Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

Archives
WP:DRUGS Archive 1: 2004 – 7/2006 WP:DRUGS Archive 2: 8/2006 - 2/2007 WP:PHARM Archive 2007 2008 2009

Proposal to link to external IUPHAR database

dopamine receptor D1
Identifiers
Symbol	DRD1
IUPHAR	214
NCBI gene	1812
HGNC	3020
OMIM	126449
RefSeq	NM_000794
UniProt	P21728
Other data
Locus	Chr. 5 q34-q35
Search for Structures Swiss-model Domains InterPro

A proposal was made here to add IUPHAR database links to protein info boxes. An example using the {{protein}} template is found to the right. More specifically this proposal is to add a optional link to the {{GNF_Protein_box}} and then include the link on Wikipedia receptor and ion channel pages to the corresponding IUPHAR database entry.

Before implementing these links, I would like to ask the community if there is support for doing so. Any comments or suggestions you might have are welcome. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no objection, seems an authoritative source for the current nomenclature. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As you already know, I support it too. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. --Arcadian (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's an excellent idea. Go for it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As one of the proposers, I surely encourage this idea, and it looks like a really good database. Could I ask the members of this wikiproject to try to pull Chido Mpamhanga into this work, they has been bashed around a bit (maybe it was all a bit strict, but I think it was all resolved in the end). They do seem to work with/for the organisation, and I think that they would be a welcome addition to the project. There might be more information there which can be used, and maybe their know-how can be used to expand some of the (very stubby) articles. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 Completed (see here). Thanks to all the editors listed above for their support and especially Chido Mpamhanga for providing the database mappings and AndrewGNF for modifying the {{GNF_Protein_box}} template that made this easy to implement! Cheers. Boghog (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And thank you! I know it was a lot of work! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your efforts with this!!

I know the pseudogenes are not included in the IUPHAR-db at the moment. IUPHAR-db will soon be extending to Nuclear Hormone receptors. But i will keep you abreast of this. I will also point to your efforts when trying to encourage the IUPHAR committees to help in updating all the stubbier wiki-pages for ion channels and GPCRs. I'm sure it is to the benefit of all pharmacologists that these are updated!

Lastly could you help me with a step by step procedure of what to do when IUPHAR-db publishes its next set of receptors?

Kindest regards blackbutterfly (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to the addition of nuclear receptors to the IUPHAR database for which I have more than a passing interest ;-). In addition, I welcome any and all contributions the IUPHAR committe can make to Wikipedia protein and ion channel pages. In response to your request on how to update and extend Wikipedia links to the IUPHAR database, one needs to do the following:

1. Update the {{IUPHAR}} template to add new IUPHAR database entries or edit existing entries. Each line of this tempate contains the HUGO gene name, the IUPHAR database link, and IUPHAR symbol. (Please note that the use of the {{IUPHAR2}} template is now deprecated.)
2. On the corresponding Gene Wiki page, edit the transcluded {{GNF_Protein_box}} template. There is an edit link on the upper right hand side of the article right above the protein box which will take you directly to the template. For example, clicking on the edit link above the protein box in the Kv1.3 article will take you here. Then add the IUPHAR parameter to the template (see for example here).
3. To add the IUPHAR link to family pages which use the older {{Protein}} templates, add the IUPHAR parameter as for example here. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies have been rather busy this week and dropped out of touch. Thanks for the step by step guide on how to extend the Wikipedia links to the IUPHAR database. As promised I have started soliciting for help with the ion channels wikipages. blackbutterfly (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Upgrades to project

As I'm sure you've noticed if you're reading this, many components of this project have become inactive, and others need serious reworking. I've finally got sick of it, and so I'm taking the initiative to upgrade this project!

Some changes I hope will be made include:

• Use of the A-class, as well as the template and category classes
• A more formal (though not mandatory) process for rating articles as B-class (and A-class)
• Incorporation of comments and checklists into the project banner (see, for example, the WikiProject Film banner or the WikiProject Chemicals banner; we don't need that level of detail (and I don't think task forces would be appropriate for us), but they're nice examples)
• The reinstatement of the Collaboration of the Month
  • Note that I really don't want to be the organizer of this one! Any volunteers?
• Refined importance criteria!
• More suggestions as to what articles fall into what classes
  • Note that I have already begun this by customizing the standard assessment table with Pharm-specific examples (see here)! Please check it out and let me know whether you approve of the examples!
  • Has anyone rated articles recently?! When I was looking for example X-class articles, I found numerous articles in the wrong class. There are so many stubs that aren't stubs, and starts that are C-class or maybe even B-class, and there's numerous B-class articles that aren't up to par. This REALLY needs to be dealt with! The additions of comments and dates to the banner can help with this as well....

Ohhh no, there's other ideas, but I can't remember them now! Anyway, please let me know your thoughts, and ways in which you're willing to help out! I know a lot of these are very ambitious goals, but they're standard in many high-quality projects!

Right now, I'm filtering through the participants list and separating them into "Active" and "Inactive". Read more about why there. — Skittleys (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I had been trying to develop and organize a system for article assessment over the past 2-3 years or so, and I am also the one that did most (if not all) of the assessments. It's kind of slowed down recently, though there remains just under 200 "unassessed" articles, mostly due to the fact that it's been becoming rather tedious to get down to zero assessed articles only to see about 100-200 pop up again. It appears that there are editors out there that quite possibly run bots to create "stub" articles on just about every possible drug candidate out there just to make sure it exists. Most of these are really just research compounds (not even in clinical trials), but somebody thinks there needs to be a wiki article about it. So that's why there are so many. There's very little information in the literature about some of these compounds. Also, some of the assessments were done at least 1-2 years ago -- if an article has improved since its original assessment, feel free to reassess it.

With regard to article importance, I've generally been following the scheme that articles on general drug and pharmacology-related topics (broad topics, not actual drug articles) are classified as top-importance; high-importance are some of the major drugs on the market, and prototype compounds in each class, or late-stage clinical trial compounds that show promise and are getting a good amount of press. Mid-importance is for most drugs -- some are on the market, but they're not necessarily the prototypical compound in a class. It's kind of a catch-all for the vast majority of drugs out there. Low-importance is mostly for the drug-like compounds, drug candidates -- the stubs that are very, very obscure and unlikely to progress into actual articles.

With regard to article class: FA & GA ratings are pretty self-explanatory -- they must be externally reviewed by WP:FAN and WP:GAN. I've been treating A-class sort of like a GA+ -- the article must have at least achieved a satisfactory GA review listing, but must also go above and beyond, meeting several of the FA criteria and having very, very few issues remaining -- we're talking FA-candidate material here. B- and C-class have a lot of grey area -- I don't think C-class has been developed much in this project since it was created, and I've usually treated B-class as almost meeting the GA criteria, but may be short in some areas, like insufficient citations, or a really short lead section. Stub & Start classes are pretty nebulous. I usually see an article stub as an article with a single sentence or three plus an infobox (again, I think a lot of infoboxes and stubs are created by people with bots). Start-class is a bit more developed than that -- should have at least a good introductory paragraph and maybe at least 1 individual subsection.

It would be nice if we could have a more developed A-class review, which could fill the void between GA and FA, and with a purpose of collaborating with editors here in getting articles from GA to FA. If people are interested, that might actually happen.

I also started the collaboration of the month/week/fortnight about 2-3 years ago. I discontinued designating articles as the monthly collaboration because, despite having a reasonable amount of interest in nominating articles, most articles that were the current collaboration had very few edits, and it simply wasn't going anywhere, nor was it meeting its goal of moving articles towards FA. It seems like there were a lot of editors that were interested in getting their personal pet projects up for collaboration of the month, but then, once it became the current collaboration, editors just went back to working on their own pet projects and ignored it anyways. In lieu of this, we have had moderate success recently with announcing some pharmacology FACs here on the talk page of the project, and getting those promoted. So perhaps, instead of the monthly collaboration, we should focus our efforts more at moving more articles through WP:GAN, and getting them through an A-class review and supporting them through WP:FAC?

As an additional note, I've also noticed that the overall number of editors on wikipedia has been declining lately. Interest seems to be decreasing. It seems like a lot of people, particularly newer editors and anonymous editors, are growing tired of seeing their contributions simply reverted by a more experienced editor, and have just decided to give up. While I still think we need to take a firm approach towards reverting obvious and clear vandalism in articles, perhaps we shouldn't bite the newcomers so harsh. For example, rather than merely deleting an unsourced statement, try tagging it with the {{fact}} tag first. A lot of these newer articles aren't familiar with our citation requirements, nor are they familiar with how to add citations, either. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Cash, I am one such "newbie" pharmacology editor who is but one click away from tossing in the towel as well. I had been working on the fluoroquinolone articles for about six months now and if it were not for a few experienced editors who made the effort to guide and support me in this effort, as well as taking the time to peer review the articles as they came close to completion, I would have said "screw this" months ago. I can honestly say I have never encountered so many aggrogant, petty and hostile folks in my life as I have encountered here on wikipedia. Seems so many folks here are hell bent on deleting content they have personal issues with rather then reaching out and trying to improve or correcting someone else's efforts who is new at this. And when you check such mean spirited editor's contribution history, you find they have written no articles. Just hacked away at what others had contributed, deleting content willy nilly.

In the same breath I have also met some wonderful editors that make all the abuse I have encountered thus far worth the grief. Just thought I would drop a note off here to let you know that your assumptions are correct, in my opinion anyhow for what its worth. The hard asses are indeed chasing the up and coming editors away. If it were not for the helping hand I got from Fvasconcellos and Literaturegeek I would have surely walked away from this madness months ago and never looked back.Davidtfull (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You know there's a greater issue with Wikipedia as a whole when articles like Wal-Mart and Ann Coulter have fewer than 50 edits in the past month! Dr. Cash (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've definitely seen your name in the history of most of the articles. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people are contributing to the articles, but the assessment never gets updated. I know that there are some bots out there that automatically assess articles. I was going to look into this and see how it works. I don't know if having articles being automatically assessed is a good idea, but it may be useful in tracking major changes in article size, etc. With that data, we could find, say, a "stub" that is actually 20KB! Again, I'm going to look into it a bit.

I'm currently playing around with the project banner (see the sandbox). I was going to first implement the comments capability (because that's really easy), then look into the whole B-class checklist aspect of it. I think that might help out in several ways. I know that, in my experience, when I see a project banner with that scheme incorporated, I'm much more inclined to start doing assessments for them!

The reason I brought up the importance ratings at first was because I was surprised that some of the essential drugs are not a top priority. I understand now why that is, but it brings up another problem: the project's scope. It seems both too narrow and too wide at the same time.... I say too wide, because articles like the essential drugs seem like they should be top priority but they really arent when looking at pharmacology as a whole. Commercially-available medications are only one aspect of the project. On the other end of the spectrum, a lot of topics that do not actually fall under "pharmacology" are tagged, like capsule (pharmacy), polypharmacy, pharmaceutical industry and ethnopharmacy.

I've started wondering whether the project should be renamed (and broadened slightly more) to "Pharmaceutical sciences". There's a lot of articles out there that are tagged under "Medicine" but that I feel should be delegated to a child project (i.e., us), like pharmacy!!! In my search for examples, I've discovered that there are also articles that have no banners at all, like pharmacist!!!!! I really think that belongs here, more so than under WP:MED. Maybe we should think about another rename...? With redirects, of course.... I don't think it would be much of a change from the current project, though we may find some conflicts with WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, who have taken on all the biotech-related articles. And with that, we might find the one and only use for a "task force": to rate drugs on a separate importance scale than the project in general. So, meds like atropine and penicillin could be properly prioritized as high or even mid articles in general, with top importance in the drugs task force. I don't know if it should be a "task force" though...it doesn't seem like the right name. Thoughts, anyone? I know I'm being very ambitious here... — Skittleys (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As an additional note, most of my assessments are initial assessments, done on previously unassessed articles. So the main goal here is to just make sure that every article in the project has been assessed at least once, by someone. It would be very nice if additional assessments would be made, but I don't think there's a whole lot of organization to the project at the moment, so not a whole lot gets re-assessed. Perhaps we should create an Article Assessment and Review Task Force for the project?

Not so sure I'd create a Drugs Task Force? It seems like the vast majority of articles in the project right now (80-90%) are drug articles. Part of the reason that none of the drug articles themselves are assessed at a top-importance is an attempt to put an increased emphasis on some of the more general articles about the theory and other applications of pharmacology. I was also trying to avoid "importance wars" (for lack of a better word) with editors thinking that their drug was more important than someone else's. Anyway, as it is, most people are concentrating on drug articles -- and, to be honest, I think a lot of editors on drug articles overall are mostly editing because of some personal experience with that drug, as opposed to actual professionals in the field with expertise. Perhaps you've noticed that some of the most popularly edited articles are things like Cocaine, LSD, and Cannabis (drug)? Other commonly prescribed drugs (Vicodin, Sildenafil) are popular to edit as well. One popular, general, and broad (top-importance) article is Psychoactive drug, though that also primarily covers drugs of a more illicit nature,... Also, though we've tried to discourage it, you'll see quite a few psychoactive drug articles linking to and citing erowid.org, a drug reference site with a lot of information about the more illegal aspects of many drugs. Though there is, to a certain degree, some very limited useful information there -- we still should discourage it since there are far better citations to use in articles than that one.

Regarding renaming the project -- there used to be two wikiprojects -- WikiProject Pharmacology and WikiProject Drugs. At some point around 3-4 years ago (I think?), the two projects were merged into one. WikiProject Drugs, as you might imagine, had a lot of the editors that were more interested in drugs of abuse (mostly, very likely, due to personal experiences with them), and I think the projects were merged into WikiProject Pharmacology as one "catch-all" partially in an attempt to take some emphasis off the illicit drugs and make for a more general and academic project. I think I prefer WikiProject Pharmacology over WikiProject Pharmaceutical Sciences, just because it's simpler. Alternatively, we could go with WikiProject Pharmacy, but that might seem to imply we're a bit more geared towards hospital pharmacy practice & such, and Pharmacology seems to cover the science a bit better. Either way, the project name is just semantics,... Dr. Cash (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the project name can probably stay as Pharmacology. Skittleys--thanks for jump starting things. I'll slowly try to work on assessments and reassessments; I try to use the breadth of ratings, including C-class. Dr. Cash and Davidtfull--I appreciate your reminder that we should keep trying to be as inclusive and encouraging as is possible. Shanata (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sildenafil aka Viagra, request comment

I would like to request comments for the article Sildenafil in regards to the section on "recreational usage." There is currently a dispute over this section between only two users at the moment: Myself, and Sandpiper. My current stance relies on several scholarly peer-reviewed studies. Sandpiper's relies on skepticism, an old stat textbook, and original research, and I do mean original. Please help.Legitimus (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a stab shot, oh, whatever, at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The best response to such comments is normally to ignore them, but after hundreds of words where I have challenged the refs without getting my points answered except by personal comments, the temptation to respond here is like shooting fish in a barrel. The only refs to which there is internet access did not support the article text, and frankly the published papers conclusions were unsubstantiated by the findings. Legitimus seems to believe it is appropriate to bias articles to discourage drug use 'recreationally'. In the case of viagra, I find this funny, because that is the only way it is ever used, except, perhaps, when it is used off label by doctors for other conditions. Sandpiper (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not bias to report information that appears in reliable sources, and there is no requirement that sources are available in full on the internet to be used. Many of the best scientific sources are not available without subscriptions. Regarding your belief that "the published papers conclusions were unsubstantiated by the findings", if you are correct, then you should be able to find some reliable sources to support your position. Without those sources though, we can only use the sources that we do have - even if an editor doesn't agree with them. I haven't reviewed the discussion at the article yet, I will do so in the near future. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hydromorphone: Readability problems?

The general advice on writing for the internet is "break blocks of text into manageable chunks".
Hydromorphone currently has possibly the longest lead that I've ever seen on Wikipedia, followed by several monolithic sections.
Does anyone feel that they can improve the organization of this article? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also almost completely unreferenced. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. For what it's worth, I've tagged it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I reorganized the article a bit and added several new headings to reduce the size of the lead and several of the other very long sections. However a lot more work is needed, especially with the citations. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I'm glad I mentioned this. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was and still is a mess with dubious original research statements and promotional original research. I have cleaned out the indications section, lots more work to be done. The one good thing is as it it is mostly uncited we should be able to just delete most of the irrelevant and dubious statements without any discussion and without the time consuming need to check refs to verify etc. An easy clean up job.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Talarozole classification

Hey, people, I'm wondering whether yo put that article in category:Benzothiazoles or category:triazoles. ANybody can help me? Circeus (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in both? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, both. The structure contains both moieties. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn,t sure if I was supposed to pick one (because it was more "important"). Circeus (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Psilocybin

Greetings pharm fans. I'm interested in taking this article to GA level and beyond, and would highly appreciate any comments on how it could be improved. I have access to all kinds of scholarly sources, and there's plenty of room for expansion. Please leave comments on the talk page if you're interested in seeing this high-traffic article becoming featured. Thanks kindly, Sasata (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article is not following WP:NPOV. If I was reading the article as a layperson I would think that it is a benign or mild hallucinogen which is hard done by and has great therapeutic value. In reality it is one of the most potent hallucinogens known, can induce an extreme psychotic experience, trigger or cause mental illness and cause flash backs, not to mention people being at great risk of injury as they often do not have a clue what they are doing due to the extreme disassociation from reality and distortion of reality (eg trying to climb out of a window of a 5 story high block of flats to go for a walk thinking a footpath was outside which happened to a friend of mine, her boyfriend stopped her so she is alive). I don't mean to sound harsh, the article is well developed and well referenced and clearly a lot of work has been put into it but I just think that balance needs to be added to it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A good point. If I come across any reliable sources that can attribute these types of behaviors to the effects of psilocybin, I will certainly include them. I have seen some case reports of behavior like this where psilocybin use was combined with other drugs like cannabis and alcohol, these probably warrant a mention as well. Sasata (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I searched pubmed and to be fair there is surprising very little research into psilocybin and magic mushrooms compared to other drugs such as LSD or cannabis or whatever. I have added some papers which I thought might be useful to the talk page. Google books or if you or other editors have the time a library might be a better port of call for other good references.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes a library visit and a thorough lit search are in the works. To be honest I hadn't even noticed the pro-drug POV the article currently assumes until you mentioned it; I will hopefully fix the balance in the upcoming weeks. Thanks for your input. Sasata (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Google books can be good as well as you can search bookks via keywords and then if certain pages cannot be viewed you can then go to library to get full book. Saves a lot of time. Best of luck. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text updates to prulifloxacin page

I’d like to propose additional text to the prulifloxacin page, which falls under the WikiProject Pharmacology, which includes more detail on the drug and it’s development path in the U.S. You’ll find my suggested text in full here: kdrichards. KDR 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine, although the studies (whether they are published articles or poster sessions) should be cited directly instead of the manufacturer's web page. See Template:Cite journal and Template:Cite conference for instructions on how to cite these. Thank you for requesting input before making the edit! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but this is a wiki. You don't need to "propose changes" to a page. Simply be bold and make them. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Dr. Cash, KDR is employed by a PR company employed by the pharmaceutical companies behind these products. Being bold is not appropriate in this case. He's abiding by WP:COI, and it's a laudable effort. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to see high-quality journal articles cited instead of (or in addition to) the manufacturer's websites. The websites might be useful |laysummary= options, though. Also, KDR, you might be interested in http://toolserver.org/~holek/cite-gen/index.php , which will turn PMID numbers into full citations at the click of a button (well, two of them: first on "Library of Congress", and then on "Send"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Prulifloxacin, in the same manner as Factive is associated with severe and disfiguring skin rashes. Prulifloxacin (within animal studies) has been shown to be toxic to cartilage and destructive to kidney tissue causing tubular nephrosis. In the kidney, tubular nephrosis with crystalline substance was observed. It also has been shown to be toxic to the liver resulting in increased BUN and creatinine levels and thickening of the liver. We also see hydrothorax, congestion and edema of the lung, adhesion of intra-abdominal organs, swelling of the kidney accompanied by fine yellowish-white foci, and atrophy of the testis. When Prulifloxacin was administered I.V. to rats, congestion of the lung was macroscopically observed. Prulifoloxacin was also shown to cause obstructive uropathy.

And this was back in 1996 and as we have seen such reactions that have been documented within animal studies have manifested within all the approved drugs in this class. So one cannot say that the animal studies are irrelevant here. I would have to ask this editor is he has any intention of adding such content to the Pruflifloxacin article, or simply state (unsupported by the citations used) as he has done that “It was tolerated as well as ciprofloxacin.” And thereby ignore the severe rashes, liver and kidney damage, adhesion to internal organs, and the rest of the serious adverse reactions we see associated with Prulifloxacin once the FDA approves this drug. Or perhaps he simply was unaware of this unacceptable safety profile as we see no mention of it on the manufacturers website.Davidtfull (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you're saying this in your capacity as the director of the Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation, which is IMO an equally biased source. At least the manufacturer's claims are ultimately restricted by the FDA; groups websites like yours can make whatever outlandish claims they want without any regulatory oversight at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying any of that. The articles found on Pub Med thirteen years ago are stating this. Here are the citations I was referring to:

A 13-week oral toxicity study of prulifloxacin (NM441) in dogs followed by a 5-week recovery test Yoshida M, Kawaminami A, Tawaratani T, Uchimoto H, Ishibashi S, Iwakura K, Sumi N, Shindo Y. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:113-29. Japanese. PMID: 8709156 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

A 4-week intravenous toxicity study of the active metabolite (NM394) of prulifloxacin (NM441) in rats followed by a 4-week recovery test Ishida S, Iketani M, Yamazaki S, Tamura K, Shindo Y, Iwakura K, Sumi N. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:131-48. Japanese. PMID: 8709157 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Single and 4-week oral toxicity studies of prulifloxacin (NM441) in aged dogs Ihara T, Akune A, Nakama K, Chihaya Y, Nagata R, Sumi N, Asaoka H, Shindo Y. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:149-69. Japanese. PMID: 8709158 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies of prulifloxacin (NM441)(1)--A fertility study in rats by oral administration Morinaga T, Fujii S, Furukawa S, Kikumori M, Yasuhira K, Shindo Y, Watanabe M, Sumi N. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:171-85. Japanese. PMID: 8709160 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies of prulifloxacin (NM441)(2)--A teratogenicity study in rats by oral administration Morinaga T, Fujii S, Furukawa S, Kikumori M, Yasuhira K, Shindo Y, Watanabe M, Sumi N. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:187-206. Japanese. PMID: 8709161 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Renal toxicity of prulifloxacin (NM441) in rats Kawaminami A, Tawaratani T, Ishibashi S, Oka T, Matsuyama S, Kakemi K, Iwakura K, Sumi N, Shindo Y. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:267-76. Japanese. PMID: 8709167 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Single-dose toxicity studies of prulifloxacin (NM441) in mice, rats and dogs and the active metabolite (NM394) in rats] Shimazu H, Ishikawa Y, Nishiguchi Y, Yoshida M, Iwakura K, Sumi N, Shindo Y. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:33-44. Japanese. PMID: 8709168 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

A 4-week oral toxicity study of prulifloxacin (NM441) in rats followed by a 4-week recovery test] Nishimura N, Fukuda K, Yamazaki S, Tamura K, Shindo Y, Iwakura K, Sumi N. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:45-70. Japanese. PMID: 8709169 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

A 4-week oral toxicity study of prulifloxacin (NM441) in dogs followed by a 4-week recovery test] Oda S, Ide M, Tamura K, Nagatani M, Shindo Y, Iwakura K, Sumi N. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:71-88. Japanese. PMID: 8709170 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

A 13-week oral toxicity study of prulifloxacin (NM441)in rats followed by a 5-week recovery test Ishibashi S, Nakazawa M, Tawaratani T, Uchimoto H, Yoshida M, Iwakura K, Sumi N, Shindo Y. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:89-111. Japanese. PMID: 8709171 PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

All I was asking is if this editor plans on presenting the good, the bad and the ugly, or if he itends to only provide content in favor of the drug. Now why would you find this to be unreasonable? You will note that the claims made on the research site are backed by well over 4000 citations and case studies spanning over forty years, and none of claims being made in regards to the safety profile or this class are outlandish in the least. And how can such content be considered bias when I did not even write it to begin with? I'm just the librarian of such articles. All of which are supported in the liteature. Why would you consider the Foundation to be an equally biased source when all it does is collect, review and present the medical journal articles and case reports dealing with this class? That would be akin to stating that Pub Med is to be considered a bias source. Ridiculous and frivolous. Is it not your peers who wrote such articles found on the research site to begin with? The exact same articles found on Pub Med? They certainly were not written by the Foundation.

Such advocacy sites are also subject to regulatory oversight via litigation involving making false statements. In the ten years that the research site has been online not ONE manufacturer, OR the FDA has challenged ANY of the site's content even though all have been frequent visitors and keep constant watch on the sites content. Whereas the same manufacturers have been cited time and time again by the FDA for presenting false and misleading information to the public and the physicians regarding the approved uses, effacicy, and safety profiles. You state that the manufacturer's claims are ultimately restricted by the FDA, which is true only in theory. But only to the extent that the content of such advertisements and sales aids are made known to the FDA. And even then it takes YEARS for the FDA to take any kind of regulatory action. So this type of argument is frivolous as it is a proven fact how corrupt the FDA is when it comes to such regulatory action taking place.

This editor has made a claim regarding the safety profile of this drug that is being backed by a propaganda sheet that does not even support the safety statements made. Yet you find this to be superior to the studies that I had just submitted that refute such a claim? Now that sir, with all due respect, is what I find to be outlandish here. Not the proven content of the research site that you have taken such exception to.

And you are mistaken to think that I can state anything I care to on the research site without risking being sued by the manufacturers or the FDA. Neither of which has taken place in the past decade though they all now who I am, where I live, and what I have been doing for the past ten years, as I have been in constant contact via letters, petitions, request under the Freedom of Information Act as well as emails. It is also to be noted that the research site has been cited to in other published medical articles as being a reliable source of information regarding this class. So how about we quit bashing the research site, the Foundation (and by extension myself), and stick with the proposed changes to the article under discussion here instead?Davidtfull (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with those sources are that they are toxicity studies which use very high doses, eg 30 mg per kg, 300 mg per kg or even 3000 mg per kg. Those studies are only meant to give indicators of possible adverse effects for further research or observation and to check for an approximate lethal dose. The mg per kg itself can't even be transfered at face value to humans as the metabolism and other pharmacokinetic factors differs significantly between animals and humans. To use an example diazepam has a half life of 2 hours in rats (or is it mice I forget) but in humans it is up to 100 hours, so for example what looks like an extreme dose may be only 10 times higher than a therapeutic dose and vice versa. Also animals can differ quite significantly from humans in adverse effects and even animal species can differ, animal studies can show a drug to be very safe but in humans it is very toxic and vice versa, they are only a rough guide. For example MDMA neurotoxicity differs significantly in rats and mice. I guess as it is a preclinical drug there may be an argument for using some animal studies due to limited research papers and no widespread clinical use but if they are used they need to be used very carefully and not misinterpreted and clearly labeled as animal studies. I made a statement about your potential bias but you admitted this in your COI statement on your userpage so didn't think you had a problem with people acknowledging your bias or maybe you just are taking issue with people referring to your foundation as biased, I dunno. Ok back to bed for me! :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It was David's organisation's effort via Public Citizen and evidence that he submited from the peer reviewed literature plus the Illinois Attorney General who forced the FDA to recommend black box warnings on fluoroquinolones. So I don't think they are outlandish; biased, yes and the polar opposite of pharmaceutical companies, yes certainly. Both pharmaceutical companies and organisations by people injured by drugs are both biased for obvious reasons. Also there is a scanned letter from the FDA which says that fluoroquinolone trials do not follow-up patients long-term after typically 10-14 day clinical trials, so denial of the long-term effects of fluoroquinolonees is equally POV and original research, although good quality peer reviewed evidence does exist for certain long-term effects, particularly tendon, peripheral nerve damage (which can be very painful and disabling) and to a lesser extent CNS toxicity and muscular toxicity (only limited long-term follow-up data etc). Also the sister quinoline derivative lariam for malaria equally has a controversial history with relation to toxicity, psychosis and long-term damage. Most other anti-microbials with no chemical relation have no such controversy. There are certainly undue weight issues and poor referencing format which David acknowledges in some of the individual quinolone drug articles which I had been working to resolve but got side tracked recently.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Quinolones are also the top antibiotic cause of C Difficile, worse than even clindamycin,[1] C Difficile is a major concern in hospitals and even my local hospital has a policy severely restricting quinolone use. They may also be responsible for an emerging quinolone resistant strain of C Difficile which produces more toxins.[2] Certainly many people take these drugs without incident and it sucessfully treats serious bacterial infections but my point is that they are not benign antibiotics.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Kdrichards, you state that prulifloxacin has a similar safety profile to placebo in your proposed submission but the reference didn't say that from what I could tell. Could you copy and paste the sentence which says that or else delete that if it is not backed up by reference.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Krichards, the proposed text is based entirely on press-releases. This is inappropriate since multiple peer-reviewed sources on prulifloxacin exist. If placed in the main space, the text is likely to be challenged and removed. For the standards of sourcing in medical articles please see WP:MEDRS. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I'm happy to go back and provide more specific citations. Updates to come soon. KDR 18:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdrichards (talk • contribs)

You are welcome. Here are some refs which may help you,[3], [4] but is a case report (maybe worthy of inclusion as it is a drug not yet approved), [5], [6], [7] this is same for other quinolones. There isn't a whole lot of information on this drug in humans but you should be able to get a basic article written with the available references.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

David, presenting only the "bad" is just as biased as presenting only the "good". Given that every single paper you name above is just in animal studies, and some of it at rather surprisingly high doses, your list might actually be worse the KDR's (although we won't know that until we get a much better source from KDR). Wikipedia doesn't want bias from either side.

And, for the record, I'm a "ma'am", not a "sir." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about calling you "Sir", I was unaware of your gender and no offense was meant.Davidtfull (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reference to back-up the statement that prilufloxacin has a safety profile similar to placebo in a press release to the general public.[8] However, per WP:NPOV we would need to balance it out because the manufacturer is giving one view to the general public in a press release and another to the US government. In this statement in 2007 to the US government the manufacturers of prulifloxacin stated this. Patients treated with Prulifloxacin have experienced drug-related side effects including abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, renal toxicities, cardiac arrhythmias, photosensitivity, rash, excessive flushing of the skin and central nervous system effects, such as seizures. The FDA recommended that we conduct a study to determine the effect, if any, of Prulifloxacin on the prolongation of the QT interval, a condition that is associated with potentially life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias.[9] Having severe adverse effects such as seizures, renal toxicity, cardiac and photo toxicity, in early clinical trials is not similar safety to placebo; such trials also typically only involve a few hundred or at most a couple of thousand patients so to see such side effects as seizures and then to quote a press release on its own implying to the reader that it is as safe as placebo is very misleading. I think that both contradictory statements by the manufacturers should be stated or summarised in the article for neutrality.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the background on these two studies:

NCT00392574 Phase III

Acute Gastroenteritis in Adult Travelers

OPT-099-001 Drug: Prulifloxacin

On 1-16-2008 "safety parameters" was removed from the protocol and replace with "Clinical cure based on relief of signs and symptoms". Study completed on 2/2008 with only a 30 day follow up but I cannot find the studies results listed any of the FDA sites. Total of 375 participators. This study was done in United States, Mexico and Peru.

NCT00448422 Phase III

Acute Bacterial Gastroenteritis

OPT-099-002 Drug: prulifloxacin

The FDA site lists this second study as active but not completed as of March 2009, yet the sponsor’s in their press release state it was completed in February 2009. I cannot find the studies end results on any of the FDA sites. Total of 338 participators. This study was done in the United States, India and Guatemala.

As such I would guess we are looking at a total of about 700 patients. I find no evidence that a QT interval study is being done, even though the FDA requested one back in 2007.Davidtfull (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear my above statement was aimed at kdrichards and not whatamIdoing. To address WhatamIdoing's concerns, I agree with your advice to David regarding presenting both sides. I am in the process of moving all or as many citations as possible into inline citations (in individual quinolone drug articles) and removing undue weight and reducing article size, toning down or deleting POV statements (especially if uncited) and so forth. It is a lot of work, especially doing the inline citations and I do not have the time at present to start reading indepth the literature, but progress is being made. What is needed and will probably happen gradually over time is people to add balance by adding reviews, meta-analysis's to the articles. This edit by an ip editor for example is a move towards balance and neutrality. An unnamed doctor and I made excellent progress working alongside David on the adverse effects of fluoroquinolones article in bringing balance but unfortunately he (the uname doctor) has been (I think temporarily) forced off of wikipedia by drama on unrelated articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for everyone’s comments/suggestions. As way of follow up, please find updated citations now incorporated here: kdrichards. As for the language of being well tolerated compared to cipro, that is text that is already live and referenced on the prulifloxacin page with the following journal article: Keam SJ, Perry CM (2004). "Prulifloxacin". Drugs 64 (19): 2221–34; discussion 2235–6. To address the questions re QT interval data, a separate Phase I study was performed to assess the possible pharmacologic effect of prulifloxacin on cardiac repolarization as detected by corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation. Prulifloxacin has not shown any effect on QTc interval in studies to date. KDR 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While reviewing the updated references for prulifloxacin, please also check out my suggested page for Optimer Pharmaceuticals, the company developing prulifloxacin in the U.S. With prulifloxacin and the company's other lead drug candidate, fidaxomicin, already in Wikipedia it seems like the right time to get a page started. What do you think? KDR 00:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdrichards (talk • contribs)

You are welcome. You mean in comparison to placebo rather than cipro I assume, I can see that it is cited. The study saying that it is as safe as placebo is a single study.[10] The reference that I gave was referring to findings in all studies which found a range of potentially serious adverse reactions; granted they would be adverse effects which would be seen only occasionally, but placebo statement needs balanced for neutrality with a list of adverse effects reported in ref I gave. You are free cite the lack of QTc prolongation if you have a ref. Articles on drugs are meant to list the adverse effects associated with them, not simply state they are as safe as placebo. Do you not agree with listing adverse effects found in trials?

The article on the drug manufacturer is fine, apart from the placebo statement which actually isn't relevant to an article on a pharmaceutical company but is relevant to the drug article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ecinofloxacin

Can anyone find any sources to back this up? The reference currently provided is so riddled with typos that I'm having some trouble trusting it... :) Google, ChemSpider and INN lists turn up nothing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This pharmaceutical company lists it on their website.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference LG provided appears to be a copy/paste of a portion of our own quinolone article where ecinofloxacin had been listed as being under development. But Dr. T.R.Ramanujam, M.D. is indeed a legitimate physician and has written a number of articles concerning the fluoroquinolones and other medical issues going as far back as 1995. His native language is not English so some things look a little weird when translated.

These are only two other mentions of this drug being under development that I am aware of:

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2007090646&IA=EP2007001080&DISPLAY=DESC

Within the patent application referenced above, ecinofloxacin is listed as an experimental quinolone, “such as clinafloxacin, gemifloxicin, moxifloxacin, sitafloxacin, trovafloxacin, ecinofloxacin, garenoxacin, or prulifloxacin.”

Which is rather bizarre as Clinafloxacin has been around since at least the nineties, (perhaps even the eighties) and has since been discontinued and removed from clinical use due to adverse reactions, Gemifloxacin (Factive) was approved in 2003, Moxifloxacin (Avelox) was approved in 1999, Sitafloxacin is not even available in the US, Trovafloxacin (Trovan) was withdrawn years ago for trashing livers, Garenoxacin was withdrawn in 2007 after a Non Approval Letter was issued by the European Medicines Agency due to concerns regarding lack of efficacy as well as serious adverse reaction profile.

As such out of all these drugs listed as being “experimental”, only two indeed are. That being prulifloxacin and ecinofloxacin. (Yet another glaring example of the ignorance found within the medical community regarding this class as this “invention” was described in 2007. You would think with a patent application that they would at least try to get thier facts straight.) Sorry, this was uncalled for and should have been worded differently, I apologize for this lapse of good judgement. It was not directed toward any of the editors here. The term ignorance was being used to describe a lack of common knowledge regarding this class, not the lack of intellegence of any one person.Davidtfull (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The other reference is in Viethamese:

http://www.impe-qn.org.vn/impe-qn/vn/portal/InfoPreview.jsp?ID=2810 (have to translate from Vietnamese though via google)

Which also states ecinofloxacin is in the beginning stages of development. As such we have three references we can refer to here. Other than this I have no other information regarding this drug. It does not show up on the FDA site, or any of the patent searchs I performed. As such I would question whether or not it is still even in development or if it has been abandoned. I can find no drug company sponsoring it either. As such I would recommend that this stub be removed until more information becomes available. There are have been tens of thousands of such analogs being developed over the years at any given time, and most have been are total failures. Perhaps this is yet another one of them. Davidtfull (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

David, please see WP:CIVIL, only a day ago you were upset at uncivilness directed towards you, but now you are being uncivil calling people ignorant. Furthermore it was uncalled for as all FV was asking for was evidence of the drug's existance not on the ignorance or lack of in the medical profession of adverse reactions. Surely you can get your point across without using negative desciptions of groups of people?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the comment was worded too strongly and I have stricken it out, I apologize to anyone here who may have taken offense.Davidtfull (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The vietamese article links back to wikipedia so copied it off of there, the article on WHO may have copied it from wikipedia. Even if it does exist it probably does not pass notability guidelines,WP:N. I am in agreement that the article should be deleted. I have proposed it deletion and recommend removing any mention of the drug from wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Icodextrin

Icodextrin is a stub for a peritoneal dialysis solution, or it's the molecule dissolved in the solution. I'm not sure what the notability factor is for pharmaceuticals. Any suggestions or comments? I brought this over here after a suggestion at WT:MED. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Drugbox

Could someone have a look at Template talk:Drugbox? I asked why drugboxes for monoclonal antibodies always display "Therapeutic monoclonal antibody"; and another editor requested inclusion of International Units. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Plateau principle

I just wanted to brag a bit on Plateau principle by new User:Jhargrov, which is one of the nicest looking articles by a new editor that I've seen in a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I never understood why such a pompous name is needed to describe a trivial consequence of dynamic equilibrium or saturation (as in Michaelis–Menten kinetics). There are thousands (millions?) examples of plateaus in all areas of science since the phenomena of equilibrium and pseudo-equilibrium are ubiquitous, for example, see diminishing returns in economics. The turgid style of the article is well-matched to its pointless subject. As for the technicalities, different people in different sciences may give the name "Plateau Principle" to very different things, just check Google. So some kind of qualifier like Pharmacokinetics Plateau Principle is needed. Besides, the most often used term in the fields other than pharmacokinetics is plateau effect, and the already existing article about it says all you need to know about the "plateau principle". The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Monoclonal antibodies revisited

I've tried to source all the mabs in Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code, but couldn't find anything for the following:

• Biciromab brallobarbital
• Dorlixizumab
• PritumumabY

Additionally, I couldn't find reliable sources for the (possible) indications for these mabs:

• Alacizumab pegol [11] [12]
• Cedelizumab [13]Y
• Citatuzumab bogatox [14]Y
• Detumomab goner but Specifid/FavId was a autologous immunoglobulin idiotype-KLH conjugate vaccine, not a mouse mab!?
• Elsilimomab
• Exbivirumab [15]Y
• Faralimomab [16] ("64G12")
• Lemalesomab
• Maslimomab
• Minretumomab
• Nacolomab tafenatox
• Tacatuzumab tetraxetan INN is yttrium (⁹⁰Y) tacatuzumab tetraxetan, trade name AFP-Cide [17][18]Y
• Taplitumomab paptox
• Telimomab aritox
• Tenatumomab mentioned in doi:10.1111/j.1600-0609.2007.00910.x
• Teneliximab p. 24
• Tigatuzumab [19], [20], [21]Y
• Urtoxazumab PMID 19822704Y
• Vapaliximab

Any help would be appreciated! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Biciromab was withdrawn during testing; try looking for its trade name, Fibriscint. Dorlixizumab was merely a proposed USAN—it may never have amounted to a real drug. Pritumumab is in the INN lists (see [22]). Its target is vimentin. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added some more sources. If you can get you hands on ImmunoFacts, you'll probably find information on all of these. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get at that presently! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fibriscint seems to be 111-In biciromab, but I've found nothing whatsoever about "biciromab brallobarbital". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't access your other sources. Could anyone take care of the remaining mabs? Otherwise, may they rest in peace. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here's a bit of information that could be added to the tiny Epratuzumab entry "A recombinant, humanized monoclonal antibody against CD22 cell surface glycoprotein of mature B-cells and malignant B-cells which it destroys by antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (1). The manufacturers in August 2009 announced success (2) in early trials against lymphomas, leukemias and immune diseases such as lupus erythematosus.(3) (1) http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary/?CdrID=42234 (2) http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS59586+27-Aug-2009+GNW20090827 (3) http://lymphoma.about.com/od/glossary/g/epratuzumab" HippoNorm (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, but be bold! Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for more help creating missing topics in dermatology

The dermatologic-related content on Wikipedia continues to improve; however, we still need help to complete the Bolognia Push 2009! This is an effort to make sure that every topic found within this unabridged dermatology text is also found on Wikipeda. Please see the above link for more information, and, if you are interested in helping, e-mail me for the login information.

There are still hundreds of disease stubs and redirects to be made. We need your help! ---kilbad (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

The BHRT article is undergoing significant back-and-forth, any experienced and knowledgeable editors would be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Antibiotic resistance-role of animals

The antibiotic resistance#Role of animals section is a bit of a disaster. I think it should be completely deleted, save for a couple of sentences that could be put elsewhere in the article. I'm willing to do this myself, but want some input from others. Thanks! Pdcook (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that much of the section is long, rambling prose that could go or be made much more succinct. I would say that most of the sentences that are referenced could stay as a unique section--probably more like 1 long paragraph or a few shorter ones. Good luck with the re-write! Shanata (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. As a group interested in pharmacology, do you folks think the section is even germane to the rest of the article? Pdcook (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the entire section should be deleted. It does have relevance to the article. What it needs is massively reduced in size and refined.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dihydrocodeinone enol acetate

FYI, Dihydrocodeinone enol acetate has been prodded for deletion as a hoax. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a hoax, just an oddly named and long outdated drug. Noted on Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Biciromab brallobarbital

Comments would be welcome: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biciromab brallobarbital. Thanks. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cicatrin powder and topical medications

There is no article on Cicatrin and it is not mentioned in the article on topical medications. With regard to the topical medications article, there is no mention in that article of topical meds applied in powder form. The article is also severely in need of references. Asking for help here because this is outside my area of expertise. DQweny (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hemopurifier discussion

More input would be appreciated Talk:2009_flu_pandemic#Hemopurifier_press_release. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Source #1

Source #1 (Vyvanse vs. Adderall XR) contains a very high amount of factual errors. It doesn't appear as if the person who edited that page knew much about either drug. I believe information from that source / the source as a whole should be omitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.147.16 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:PharmNavFootnote

User:Bixbyte and I have different thoughts about this template, and feedback from this community would be welcome. --Arcadian (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but where is the discussion? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It involves many pages, so the best overview is probably here. --Arcadian (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid mention of specific trial phases, and leave this for individual articles. My personal favorite classification for this template would be "Withdrawn from market", "In clinical trials", and "Development halted/terminated". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Fv's idea. "Fast track" could be interesting as well, but that might make it too complicated (4 footnotes should be the maximum in my opinion, and counting Essential Medicines we are already there.) Too many options like phase I/II/III also make the templates harder to maintain. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Closed system drug transfer device

Can we get some eyes on this article - the article is currently being written by a paid writer and many of the sources are behind paid walls - some expert help would be gratefully received. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

St John's wort: phototoxicity?

The article only describes phototoxicity in livestock. Is there any good evidence for phototoxicity in humans after systemic or topical exposition? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that this adverse effect has been documented in humans.[23], [24], [25].--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Interesting hypothesis: the use of hypericin as a photosensitizer for cancer treatment! PMID 19739671, PMID 16918348 Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So the usual antidepressant doses seem to be mosty harmless. Thank you for the links! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Technetium (99mTc) nofetumomab merpentan

Could someone check if I've understood the chemical structure of merpentan right? The source is http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4894e/s4894e.pdf, page 22. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed system drug transfer device

There have been some problems with this article, see Talk:Closed system drug transfer device. Any input from those with knowledge of pharmacology would be useful. Thanks Smartse (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Discovery and development of CCR5 receptor antagonists

It appears our friends at the University of Iceland are back. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made links to these pages from the bottom of the drug design page as they make useful case studies. Hopefully this becomes an annual wikiproject for the University as they have provided a nice collection of these review pages covering many of the main commercial drug targets of interest in recent years. Keep up the good work! Meodipt (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Expert needed at Medical uses of silver

When the article Medical uses of silver (formerly "Colloidal silver") was discussed at the ANI and the fringe theories noticeboard recently, I decided that I might take a closer look at it to see whether it would be possible to identify the core of the controversy and to fix it. Despite some difficulties (I had to file my first request for checkuser), I think I was largely successful. In any case, I don't think that there is much more I could contribute to the article. The most reputable sources are all articles in medical journals to which I don't have access. To improve the article further, we would need someone who does have access to them. So, if anyone is interested: --> Medical uses of silver<--. Zara1709 (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Drug Discovery and Development: Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Agonists

Hello, we are pharmacy students from Iceland, we got a B rating and are very pleased and would be even happier if someone took the time to make it even better. In our opinon this site has potential to be a good article. hopur52009

Mifamurtide nominated for DYK

Comments at Template talk:Did you know#Mifamurtide, as well as expansions and copyedits to the article, would be welcome. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Types of monoclonal antibodies

Are bispecific monoclonal antibodies the same thing as trifunctional antibodies, or are the latter a subgroup of the first? In other words, count BiTEs (and perhaps other types I am not aware of) as trifunctional antibodies as well? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Metformin FA push

I am planning to get Metformin to Featured article level by the new year. If anyone would like to help make this a collaborative effort, I have compiled a section-by-section list of useful sources here. Further suggestions for improvement would also be greatly appreciated! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also: which and how many trade names should be mentioned in articles about drugs, and where should they go? In the lead, as recommended by WP:LEAD? In a section about available forms, as provided for in WP:MEDMOS? Should the current wording of WP:MEDMOS be altered or amended? Discussion here. All input welcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Important discussion on MEDMOS

There is a discussion on MEDMOS at the moment, basically about whether common brand names should be in the lead or not in the lead of articles. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Trade_names This will effect all pharmacology drug articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Should Cold-fX article be included in the project?

Should the article Cold-fX, a purported natural cold remedy, be included in the project? The article is already marked as needing a cleanup, and I thought the project members (regrets, I am not a member) might be more skillful than others in undertaking the work. --papageno (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This should be merged into the American Ginseng article. It also needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The product is a natural supplement based on ginseng, though natural products can still be considered "drugs" (they're just not regulated quite as heavily by the FDA). It is interesting that neither ginseng nor american ginseng are included within the scope of this project. It might be because most of WP:PHARM focuses more on the active compounds than something like this. I do kind of think that the Cold-FX article should be merged and redirected, in much the same way that many brand names of drugs redirect to the article about the active substance. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR Anabolic steroid

I have nominated Anabolic steroid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)