Talk:Sulbutiamine

Sulbutiamine structure

Can someone that understands this better look at the 'mechanisms of action' section and fix the wording of this sentence?:

"Sulbutiamine is a thiamine derivative which has two different properties in comparison with vitamin B1 as a result of structural modification of free thiamine, namely opening of the thiazole ring, esterification of the alcohol groups and dimerization, with formation of a disulfide bridge." 209.63.116.205 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely reworded that sentence and moved it to the article opening where it makes more sense. The structural characteristics of sulbutiamine should not be included in the "Mechanism of action" section unless a structure-activity relationship (SAR) is being discussed. Firewall62 (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I just revised the article again and removed the wordy discussion about the structural characteristics of sulbutiamine. Those characteristics are obvious when comparing the structures of sulbutiamine and thiamine. Pointing them out isn't necessary. In my opinion, the article should focus more on the biochemistry and clinical pharmacology of sulbutiamine--information that can't be obtained simply by looking at the structure. Firewall62 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me if this is a dumb question, but I notice that the systematic name doesn't seem to take account of the fact that sulbutiamine is a dimer: the two aromatic groups are listed as "[4-[(4-amino-2-methyl-pyrimidin-5-yl]" and "3-[2-[(etc." despite being identically placed. I don't do this at all often, but I would render sulbutiamine as S-S'-5-aza-N-formyl-6-(4-amino-2-methyl-pyrimidin-5-yl)-3-thio-3-hexenyl 2-methylpropionate, or even S-bis- etc. If the suffix conflicts with the dimerization, then a 2-methylpropoxycarbonyl could be stuck in before the pyrimidinyl, or could it? Scutigera (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Article development and assessment change

Over the past week, I have made numerous content additions and improvements to the article. At this point, practically every published source on sulbutiamine has been incorporated into the article and cited. Compared to other drugs, there is not a lot of information on sulbutiamine, and the length of the article will invariably be limited by the number of reliable sources. However, I believe that the article is currently B quality on the assessment scale, and I would like to see it reach GA quality in the future. Firewall62 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Adverse effects

The abstract used for source 5 doesn't seem to really support the wording used in the adverse events portion about the bipolar person. It doesn't seem to mention anything about a prescription being written, and, in fact, speaks of the dangers of over the counter medications. This section of the article seems to imply more of a medical distinction on sulbatiamine than is warranted by the source cited. Maybe this is in the full-text, but I doubt it based upon how the abstract is worded (i.e. "his psychiatric care was severely compromised through him defaulting appointments and frequent changes of psychiatrists")

71.2.123.68 (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We need more adverse effects related. So far, I'm just finding anecdotes and conjecture, but what I find are many reports of addiction or discontinuation side-effects. The rationale seems to be that it makes dopamine receptors more sensitive but causes there to be less of them. There are articles in journals that make you wonder this, but they are too technical for me to understand. There are even people using sulbutiamine recreationally. They claim they quit taking it after 4 days and feel lethargy and headache. There has to be some real information on this out there.72.11.53.145 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Erectile and memory claim

Is a reference available for the erectile dysfunction and memory claim? Or is it included in the bi-polar article of reference 5? Access to the full article requires a paid subscription. From the abstract it doesn't sound like it would cover erectile dysfunction or memory aspects of Sulbutiamine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.198.218 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Therapeutic claims

I have removed fairly extensive claims of therapeutic benefit that were based on sources failing our sourcing requirements for such claims. Please don't restore that content without high-quality, recent secondary sources. -- Scray (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sulbutiamine is an approved drug (i.e. not sold as a dietary supplement/nootropic) in several countries, so that shouldn't be too hard. The Drugs Today citation you removed (Van Reeth, 1999) was a review article, so perhaps it can be used to restore/modify some content. (I don't have access to the full text, though.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A 14-year-old article in a top journal would fail WP:MEDRS for claims like these; exacerbating the problem, Drugs Today is far from a top journal. -- Scray (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a narrative review in a respected, peer-reviewed journal and is the most recent secondary source available. I wouldn't interpret that as failing MEDRS—quite the contrary—and if we have an article on sulbutiamine at all, it's probably (I say probably because, again, I have no full-text access) the best reference we can use. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are some links to Russian web pages that Google Chrome can translate.

• http://kornyenko.com/klinicheskaya-effektivnost-eneriona.html
• http://health.mail.ru/drug/enerion/
• http://www.apteka.ua/article/1408
• http://www.medlinks.ru/article.php?sid=24311
• http://medi.ru/doc/a0210602.htm
• http://uronews.ru/2012/08/lechenie-erektilnoj-disfunkcii-enerion-sialis-2/
• And in English, on PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15776829

They might not count as "high-quality", but might as well leave them here, eh?

--Clevera (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Leave them here on the talk page? Fine. If you mean to restore therapeutic claims based on sources failing WP:MEDRS - then no, that would violate our standards for health-related content. -- Scray (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You have deleted a good deal of the article but made little effort to explain how it violated Wikipedia's guidelines. That is not to say that it did not, but if the reason you deleted such a large amount of information was on the basis of there being too many references to primary studies then note the following from WP:MEDRS: 'All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. This at least seems to suggest that edits can rely on primary sources as long as they describe the conclusions and do so clearly; the ideal would be to rely only on secondary sources (which the article is based on). Wikipedia's guidelines only make sense if it is understood that it is at least possible to refer to primary sources in the way that was done with sulbutiamine. A quote from WP:MEDRS again, on primary sources without accompanying secondary material: 'If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning, they should be described as being from a single study, for example: "A 2009 U.S. study found the average age of formal autism spectrum diagnosis was 5.7 years"'. This is what was done, as the conclusions were of interest and published in reliable journals (see below on my comment relating to 'Drugs Today').

It is true that if, in a particular subject area, no timely review was performed then it should be deleted. But studies supporting the initial findings of one study are not necessarily making new claims - they may simply be more evidence in favour of the original claim (the asthenia studies seem to be of this kind). Therefore a secondary source preceding them is allowable, for 'reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature'. Wikipedia's guidelines on this area state as a rule of thumb that one should look for information in the last five years or so. It would be wrong to say that this is an inviolable command (after all, it is a 'rule of thumb') - especially so in contexts where research on something is hard to come by. Also, why is 'Drugs Today (Barc)' not an acceptable journal? It is not the crème-de-la-crème but Wikipedia’s guidelines only seem to require that we use a reliable source that is the best and most reliable available; this is the best available for sulbutiamine, and its reliability is not such that it should not be referred to, for after all, the respected 'Meyler's Side Effects of Drugs' is quite happy to refer to 'Drugs Today (Barc)' many times over. So why can't we?

The removal of all this information on sulbutiamine is overkill, as now someone looking at this page would be under the impression that science has had almost no interest in it at all in so far as it relates to health. We should at least be able to point out that it has not been completely neglected. Therefore I have put the information back to where it was, added warning messages, and we should make sure it states clearly on each claim when single studies were used (if necessary as I am pretty sure it was clear anyway) and where animal studies were being referred to (this is something that needs changing in the information relating to its mechanism of action). I was responsible for a negligible part of the original page, so my view is not based on over-attachment to my own work. It is just that at the moment improvements should focus on highlighting the lack of certainty on these topics, in keeping with Wikipedia’s guidelines, rather than ignoring them altogether. I believe that a much briefer section on its possible therapeutic uses should be developed in the long run.

Dutyworth (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)