Talk:Omalizumab

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

says

says it binds to receptors then it says it binds to the IgE itself. i doubt it's both, since they are completely different molecules. Eupedia 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure how this drug works, but antibodies are perfectly capable of binding two substrates at once. I slapped an {{expert}} tag on the page. If we can't find anyone, I'll read the reserach paper and fix it (might have to bug me and remind me though). Isopropyl 05:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it binds to the Fc receptor portion of the IgE antibody molecule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omalizumab

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the monoclonal antibody is specifically binds to IgE not the Fc episilon R1 receptor. Sorry ;p

Patent status

Can we give a citation to one or more patents? If so, when will they expire? -- Beland 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

External links to patient support groups (especially online chat boards) and blogs are normally not accepted on Wikipedia. Please read the external links policy and the specific rules for medical articles before adding more external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In relationship to the increased risk of cancer with omalizumab i presume the author is refering to the figure presented by the manufacturer (Novartis) in their summary of product characteristics (SPC, which can be accessed at emc.medicines.org.uk). The reported figures are; 25 cancers in 5,015 patients treated with Xolair (0.5%) and 5 cancers in 2,854 patients in the control group (0.18%) Novartis also state that the diversity in the type of cancers observed, the relatively short duration of exposure and the clinical features of the individual cases render a causal relationship unlikely. The overall observed incidence rate of malignancy in the Xolair clinical trial programme was comparable to that reported in the general population. As a point of statistical interest, based on the available figures, the number needed to harm (NNH, i.e. the number of patients you would need to treat to observe one additional adverse outcome, in this case cancer) is 309, for those of you interested in statistics the 95%CI is 175 to 1,329 which basically means theres a 95% chance that in the worse case scenario (based on these figures) that for every 175 patients treated one extra will develop a cancer, whilst in the best case scenario (again based on these figures) one extra patient will develop a cancer for every 1,329 patints treated with Xolair. From a critical analysis point of view it is also worth considering that these figures are based on a relativley short trial. Wheather the risk increases with duration of treatment is still unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.125.149 (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cost excuses

The article claims that Automation and filtration techniques are considered complicated and bring up the cost of the drug. This may have been true in 1993, but now these techniques are standard practice and rather well understood. Moreover, the actual technique is not very different than the way Budweiser is brewed, but Bud only goes for about $1 a bottle. Further, the development of such process techniques (even then) generally pales in comparison to drug discovery.

It seems much more likely that the current price structure is almost entirely a result of self made Monopoly the joint venture has given all companies involved and should have been disallowed due to anti-trust reasons. If the venture had not formed, I'd imagine there's be a price-fixing law suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.16.254 (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not significant" side effect of omalizumab is cancer

This needs clearing up: was there a statistically significant difference in the rate of cancer in placebo vs omalizumab or is the author trying to say that the increased risk is not clinically important? If it is the first, I would argue that it is then not a side effect because there was no certainty that the increase in cancer to the treatment group was not due to random chance. If it is the latter, this statement is misleading as a patient's risk for cancer nearly doubles. Sure it is still only a 0.5% overall, but this is not the right of the author to assert his/her opinion. This is wikipedia. This is not wikiopinia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.132.129 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the paper, it's not statically significant so I removed the paragraph. 80.194.32.126 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]