now. Based on the template's documentation and the way that it is currently used, I think it contradicts some of Wikipedia's core policies. It is used on articles for which there are no WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in order to justify keeping content that is based only on anonymous posts on recreational drug discussion forums. For example, this edit recently showed up on my watchlist. If an article about a new designer drug has content that cannot be referenced to reliable sources, that content should be removed based on WP:V and/or WP:RS. If "sources may fail to meet Wikipedia standards due to insufficient published research" as the template states, then no content based on those sources should be included in the article. And if there are no sources at all that meet Wikipedia standards, then the article should be deleted per WP:GNG and/or WP:V. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Nominated for deletion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Problems with Nootropic & Template:Antihyperkinetics[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48#Nootropic_-_the_opposite_of_WP:MEDRS. I could use some help or even just some feedback on fixing this. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Due to two new users reverting my edits from May/June, I'd appreciate feedback on my attempts to fix the WP:MEDRS problems in this article in the Talk:Nootropic#The recent content revision and WP:MEDRS thread. Thanks - Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

endorphin and beta-endorphin[edit]

Seems like endorphin was written by a lot of lay-people who don't realize that they're writing about one particular type of endorphin instead of the group. Almost all the refs fail MEDRS. The lead called these compounds neurotransmitters before I edited it as well. I think any salvageable parts of this article should just be merged into beta-endorphin and the "endorphins" article should be converted to a {{set index}} article of endorphins. Any objections/thoughts? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 08:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Template:Neuropeptides, in the section about endorphins, we have several pages about specific, individual types of endorphins, as we should. As such, I don't really see merging Endorphin into Beta-endorphin, even though beta is certainly the most prominent type. I'd rather see the Endorphin page be rewritten according to WP:Summary style. But I very much agree with you that we have a problem with different endorphins being mixed up, page-by-page. Indeed, there is no good reason to have an infobox about POMC at the top of the beta-e page. The general endorphin page should be about the peptides as a group, without the pharmacology of individual members, and each individual page should focus only on that particular peptide (with links to the others). --Tryptofish (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  YesY Merger complete. I followed your suggested approach and moved all the beta-endorphin specific content to that page. I cut some of the sources that failed MEDRS on the page and marked some of the remaining text with appropriate templates ([medical citation needed] or [non-primary source needed]). Also listed the group of endorphins in the lead to clarify the article scope. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

FDA Approval Summaries[edit]

Example of finding FDA approval summaries using Zyvox.jpg

FDA approval summaries for new drugs can be found as described below (apologies if this is common knowledge).

I've found these useful because they typically contain varying amounts of detail not present in published accounts of the trials, because the sponsor is required to include all existing clinical data in the NDA whether published or not, and because they contain some independent analysis/criticism of the trial design and sponsor's interpretation of the data. Though the quality of this analysis varies, it typically includes at least an independent statistical analysis with some sensitivity analysis and a detailed discussion of the more serious AEs. These are mostly available for drugs approved post 1990 or so.

  • Go to the Drugs@FDA website and type the drug name into the search box (example I'll use here is linezolid). You can use either the brand name or the generic name here.
  • If, as in the present example, you get a list containing both brand names and USAN (generic) names, click on the brand name. (The USAN link will be for an ANDA, and will not contain an approval summary).
  • Click on Zyvox. This gets you to a table of different formulations of the drug. Each has an associated NDA number.
  • Click on the lowest NDA number (earliest application). This brings up a page which gives you a number of choices including "Label Information", "Approval history....." and "Other important information...."
  • Click on "Approval history, letters, reviews and related documents. This takes you to a historical list of regulatory actions, including the original approval and the history of changes to the drug label.
  • Going to the earliest date, for more recently approved drugs (post-1990), one will usually find an approval summary. Clicking takes you here where you will find a bunch of PDF documents. Clinical data review is found in the one entitled "Medical Review", preclinical data, typically including animal and in vitro carcinogenicity, toxicology, reproductive toxicololgy, and the like is usually in the Pharmacology Review.

Leaflet For Wikiproject Pharmacology At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Isotretinoin[edit]

There has been some disagreement regarding some edits to the Isotretinoin article, some of which is MEDRS related. I was wondering if we could get some more eyes on this and some input on the article Talk page. The discussion to date on the article talk page begins with the section entitled Edits of "May 10-17 2014" Many thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 03/06[edit]

Draft:U-47700 (drug). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Propose to merge two Salvinorin articles[edit]

…that are virtually identical (EOM- and MOM- derivatives). Please have a look here, [5], and pardon formatting. This is my first hosting of a merger discussion. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Robitussin DAC[edit]

It appears that someone merged Robitussin with Robitussin DAC over a year ago. I completely support the merger of the information from both articles; however, the final article should eventually get moved back to Robitussin. Granted most of the content currently in the article refers to the codeine preparations, we should add more info (besides pop culture) about the more common and available dextromethorphan preparations. Once the article includes plenty of facts about all of Robitussin's well-known drug varieties and the company in general instead of their codeine syrups and DXM's media presence, we can fittingly rename it Robitussin.

We can move this discussion to Talk:Robitussin DAC as well if you guys want; I just posted in WikiProject Pharmacology to gain some publicity for my cause.

Forgive me if I didn't follow the standard procedure here; I haven't been editing as much as I used to and I'm a little rusty on Wikipedia etiquette. —Reelcheeper (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Improve readability and information on Desiccated thyroid extract wikipedia page[edit]

I would like to make improvements to the desiccated thyroid extract wikipedia page Desiccated_thyroid_extract. From using the product and surface level research, I would like to work on the following: 1) restructuring the page 2) adding additional information, 3) adding/finding citations to support new and existing information and 4) rewriting content for readability and clarification. Since I am new to making these types of edits, I would appreciate any assistance with any of the above. Would anyone be willing to collaborate with the research? Thank you!

Presto808 (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic routes in drug articles - style guide?[edit]

I've posted a proposal over at the Medicine project talk page suggesting a modification to the pharmacology and medicine style guides discouraging the addition of detailed chemical synthetic routes to articles. I don't believe these are of interest to the average reader. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Pharmacology at Wikimania 2014 (updated version)[edit]

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion regarding FDA[edit]

here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking for updated drug monographs from an international/intergovernmental source[edit]

At the moment, the only source for current drug safety information that I'm aware of is prescribing information approved by the USFDA, since these monographs are maintained via label revisions. As far as international and/or non-governmental references for drug safety, I've found that PubChem (NCBI-published) extensively references HSDB-TOXNET (a comprehensive toxicology database; NLM-published), which in turn primarily references drug monographs published by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) (comprised of the WHO + other UN bodies). The IPCS is intergovernmental, but unfortunately they don't seem to update their monographs regularly, if at all. Consequently, I'm still looking for a good international source for comprehensive drug information.

Examples of the amphetamine and methamphetamine monographs:

So, does anyone happen to know of an international or non-governmental organization that publishes and updates comprehensive data sheets on pharmaceuticals? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 01:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you can try searching the database of the European Heads of Medicines Agencies. Generally you’ll get the history of the market authorization (including public assessment reports) and – if you are lucky – the approved SPC (Summary of Product Characteristics = EMA’s term for FDA’s “label”). Hope that helps. Alfie↑↓© 17:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Alfie, I'll look into that. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit question over whether seco-, nor-, and homosteroid classes should appear in steroids[edit]

A discussion has been started at the Wikiprojects Chemistry Talk page, over whether the steroids article should be moved away from IUPAC and NLM Mesh inclusion of secosteroids, to a different definition. (The Steroid article currently does include seco-, nor-, homo-, and is planned to include heterocyclic steroids.) The article cannot both proceed with, and without the the coverage of these non-6-6-6-5 tetracyclic variants, and the argument seems to be that despite MESH and IUPAC inclusion, that only classic tetracyclic structures should be covered (despite nomenclature and biosynthetic relationships between all of these). If you have an opinion, please chime in at the Wikiproject Chemistry talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

There has been suggestion that the discussion take place fully at the Secosteroid Talk page, and I do not disagree. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Psychostimulant (technically amphetamine) addiction cascade - feedback[edit]

Signaling cascade in the nucleus accumbens that results in psychostimulant addiction

Insert witty caption here.

I'm still undecided on whether or not to use this image outside ΔFosB, but if anyone has any feedback - technical, cosmetic or otherwise - for improving this, I'd appreciate it. Thanks Face-smile.svgSeppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is it's an excellent job, I know I tend to disagree with your opinion but on this I think it's a beautiful diagram. You should be proud of yourself. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 14:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


FDA drug safety updates[edit]

As previously noted here, Wikipedia has been criticized for not quickly updating drug safety information released by the FDA:

Hwang TJ, Bourgeois FT, Seeger JD (2014). "Drug safety in the digital age". N. Engl. J. Med. 370 (26): 2460–2. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1401767. PMID 24963564. Lay summaryMinnPost. 

One can sign up for e-mail updates to FDA "Recalls and Safety Alerts" and "MedWatch Safety Alerts" here. I have done so and I recently received this alert:

Based on the above alert, I updated itraconazole with this edit. I will try to go through the list myself, but this is a long list so I would appreciate some help. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

True but this is also true of updates by the TGA, MHRA and EMA, it's not just the FDA we're slow to update articles based on. Plus, we generally try to keep our articles neutral and avoid giving undue weight to particular regulatory administrations like the FDA, for instance, so if we keep up to date with the FDA I believe we should also try to keep up-to-date with the other regulatory administrations too. I will still try to help you with your endeavours when I find myself free as I do believe you are right, we are slow to updates, I just recommended we speed up with regard to other regulatory administrations and their updates too. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 17:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should include updates from other regulatory agencies [ TGA (Australia), MHRA (UK), EMA (Europe)]. Do these other agencies provide e-mail alerts like the FDA? Boghog (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know this so I used Google to find out, thank goodness for it as it gave me the answer in minutes. Yes two do provide free email updates. TGA: Australia; MHRA: UK and EMA does not, sadly. The great thing about the MHRA, however, is that I am yet to come across an update they make that isn't reflected by an update by the EMA. Hence if an update by the MHRA has been made a quick Google search should be able to tell us if the EMA started the safety update. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 18:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Spinning gifs on drug articles violate Wikipedia standards[edit]

Greetings. I'm not a member of this group but I've noticed an issue that I think this group should be aware of. Many of the articles about drugs violate Wikipedia style guidelines. Specifically they have gifs of the drug molecule that rotate and never stop. The latest one I just noticed is: Gabapentin For some people with disabilities (I personally know someone with epilepsy that this is true for) web design like this makes it virtually impossible for them to read the article. I don't have that problem but I do find the gifs extremely annoying. But this isn't about personal preference it's about violating Wikipedia accesibility standards. Here is the relevant policy: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(accessibility)#Animations.2C_videos_and_audio "To be accessible, an animation (GIF – Graphics Interchange Format) should either: not exceed a duration of five seconds (which results in making it a purely decorative element),[6] or be equipped with control functions (stop, pause, play).[7]" I.e., either spin for 5 seconds or less than stop or provide a control so that users can stop the spinning if they want to. A while back I raised this issue on the talk page for Wellbutrin and it was eventually changed but I've noticed it on almost every other drug article that I've visited and don't have the energy to raise it on every talk page. BTW, I would make the change myself, I even looked at the code for the Wellbutrin article but I couldn't figure it out, I've done a lot of editing but I like to write not mess with graphics. IMO, this is fairly important. I would bet money that you are turning off a non-trivial number of users who come to those pages due to the inaccessible design. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. There ought to be simple technical means to address this site-wide, with default behaviour being compliant. The problem isn't specific to drug articles alone. Of course, any decent web browser supports a setting disabling animation, but not everyone can access such controls. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I also agree. These spinning gifs are very distracting, especially in infoboxes that have a prominent place in drug articles. There was a previous discussion here. Perhaps WP:PHARMOS should be amended to discourage the use of animated images. Boghog (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Your points, Mad, are very valid! I think you're almost prophetic, in this. I think you should pat yourself on the back or have beer, whatever you do to celebrate as you have changed my view and I will be arguing with you! Up 'til now I thought it was merely a preference thing, some like 'em some don't, I being their creator, obviously like 'em. But now you have made that point I am in agreement with you, I was coming here to direct you to the major conversation (which is here) and disagree with your points. But you know what I am now convinced you are right and I am amending my viewpoint. I do think, however, that we should include links to 3D models in the drugbox, for those that are interested! Thank you for making me see the error of my ways! Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 18:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis[edit]

User:Deass and 86.23.68.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem similar and other socks are listed here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just, for my own personal clarity, are you saying they're the same person, by calling them socks? Like as in "sock puppets"? Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 20:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes the other two IP are the same as Deass. Not sure about this third one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Have blocked account as a likely sock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)