Jump to content

Talk:Omega-3 acid ethyl esters: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 96.241.3.227 - "→‎Contents: new section"
I have asked whether there was controversy about GlaxoSmithKline gaining exclusive rights to market as a pharmaceutical what others must market as a "dietary supplement."
Line 14: Line 14:


Can someone explain the signicance of ethyl esters versus "natural forms"? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.241.3.227|96.241.3.227]] ([[User talk:96.241.3.227|talk]]) 07:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Can someone explain the signicance of ethyl esters versus "natural forms"? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.241.3.227|96.241.3.227]] ([[User talk:96.241.3.227|talk]]) 07:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Suggestion:
The third sentence of this article (as of October 21, 2010) describes the process by which GlaxoSmithKline "transformed" a dietary supplement into a "pharmaceutical." Was there any controversy about this? That is to say, it seems to me that what GlaxoSmithKline appears to have achieved is to convince the FDA to approve an excluse right to market (purified) fish oil as a pharmaceutical (with all attendant potential financial gain) while others must market it as a dietary supplement. Does this fit within standard practice of the FDA? Could another company, for example, apply to the FDA to market St. John's Wort capsules as a "pharmaceutical" with exclusive rights?

Revision as of 03:07, 22 October 2010

This is the first time I've looked for Lovaza here, though I know this is not the normal way for Wikipedia to list medication or suppliments, it is what's here. I'll take a picture and work on adding some basic information here. It might be better as Omega-3-acid ethyl esters (LOVAZA) as it's noted in the GlaxoSmithKline information on it and is more normal for Wikipedia. --Bcw142 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contents

Note: 38% + 47% + 17% = 102% (>100% due to rounding)

Question: Is rest all fish oil?

"Each 1-gram capsule of LOVAZA contains at least 900 mg of the ethyl esters of omega-3 fatty acids sourced from fish oils. These are predominantly a combination of ethyl esters of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA - approximately 465 mg) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA - approximately 375 mg)." Source: http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_lovaza.pdf (Section 11 Description)

Hence: ~37.5% DHA ethyl esters, ~46.5% EPA ethyl esters, >=~6% other Omega-3 (which equals >=90%) Hence: ~10% other fish oils (an assumption?)

Can someone explain the signicance of ethyl esters versus "natural forms"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.3.227 (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion:

       The third sentence of this article (as of October 21, 2010) describes the process by which GlaxoSmithKline "transformed" a dietary supplement into a "pharmaceutical." Was there any controversy about this? That is to say, it seems to me that what GlaxoSmithKline appears to have achieved is to convince the FDA to approve an excluse right to market (purified) fish oil as a pharmaceutical (with all attendant potential financial gain) while others must market it as a dietary supplement. Does this fit within standard practice of the FDA? Could another company, for example, apply to the FDA to market St. John's Wort capsules as a "pharmaceutical" with exclusive rights?