Wikipedia talk:WikiProject drugs

Archives
Archive 1: June 2004 – July 2006

Mediation re Template styling

There has been discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-09 Pharmacology Templates as to the inclusion or not of ATC codes for each drug - consensus seems to have been not, but Ok on template's title line. Also opportunity taken to discuss overall format - with comma or · pip · separated seeming to have advantages. I'm happy to work through the templates applying a consistant look, but thought I should just make sure everyone here hasd been aware of that discussion, or given opportunity to make any further suggestions. David Ruben ^Talk 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A consensus emerged and no new postings in the last week, so I've implemented across the templates. Some had just a couple of classes per template but with many drugs listed (seemed best highlighting the class-names in their own columns), whilst other templates had multiple classes each with a few drugs (more free flowing style with several classes per line seemed best).

Finally all the drug navigation templates are under a general 'Category:Science navigational boxes', I think these should be moved to a subcategory of 'Drugs navigation boxes'. I know that not all are drugs (eg BirthControl template) but neither are all used for clinical therapy (eg many of psychoactive agents), so Pharmacology, Medicines & Therapeutics all would be problematic - and hey, this is the WikiProject Drugs so its navigation templates should be 'Drug navigation boxes' :-) David Ruben ^Talk 23:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Writing drug articles

Hello!

I would appreciate some of the participant of this projects to take a look at this: it's a part of the newly proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) on drug articles.

thx, --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 08:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a nice start there, but I want to change to a shorter list of section names. See my talk page. Talk --Chrispounds 02:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Methamphetamine

This article is notably missing the duration of the drug's effects.72.81.21.248 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeking help regarding copyright of product label

One editor has claimed on Talk:Mifepristone that the Mifeprex product label found on the FDA site(PDF) is not copyrighted. I asked for further information and didn't get any, so I am coming here to see if anyone knows about the copyright status of these labels. It would make sense that if it was a government job, then the work would be in the public domain like most US government work. However, if Danco labs is the creator of the label, the copyright might be a stickier issue. Text from the label was "plagarized" into the article, and I changed the text to be cited quotations. Anyway, any information will help.--Andrew c 17:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Preferred stub category/template

Is there a "preferred" stub template to be used on drug articles? I am actually specifically referring to Template:Pharma-stub versus Template:Treatment-stub; there appears to be a mess of cross-usage of these two, which results in many drug stubs not falling into the Pharmacology stubs category. I'd personally rather use pharma-stub, but that's just me. Maybe both should be used? Anyway, if there's a consensus, I'd sure like to know :) Fvasconcellos 22:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Pharma-stub for drugs, but don't also use treatement-tub as all pharmcology is a treatement. is it not ? (treatment also includes sub-category of surgical and psychology interventions). David Ruben ^Talk 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think it should be only pharmastub. Why isn't there a drug-stub?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK then. I'll start switching treatment-stub on drug stubs to pharma-stub... As usual, if anyone has any objection to this, please don't hesitate and bend my ear... Fvasconcellos 18:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No seriously, why isn't there a drug-stub? This project should propose one.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pharma-stub is now not exclusively for drug articles but also lists people, technical terms, although the medications dominate the category. I think drug-stub could be a real addition, although, as suggested to me by Fvasconcellos: "if created, it should probably be medication-stub; drug carries the negative meaning of recreational drug for most people.".--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

shortcut WP:DRUGS

Is it ok if I do this? If you like the shortcut, copy-paste it onto the project page.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup required

Maybe after that recent discussion about NavBoxes, it's time to clean up Category:Drug navigational boxes ? {{Imidazopyridine}} is a bit silly no? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Package insert

I think that we should include a link in a uniform place on each drug page to the package insert for any FDA approved drug. The insert contains lots of information that FDA thinks is necessary to know for the safe and effective use of a drug and would be valuable for our readers. Part of me thought that this might work well in the drug template. What do you think? Remember 23:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The FDA seem to use the term Label Information to describe an approved document that contains professional Prescribing Information and the Consumer Information (at the end). This document is often available from both the manufacturer and the FDA. For example: Keppra from UCB. I think the FDA source is a more consistent one to use but their document URLs are so specific that I suspect they are for a particular revision (which may become out-of-date). Better to link to the Drug Overview page from Drugs@FDA. For example: Keppra. This site contains many FDA approved drugs, but only label and consumer info for recent drugs. It is also difficult to get a single URL for older drugs such as Phenytoin.

For the European Union, the equivalent site is the European Medicines Agency (EMEA). They have a site that is needlessly complicated by the use of Java and I didn't have much success using Firefox. However, if you can find the drug, then their Product Overview page is very good. Here's one for Keppra. (The EN column denotes English Language documents). Again, this site is only much good for recent drugs.

In summary, I'd support a link to the Overview page on both FDA and EMEA sites where appropriate pages can be found. Perhaps these can be added as new parameters on Template Drugbox? Colin Harkness°^Talk 15:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The FDA link doesn't seem to work reliably and sometimes redirects to the search page. Unless this is fixable, then that is a pain. An alternative is the FDA Consumer Info page. This is available for a selection of drugs that have Patient Information Sheets, but does have a link to the full Label Information document. It is not as comprehensive as the Drugs@FDA page. Colin Harkness°^Talk 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it by doing a search one level up. Here is Keppra or Levetiracetam from the FDA.

Wow, I just checked out how your additions to the template works. That is great. I'll try to add this to other drug pages as I think this is great information for people to have access to easily. I also encourage others to help out.Remember 13:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am just referencing the Product insert that I use. See galantamine for example. It is nice to have the link to the reference, but as long as it is published with a date, that can be a reference. Most marketed products have websites. Others can be found at the FDA or on rxlist. We should have someone comment on the copyright. I think verbatims would be wrong (although the drug companies might like having their text in Wikipedia...). I am also working on a new template for drug section headings. See my talk page. --Chrispounds 03:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine

Any chance someone (expert-ish) could give Benzodiazepine a going over? It has just undergone some serious editing by an anon, much of which appears unsourced. Colin Harkness°^Talk 16:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Phenobarbital

I've expanded Phenobarbital, a key drug that was just a stub article, in the areas that I'm able to handle. I'd really appreciate an expert come in to take over the rest, following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Main sections of drug page and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)#Sections - medications. Thanks. Colin Harkness°^Talk 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I am no expert, I have added to the "Overdose" and "Pharmacology" sections, and done some minor copy editing. Hope my edits can be helpful.Fvasconcellos 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, your edits have been very helpful and appreciated. There are more sections to do. Can I urge others to contribute too. This is one of the most important drugs worldwide – it shames Wikipedia to see it incomplete. Colin Harkness°^Talk 08:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bisphosphonates

While adding a drugbox to the pamidronate article I realized that no bisphosphonate articles are currently named after INNs. I'd gladly move etidronate and pamidronate (the others require admin status as INNs are now redirects), just thought I'd ask first. Maybe someone could create a bisphosphonates navbox as well? Fvasconcellos 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A navbox would be good. I wrote much of the bisphosphonates article but think it should be expanded and pushed to WP:FA given that it hits high on Google. JFW | T@lk 15:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've since moved pamidronate and etidronate, created ibandronic acid (just a stub though), and added structures. Help of admin project contributors to move alendronate, risedronate and zoledronate would be much appreciated :) Fvasconcellos 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Shameless rip from Arcadian's Template:Antiarrhythmic agents:

Thoughts? I haven't created it yet; this is just a test, and I have very little knowledge of template syntax – this was really a copy-and-paste job. Input would be really appreciated. Fvasconcellos 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks ready to be let out into the wild. I've built Template:Bisphosphonates from your content, and added it to the existing pages, and to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs#M:_Musculo-skeletal_system. --Arcadian 02:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Drugs and brand names

Dear all,

There is a discussion about brand names on all drug articles, and the consequences of any decision are not clear. Reading many articles about drugs, it seems to me that there are different approaches about brands and names:

• Use only the INN name in the article, and cite only the first brand name for historical reasons;
• Use only INN name in the whole article and have a section for brands, countries and eventual generic drug availability;
• Cite brand names near the incipit of the article, after the INN name;
• Use only INN names removing brands;
• (others that I didn't find in articles).

There are reasons for all of them.

My personal point of view is that brand names are important, and should be cited in a section, indicating countries and names, but only for the pure substance, e.g. Coefferalgan® is a mix of Paracetamol and Codeine, so it should not be mentioned IMO. In the whole article, I'd use just the INN name, and probably the first historical brand name.

I personally find not very clear to have different standards on drugs and medication, and a standardization should be tried.

What is your opinion about this topic? Sensei 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would support using only INN name in the whole article and have a section for brands, countries and eventual generic drug availability in each article. We can also have specific information on specific brands if there is any noticable difference between the brand and the generic. While I know there would be no real difference in the active pharmaceutical ingredient, they could differ in devilery devices and excipients that people may want to know about. Remember 12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What is not helpful in articles is to have huge lists of brand names, either as a comma separated list or (even worse) as a bullet-point list extending down the page. I dislike these as much in the opening introduction section as at the end of an article in their own section. However:

1. The first use of a drug in the world is notable and should therefore be included. Hence Sildenafil clearly needs mention "Viagra" in its opening.
2. The first brand used in specific countries probably also warrents mention somewhere in the article, but how many countries need be included given wikipedia is gobally inclusive rather than selective ?
   If only the UK and US first brand names are mentioned, then 2 items do not warrent their own section and mention in the introduction seems concise encyclopaedic styling. However in English Wikipedia there are considerable number of readers also from Canada and Australia. Are we to have 4 brands in the intro ? Clearly as one expands to include New Zealand, South Africa, Carribean, Ireland, India then this gets problematic.
3. Finally should English Wikipedia include brands from non-English speaking countries (e.g. Russia, Turkey, China, Japan) ?
4. Subsequent brands in individual countries are more problematic and brand names from generic manufacturers should I think never be included.

Remember wikipedia is not a directory listing and as per policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Options 3 & 4 above I think should not be included in Wikipedia, unless:

• re 3: A brand has very significant market share of prescribing within a country eg in UK for Diltiazem for Adizem, Dilzem & Tildiem, but not the other 6 brands. This leads on to:
• re 3: The very limited number of drugs where generic substitution is generally advised against, e.g. Diltiazem modified release, Lithium and Phenytoin products.
• re 3 & 4: Some world wide notability; e.g. a drug scandal in a country that made international news and is specifically commented upon in the article.

I'm happy to see a somewhat flexible style; these are encyclopaedic articles, not a fixed-format legal drug monograph that requires rigid sections to be included in all entries. Hence, I would propose:

• 1st worldwide brand mentioned in brackets in or at end of 1st sentance in the introduction.
  Suggested markup being: '''Drug name''' ([[International Nonproprietary Name|INN]]) ([[United States Approved Name|USAN]] and former [[British Approved Name|BAN]] '''alternative''') is ...
  e.g. Paracetamol (INN) (USAN Acetomporphin) is ...
• if there are under 5 other brand names mentioned, then these are included in the last sentance of the introduction.
  Suggested phrasing being... Some specific brands being A(AU), B(CA), C(UK) and D(US).
• if more than 4 brands mentioned then placed in a their own "Brand names" section at the end of the article as a comma-separated list (phrasing as previous point). David Ruben ^Talk 12:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome standardization, though applying it across all drug pages might pose a problem. My two cents:

• Lead with the INN. Start by referring to generic names: first the INN, indicating it is the INN (or rINN) and linking to International Nonproprietary Name, then any alternate generic names (USAN, BAN) – I like Davidruben's markup for this;
• Cite brand names near the incipit in stubs, using an et al. approach: up to four brand names, if there are more no need to refer to them – see metformin;
• Create a separate section in larger articles, while still citing (a few, not all) brand names in the lead – see paracetamol or lansoprazole;
• Cite associations in a separate section – see metformin and benazepril.

I also propose creating redirects for all brand names [I foresee resistance, though :)] – most people refer to meds by their brand names, and are likely to search for them using a brand name; and using the INN throughout the article. Fvasconcellos 13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My preference is the 1st option, but also covering the USAN/BAN where relevant. One problem with drug articles is that there are so many hundreds of them, and so few people able to police them thoroughly, that it is hard to prevent someone thinking it is ok to add "just one more" to a list. So I don't think having an arbitrary cut-off of 5 will work. It is very hard for us to agree on the level of notability for the other brands, and most of us won't have a clue about countries other than our own. I don't think many lay editors will understand the disctinction between a "generic" brand and the original one. An example:

Phenobarbital (INN) or phenobarbitone (former BAN) is a barbiturate, first marketed as Luminal® by Farbwerke Fr. Bayer and Co.

The use of "first marketed" makes it clear to the reader and future editors that we are singling out only the notable brand. I also think we should mention the drug company, using the name they were called at the time (if known). I'd like the drug-article guidelines to discourage listing more than one brand as a general rule. As with all guidelines, if editors can justify it, then they can break the rules - e.g. Panadol certainly seems to merit inclusion in the paracetamol article, even though Tylenol seems to have been first to market.

BTW why on earth does Tylenol have its own article – its existance and content breaks lots of guidelines, as well as being just plain wrong in places. The list of brands in paracetamol is bizarre: Italy certainly should go (they have their own Wikipedia) and the Indian brand is wikilinked inappropriately. Colin Harkness°^Talk 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend making the USAN, BAN, and notable brand names into optional fields near the top of the drugbox. --Arcadian 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

1. re Bayer's commnent - re "So I don't think having an arbitrary cut-off of 5 will work" - I was not suggesting any fixed limit to total number brand names that can be mentioned in an article, just the point at which different approaches/styles of inclusion might be used for better readability :-)
2. re Arcardian's suggestion - Would this then mean that no mention is made in the introduction of USAN & BAN names. This would be a quite precise solution, and I can forsee those with strong attachment to their own names (former names in case of BANs) being upset at religation from article prose to mere entry in a template (Paracetamol/acetaminophen for starters). If consensus for this emerges, then I can happily implement the coding on Template:Drugbox. However are there any other common English-speaking country names we need to include (i.e. is there any equivalent Australian or New Zealand Approved Name that differs from the INNs) ? David Ruben ^Talk 23:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would second Arcadian's comments--USAN, BAN and Notable brand names in the box would be nice. I would also work on deleting branded product pages. Adderall is one that makes my skin crawl. --Chrispounds 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ATC G03

I've tagged ATC G03 for proposed deletion. Since we already have ATC code G03, can anyone think of any reason why it should be kept? Fvasconcellos 19:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've turned it a redirect -- I doubt anyone would object. --Arcadian 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Stub types

The project page declares intent to expand all stubs within the project's scope, but doesn't actually say what those actually are: I'm assuming everything in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:pharmacology stubs (at least)? Note also that this stub type is currently oversized, so if anyone has any input on how to split it up... Alai 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS needs YOU!

The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I'm informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Registered trademark on medication names

Someone asked at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome if I needed all of the registered trademark signs (®) on med names at Tourette syndrome. Can anyone shed any light on the trademark issues? Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

MoS:TM states, under "General rules":

Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless they are necessary for context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).

(emphasis mine). I'd either keep them or indicate the names in parentheses are trade names, e.g.

The classes of medication with the most proven efficacy in treating tics—typical and atypical neuroleptics including risperidone (trade name Risperdal), ziprasidone (Geodon), haloperidol (Haldol), pimozide (Orap) and fluphenazine (Prolixin)—can have long-term and short-term adverse effects.

I prefer using trademark symbols, but they do seem to be getting in the way of readability. (copying to your talk page) Hope this helps, Fvasconcellos 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)