Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

Featured article nomination for beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

Cross-posted at WT:WikiProject Medicine

Would anyone be willing to take on this review?

I'm planning on immediately nominating it for featured article status after it passes GA since I've spent dozens of hours searching for medical reviews and monographs on this compound. I'm fairly certain that every known aspect of its clinical effects and pharmacological properties has been covered in the article, so it should pass the comprehensiveness criterion. Hopefully it won't take a full year of FA nominations like amphetamine did. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You might try WT:CHEM as well. Sizeofint (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I decided to skip the GA process altogether since it's taking too long. I'd really appreciate it if others from this project would review this article at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive1. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Still need 1–2 more reviewers to take on a review of the medical/pharmacological aspects of this compound; doing an image review won't take much time either if anyone here cares to take on a review of that aspect of the WP:FA criteria (there are no fair use images; all the images are either chemical structure drawings in the public domain or CC-BY-# graphs/diagrams from open access pubmed-indexed journal articles with both captions and WP:ALT text – this is easily verifiable). I expect that a few non-medical editors who regularly review FACs will take on a review of the prose and do WP:V checks, so it's not really necessary for anyone here to do a review of that.

If you're interested in doing a review of this article at FAC and are new to FAC reviews, you should read the instructions on the WP:FAC page under listed under the heading "Supporting and opposing" and read User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates for a primer on how to review an article at FAC. It might help to look at how reviews in other FA nominations are structured as well, but that isn't really necessary. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is willing to do a review of the beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Pharmacology section at FAC to determine if it's adequately sourced, accurate w.r.t. the cited sources, and complete + comprehensive enough for a featured pharmacology article (i.e., determine whether or not it satisfies WP:FA criteria 1b, 1c, and 1d: comprehensiveness, well-researched, and neutral), it'd help.
The medical content (i.e., the uses/side effects sections) has already been reviewed by Jytdog and the chemistry section is currently being reviewed by Nergaal, so the pharmacology content is really the only section that still needs to be reviewed by an editor who is familiar with the subject area. I've asked an experienced FAC reviewer to do a review of the article prose (criterion 1a), so there's no need to look at or do a review of how well the text in that section is written.

Since roughly half of the pharmacodynamics section covers research involving HMB-induced anabolic signaling cascades, this diagram will probably be useful for context on how the protein kinases and related proteins that are mentioned in that section (IGF-1, Akt, ERK1, ERK2, mTOR/mTORC1, p70S6 kinase [marked as S6K1 in the diagram], and 4EBP1) are involved in the mTOR signaling pathway. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC round 2

Cross-posted at WT:WikiProject Medicine and WT:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology

This article has been renominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive2. It still needs at least 1 more content reviewer.

I'd really appreciate it if someone with a working knowledge of pharmacology and/or molecular biology took on a review of this article; I don't expect or think it's even necessary for a reviewer to have a working understanding of the signaling pathways covered in the pharmacodynamics section in order to perform a review of the article's pharmacology content though; if there's any questions about this compound's signaling, biosynthetic, or metabolic pathways that a reviewer isn't familiar with, I'd be happy to answer them and offer relevant sources that provide any necessary contextual information to understand the more involved pharmacology content. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

FAC round 3

To be reopened on December 31st 2016. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive3. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey - Proposals related to "Recent Changes"

Hello again WP Pharmacology members! I also noticed that you make extensive use of RecentChangesLinked to produce change patrols in a "Recent changes" template. Here's a couple Wishlist Survey proposals related to making these patrols more productive:

1. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
2. RecentChangesLinked should search associated pages

Please consider and vote on these by December 12. Thank you again for your time! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft at AFC

Is the sourcing of Draft:Fulvestrant-3 boronic acid sufficient to prove notability? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to have more editors than just me respond, but my inclination would be "no". There are two reasons for that. First, as already noted, there is only a single source, which puts it on weak footing with respect to WP:GNG. Second, I looked at the source, and the drug is only getting preliminary testing in lab animals. Thus, it is not yet approved for or in use by humans as a medication. Given that it hasn't attracted that much notice for its preclinical properties, I don't think that it is notable yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

As I already commented at the draft, I agree that it is probably too soon since there have not been any independent sources that discuss this drug candidate. Boghog (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The source, Liu et al, describes the synthesis of fulvestrant-3 boronic acid, as well as bioassaying for antiestrogen activity, ER downregulation, and in vivo pharmacokinetics. Brilanestrant, another SERD, does have a page, but it has already entered clinical trials. Given how novel this discovery is, I concur with those above in answering "no." Biochemistry&Love (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Need proper sources per WP:MEDRS. Is it a drug yet? Or just hoping to be? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

All preclinical at the moment. At this point, WP:GNG is more relevant than WP:MEDRS. Boghog (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

fails any way you measure it. TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Paracetamol toxicity

Paracetamol toxicity, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:MDMA#Class

Please contribute to this discussion on what the drug classification of MDMA should be in the infobox. Sizeofint (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Acadesine_and_AICA_ribonucleotide

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Acadesine_and_AICA_ribonucleotide about two articles which may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. ChemNerd (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Mix up

Please see Talk:Synthol something gone wrong in mix up of two different substances. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ixazomib for DYK

Template:Did you know nominations/Ixazomib --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about pharmacy is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Brand names typically redirected to generic names

A redirect is up for discussion here.[1]

Basically the question is should we redirect brands to generics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This case is a bit more complex than presented above: the brand (Tylenol) currently redirects to the generic page (Paracetamol), while there is a page about the brand itself (Tylenol (brand)). --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

From that discussion and elsewhere it seems clear that there is a general consensus to maintain the policy of redirecting brands to generics, although there can be exceptions; the question is whether or not Tylenol (brand) is an exception because of independent notability.Klbrain (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO most people who search for Tylenol are looking for information on the medication not a history of the brand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James that those looking for Tylenol want to know about paracetamol and so Tylenol should direct there. There is then the distinct question of whether a Tylenol (brand) page should exist in order to discuss the history of a notable brand. Klbrain (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion

The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Engaging Wikipedians

• Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
• Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review)
• Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

Engaging non-Wikipedians

We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:

• Printing off the advertisement poster and distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
• Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)

If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.

Additionally, the WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Updating of Ixazomib Article

Dear Editors of the Wikipedia Ixazomib Page,

The FDA granted priority review and orphan drug designation. Priority review status is granted to applications for drugs that, if approved, would be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment of a serious condition.

Mhowellcmi123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I mentioned the priority review; orphan designation already was in the article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pharmaceutical companies of the United States

Should Template:Pharmaceutical companies of the United States include defunct companies? There are a lot of companies in this list that have closed or been bought by another company. Natureium (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This list will soon be replaced by a single link to Pfizer ;-) More seriously, one option might be to split the list into current and former companies. Another is to list the acquired companies in parenthesis after the acquiring company. Boghog (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think those are both good ideas. I'll look at about what proportion of the list are defunct when I have time later. And I guess if they were bought be a foreign company, they can just be taken off the list, as they are no longer an american company. But honestly, we're getting close to an oligopoly. Natureium (talk)

My new question is- why are there so many more articles in the category "Pharmaceutical companies of the United States" than there are listed in the template? Natureium (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps size does matter? Or is that the Pfizer in me talking? ... On a more serious note, it would be reasonable in a template to have lower limit on, say, turnover, so that the template doesn't become unwieldy.Klbrain (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mutually exclusive categories

Does anyone have an opinion of whether the categories Abandoned drugs and Experimental drugs should be mutually exclusive? i.e. If a drug is abandoned, is it no longer experimental? Natureium (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Abandoned drugs and Category:Experimental drugs then: PETSCAN has 12 now. -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. There's also Category:Experimental cancer drugs, and probably others that I'm less familiar with. Natureium (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Added that one as a subcategory (no doubles). New PETSCAN now has 26. -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I've started removing the category from drugs that are obviously abandoned (e.g. due to safety, rather than there just haven't been any clinical trials in 10 years), so that number is changing. Sorry if I'm causing any confusion. Natureium (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec)No problem if that's the fact. But do leave that subcategory I made it, because that is what it is per WP:CATEGORY. (Unless an 'Experimental cancer drug' is somehow not an 'Experimental drug'???). -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Experimental cancer drugs already has the cat Experimental drugs. Does adding it twice do anything special? Natureium (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Experimental drugs should have subcategory Category:Experimental cancer drugs. That's how categories work. Usually, no article appears in both. (as you write it here, that would be inverse?). -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If you look here [2], I added Category:Experimental drugs in December, and you added it again. I removed it, and you re-added it. Does it need to be listed twice? Natureium (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that one, when adjusting the PETSCAN. Clean now. Do you need more PETSCAN stuff? (You can try with other category names easily). -DePiep (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll play with the PETSCAN. Natureium (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion they are distinct categories. Category:Experimental drugs for drugs currently undergoing clinical trials (and maybe pre-clinical research too) and Category:Abandoned drugs for drugs that entered clinical trials, but the company involved has announced that they are no longer conducting any clinical trials. I would also distinguish abandoned drugs from Category:Withdrawn drugs, which were once marketed drugs, but are no longer. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this is sound reasoning, so I'm removing Category:Experimental drugs and Category:Experimental cancer drugs from drugs that are clearly abandoned. Natureium (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Go to Template talk:Infobox drug later on if you think this should be a parameter. -DePiep (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If I think what should be a parameter? Natureium (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

{{Drugbox}} could have |status=experimental/abandoned/withdrawn showing (but not the default 'on sale'). Categories should be used as intended (and will not be added automatically). -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Edgar. If something is "abandoned" it should no longer be "experimental" and yes "withdrawn" is distinct. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Article on FDA expedited programs

If I were to create an article on the expedited programs for review of new drugs by the FDA, would it be deleted? All of these methods have their own articles, but I think it would be informative to have an article comparing the different methods (fast track designation, orphan drug designation, accelerated approval, breakthrough designation, priority review coupons). Would this be appropriate? Natureium (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Should articles be about salts or acids?

I was confused by the naproxen article. It describes only the acid, but says "Naproxen _and_ naproxen sodium are marketed under various brand names,...". The are two different pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/... pages, for the acid and the sodium salt. PDR seems to confuse them, implying that enteric-coated tablets are not the sodium salt, but then describing them elsewhere as the sodium salt. The suspension form seems to be clearly be the acid, so both are used.

What is the Project's position on such compounds? Can an article have two Chemboxes? Should the article be about the common drug, with a stub article for the acid?73.81.150.65 (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My feeling is that salt and its conjugate acid can be discussed on the same page, particularly given that when in solution in the body there will be an equilibrium between the two depending on the pH. If there are significant differences in the absorption of the two forms then this can be identified and discussed in a section. Klbrain (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we use the active moiety (in this case, the acid) as the page title and discuss salts, if applicable, in the same article. For example, diclofenac potassium, diclofenac sodium and diclofenac diethylamine all redirect to diclofenac. (See MOS:PHARM#Articles to use INN) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree good to discuss them together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Both PubChem and Wikidata define them as two different chemicals (naproxen (Q1215575), naproxen sodium (Q27107504)). That's good: logically correct, and easier to merge that to split in an article. If these two are comparable or highly related for pharmacological reasons, as seems to be the case, they rightly be described in the same drug article. Today, en:naproxen sodium is just a Redirect.

{{Infobox drug}} allows for two identifiers to be listed (e.g., use |PubChem2=, see /doc; this option will be enhanced this week). If this is not complete enough, it is perfectly OK to add a second {{infobox drug}}. There also could be created content article like naproxen sodium (chemical), when the chemical aspects are worth it. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone else been plagiarized by the authors of an academic journal article/review?

I honestly don't really care about being plagiarized (TBH, I'm sort of flattered), but I noticed that PMID 27424325 copied content that I wrote in the N-methylphenethylamine article a while back almost verbatim, although the references are different. There's about 3-4 other sentences scattered throughout the journal article that also appear to be copied from WP articles on individual trace amines, but overall it looks to be fairly minor compared to what was copied from the NMPEA article. The vast majority of this review contains a lot of original writing (or at least not plagiarized from Wikipedia) and IMO is a pretty useful sources for citing new content, but I thought it was amusing that it contains article text from the English Wikipedia. Has this happened to any other pharmacology editors before?

This paragraph is from this reference's section on NMPEA (the struckout text isn't copied from the NMPEA article):

N-Methylphenethylamine (NMPEA) is a naturally occurring trace amine neuromodulator in humans that is derived from the trace amine, phenethylamine (PEA) [103,105]. It has been detected in human urine and is produced by phenylethanolamine N-methyltransferase with phenethylamine as a substrate [106]. PEA and NMPEA are both alkaloids that are found in a number of different plant species as well [63]. Like its parent compound, PEA, NMPEA is a potent agonist of human TAAR1 [103,104]. However the functional roles of NMPEA in mammalian brain is not clear.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It has happened before (see for example this discussion). The publisher of Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, Elsevier, does have a procedure to handle cases like this. If the plagiarism is extensive, it might be worth contacting the publisher. It happened to me once as well, except I was a referee to a manuscript submitted for publication. There was passage that looked like I had wrote it ;-) When I checked it out, sure enough, it lead to passage in Wikipedia that I had written. Needless to say, the manuscript was rejected for publication. Boghog (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Technically speaking, it's OK to copy directly from Wikipedia with attribution, but not without. But professionally, when writing in a scholarly journal, it's really unacceptable. You can certainly tell the publisher as Boghog indicated, but it's a question of whether it's worth the bother. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

EMA401 withdrawn?

As far as I understand it, EMA401 has been withdrawn from clinical trials. Does anyone know if this is the case? The article could do with some serious culling of old (and somewhat promotional) information. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

that article is a disaster. gah.

according to AdisInsight the trials were stopped in summer 2015 (ref). That is about the same time that Novartis bought Spinfex, the originator. In that context seems most likely that clinical development was paused not killed but uncertain. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

FDA license link changed/broken

{{Infobox drug}} links to the FDA site for 'licence data', eg warfarin. Recently, the link was changed at their site just leading into the general search page. Can we cure this? Discussion is at Talk:Infobox drug. -DePiep (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"Pharmacy" the place

I live in the United States and use the term "drugstore" to mean "pharmacy".

Can I get an opinion on whether "community pharmacy" is the Wikipedia article for that topic? There is also "drugstore".

I hesitate about community pharmacy because I was considering whether there should be a general article for "pharmacy the place", whether it is for the community or a hospital or anything else. There seems to not be one of these, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I live in the US too, so I'd also like to hear from any editors elsewhere. To me, a drugstore sells many kinds of products and includes a pharmacy within it. A pharmacy is specifically where prescriptions are filled (and a few other healthcare services are handled). As you say, a community pharmacy (typically inside a drugstore, but potentially also inside a clinic or freestanding) and a hospital pharmacy are distinct categories of pharmacy – and mail-order pharmacy would be yet another. As for how many or few pages we should have for all of this, I don't have a strong opinion, but I see nothing wrong with having multiple articles, so long as they are adequately cross-referenced. I could even see a rationale for a disambiguation page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So, in US ... the term "drugstore" to mean "pharmacy". That would be "pharmacy (shop)", I guess.

Doesn't this show the need for article like:

Pharmacy (shop), a place providing pharmaceutical services. In US called "drugstore", in UK there are "community pharmacy"'s, while hospitals have internal pharmacies called (todo). Depending on local law, such a place can have or must have a pharmacist present, and can or can not sell non-pharmaceutical products like shampoo.

This has the advantage that at least I, an outsider to both, finally can find the differences in this wiki ;-). To me, these are not obvious, not even which word is used in which country. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about safety warning boxes in drug articles

Input at Talk:Triptan#Drug safety warnings would be welcome. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox drug: "Legal status = Rx-only" may be too absolute

{{Infobox drug}} has option |legal_status= to enter any text, that will show unedited. The template does make one edit though: it replaces |legal_status=Rx-only with "℞ (Prescription only)". These occurrences, some 600 articles, are listed under * in Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status. Also, there are country-specific options like |legal_UK=; these do not matter here. Example: Alprazolam.

My question is: is this not too absolute for a statement: saying 'It is Rx-only everywhere'? There is no world-wide law saying so. I propose to make it, by the same automate, more relaxed: "In general, ℞ (Prescription only)". -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of just removing it entirely. The only globalizable legal statuses we have are OTC and Rx-only, and even those vary too much by country for the general legal_status to be of much use. Your "in general" proposal is a relatively acceptable alternative but just clarifies the vagueness present and would probably look a bit out of place compared to how the other legal_XX variables are processed. Garzfoth (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean delete the whole parameter? Or hide just 'Rx-only' and 'OTC' input? There could be useful remarks (any text) in there, possibly sourced. Shall I track all those with input? (Background: before the country-specific _XX options, this parameter held all the legal info. Just noting where it comes from). -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done this:

• 1. added prefix text to Rx-only

|legal_status=rx-only

→

In general: ℞ (Prescription only)

• 2. added similar for OTC

|legal_status=OTC

→

In general: Over-the-counter (OTC)

• 3. Also categorise when any other text is entered (so: we list every drugbox that has input in this)

|legal_status=Any text can go here.<ref>Hello world.</ref>

→

Any text can go here.

All these articles (and more because of |legal_XX= irregular inputs), are in Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status (3,112).

References

--DePiep (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC) -edits- DePiep (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes in Preformatted input

I have walked through all articles with non-standard legal input ('input not recognised'). See Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status (3,112), down from 1750 P. The category also has an options overview and a detailed TOC (sorted per country). Articles categorised do not signal an error (could be OK).

1. I have diffused general input into country-specific when possible (from 'legal_status' into 'legal_US' etc). What remains in |legal_status= is, as intended, input like: 'Illegal in Sweden, Japan, China, Switzerland, Poland, Russia'. (RU and PL almost always with a reference!). Also appearing: 'Withdrawn from marked; In trials phase III; Investigative'.

Added to the recognised options:

1. Output has more explanations like 'precursor' for UN schemes, not just code any more where possible. See options list.
2. US: 'not FD approved', 'Investigative New Drug', 'IND', 'Analogue', 'Analoge'.

NZ, UK: 'Temporary Class'

GE: 'Rx only' for 'Anlage III'

legal_general: 'unscheduled; uncontrolled; legal; non-regulated', 'investigative', 'veterinary only'.

• To do

1. Some input relates to the development-cycle (not exactly legal status). Maybe split into a separate parameter? Would specify status like 'investigative' and 'withdrawn'. Later more on this.
2. I'd like to see more descriptive wording, not just "Scheme 3". See the options list in the category and documentation. CA, NZ, UK, US and EU, UN.

-DePiep (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "not/approved by FDA" etc. be in |Licence=? Its not about legal really. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone

...with the appropriate experience swap in a drugbox for the chembox, at amyl nitrite. This is more appropriately a drug, historically and practically, than some natural products that have been given drugboxes, and giving this compound a drugbox allow use of several useful fields that are not present in the chembox. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll see about doing that when I have time within the next 3 days. It's rather tedious to swap all the parameters since they're not identical in these infoboxes. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done pls take a look to drugify if a bit more? -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Mutations that drive resistance to targeted cancer drugs

Hi - I worked over Osimertinib last night, and added content about resistance mutations. Not sure where that should go. I put it in medical use (!) which may surprise you but that drug's provisional approval in the US came with a requirement to use a companion diagnostic to ensure that the cancer has a specific mutation in EGFR, so it made sense (to me) to put it there. But maybe it should be in pharmacology?

This is an important facet of these targeted cancer drugs and perhaps PHARMMOS should give advice about where to put this content, generally. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Example section Erlotinib#Resistance_to_treatment Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any problems with the way you did it, but I guess I could be missing something. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't do the Erlotinib one - somebody made a whole section out of it. Which is interesting but not in MEDMOS or PHARMMOS. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Extracellular chemotherapeutic agents

Problem with how this template is being populated. See Template_talk:Extracellular_chemotherapeutic_agents#Problem Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)