Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

Acetazolamide: Pregnancy and Lactation section - and the issue it raises for other medicines

In the Acetazolamide article "Pregnancy and Lactation" section, it states: "It is also excreted in breast milk and hence breastfeeding is advised against in mothers taking this drug"

A couple issues:
1) The source for that info leads to a website that states: "The requested document is not currently available." So I don't think the statement meets Wikipedia's 'verifiable' guideline. Maybe it's just me. But, anyways:
2) Since I started working in the newborn unit, I've had to provide advice routinely to new mothers on medicine and breastfeeding, and my go to source is a tool called "Lactmed" from the US National Institutes of Health: https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/lactmed.htm A description of the tool: "The LactMed® database contains information on drugs and other chemicals to which breastfeeding mothers may be exposed. It includes information on the levels of such substances in breast milk and infant blood, and the possible adverse effects in the nursing infant. Suggested therapeutic alternatives to those drugs are provided, where appropriate. All data are derived from the scientific literature and fully referenced. A peer review panel reviews the data to assure scientific validity and currency. Updates: LactMed is updated monthly." In short, it's legit - and meets an exceptional threshold for up-to-date/high quality pharmacology/lactation info.
3) And in the case of acetazolamide, it states: "Summary of Use during Lactation: Limited information indicates that maternal doses of acetazolamide up to 1000 mg daily produce low levels in milk and would not be expected to cause any adverse effects in breastfed infants." This directly contradicts what is currently in the article.
4) In case you haven't figured out, I'm very poor/new to editing Wikipedia, so before I go change this one article, I found this talk page in the hopes of finding some intrepid Wiki-Pharmacology folks who might clean up all drug-lactation related info using Lactmed.

I just don't want new mothers (and their support networks) to have anything but the best info!
Cheers, Ftc68 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Hello, and welcome! About point 1, we do not reject sources simply because they are not accessible online, per WP:PAYWALL. But it's fine to replace a mediocre source with a source that is better according to WP:MEDRS, so please feel free to do just that. Also, you might get more feedback at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit late in replying to this thread, but all of the TOXNET database entries (e.g., those from the hazardous substances databank, Lactmed, etc.) that aggregate data on a compound/substance in a monograph are WP:MEDRS-quality citations (i.e., those monographs satisfy MEDRS). It's difficult to systematically add data from external databases to all relevant Wikipedia articles though, so that's typically done manually by individual editors; however, WP:AutoWikiBrowser can sometimes be used to make that process easier/faster. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we have separate articles on a WHO Essential medicines?

This was posted at WT:MED. To gain wider input I am posting it here as well.

• Discussion at Talk:Potassium permanganate (medical use) Sizeofint (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

List of drug interactions

I don't think there is any purpose to List of drug interactions. It's never going to be complete, it won't be useful without being thousands of lines long, and if someone wants to find a drug interaction, they can look up the specific drug. Any thoughts? Natureium (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Although I don't feel strongly, I see this as something where the perfect should not be the enemy of the moderately useful. Lists, like any other content, are works in progress, and this one provides some useful information, and does not appear to do any harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

In this, I can agree with the OP. The list will be hard to maintain (keep complete & up to date). It this really a search page anyway (who goes there)? Maybe add to {{Infobox drug}}. -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A merge proposal has been initiated here: Talk:Equianalgesic#Merge_proposal. Comments are welcome. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

INN

I know this is a small point, but is it correct that international nonproprietary name is uncapitalized while British Approved Name, United States Adopted Name, and Japanese Accepted Name are capitalized? ChemNerd (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting point. Whatever the result, we do capitalise the name grammatically: when in title (article, drugbox title), and at beginning of sentence. When lowercase is the rule, we should keep lowercase in lists and midsentence. I note that recently, the XANs are listed with other synonyms (see #USAN etc in drugbox). -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought the general rule of thumb was proprietary names are capitalized, while non-proprietary, regardless of type (INN, USAN, BAN), are not. I am having trouble tracking down a definitive source though. Boghog (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Boghog: Yes, proprietary drug names are capitalized and non-proprietary drug names are not. But that's not actually what I was asking about. I'm asking about the actual terms "international nonproprietary name" and "British Approved Name", etc. The title of the article for British Approved Name has each word capitalized but it is not so at international nonproprietary name. Sorry if my question wasn't clear. ChemNerd (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I misread your post. WHO capitalizes it at the official web site. So I think it is pretty clear that International Nonproprietary Name should be capitalized. Boghog (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Followed Boghogs WHO link. I did not find examples of the uc usage (could you specify?). Further down I found this (en) link. It does not show or use capitalisation (but does not actually prescribe lowercase). FWIW, I'd say this pfd is more defining. BTW, also interesting wrt salts and chemical groups. -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

See this INN list (2017): lowercase. Does this settle the INN case? -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: You are making the same mistake I made. ChemNerd is not talking about individual drug names (e.g., aspirin), but rather whether international nonproprietary name should be International Nonproprietary Name (see this edit). Everyone agrees that the INN for a particular drug should be lower case (aspirin and not Aspirin). Boghog (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

See also this discussion concerning whether to capitalize the title of international nonproprietary name. I am not sure I agree with the conclusion of that discussion. Boghog (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, got it. (still happy with my little research). -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed it, but this has actually been discussed (Talk:International_nonproprietary_name#Requested_move_5_January_2016) and the page was moved to the uncapitalized title with the summary, "There is a rough consensus that, because reliable sources do not consistently capitalise, we should downcase per MOS:CAPS". ChemNerd (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

...And with Boghog, I am not happy with that result (lc). Proper name is key IMO. Can we reopen that discussion legally?

At least, shall we freeze that right here right now for the OP question: keep proper name uppercase for BAN, USAN, JAN and I add AAN? -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Receptor antagonist

I think this article needs to be copyedited for consistency with IUPHAR's definitions of terms related to receptor antagonism; a few concepts like functional antagonism (i.e., physiological and indirect antagonists) aren't covered there at the moment. I imagine that a similar type of revision is needed in the receptor agonist article, but I haven't looked at it yet.

On an unrelated note, should we merge irreversible antagonist into receptor antagonist? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And again, there is also irreversible agonist. I'm of two minds about this. There is certainly a reasonable case for combining them all, but on the other hand, I can see some logic in treating irreversible ligands as a separate topic. Maybe it would make sense to combine irreversible agonist and irreversible antagonist into something like irreversible receptor ligands. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems fine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to merge them by their impact on the receptor (i.e. agonism vs. antagonism), rather than their reversibility. Similarly, beta-1 receptor blockers and beta-2 receptor blockers are categorized in beta adrenergic receptor blockers, rather than separately as beta-1 receptor ligands and beta-2 receptor ligands.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think the receptor antagonist article should cover reversibility and surmountability and explain how these concepts relate to (non-)competitive receptor antagonism. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

2017 best article prize (WikiJournal of Medicine)

There are 8 weeks left to submit an article to the WikiJournal of Medicine for it to be eligible for the 2017 prize. For more information, see this advertisment from January or visit this author information page.

• Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start (example)
• 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 (example)
• Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram (example)

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Science images from WSC2017

Please take a look in here about newly uploaded scientific images on commons during Wiki Science Competitions 2017.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:GA review of β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid

Is anyone here willing to take on the GA review of β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid? As of today, it's been listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Biology and medicine for 8 months and 0 days.

The article has gone through WP:Featured article candidates 3 times already, so I'm certain it's GA-quality as is (note: I'm also basing this statement on a quality comparison between this article and the 3 other pharmacology GAs and 1 pharmacology FA I've written). Consequently, I can't imagine the GA review for this article would take very long. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Currently being reviewed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Pharmacology

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 17:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Clinical pharmacologists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Clinical pharmacologists, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merge. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Drug box 'us-license=' parameter

Just to make you aware, that apparently FDA seems to have changed the URL for searching NDA's or so. Clicking onto the us-license link in drug boxes does seem to not to work properly ... Wowbagger2 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that link has unfortunately been broken since around January or February 2017 (special:diff/764891086/765098473). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Could not find any wisdom at the FDA site. (help)-DePiep (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I could. It would however need an update of how WP is accessing drug information at drugs@fda: at least with the NDA number, you can link to their website

Copanlisib - https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&applno=209936

Acalabrutinib -

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&applno=210259 I will try to explore if this can be done more general (e.g. using inn or tradename) in the next weeks. However, it might definitely need an update of the implementation of the drug box use of 'us-license' parameter. And of course - you need to be happy with accessing the pretty expert-like drug overview pages, by clicking on 'us-license'. (In contrast, the 'daily med' link can provide consumer information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowbagger2 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. Do other people here think DailyMed is better/enough? IMO, we'd want a list by INN (one can get that manually, through page [1]). Note that our EMA link (Europe) works with INN (sometimes rewritten...). -DePiep (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: Didn't you contact the USFDA about this issue earlier and get no response? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If I'm wrong about them having been contacted, I wouldn't mind sending them an email explaining the issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No I have not (ever). Infobox drug/licence shows no hints either, a new issue. What I did was switch off Canada because it does not work.

Yes contact FDA please. IMO we could use the automated link (URL) to INN-licence info, so if that is "expert-like drug overview pages", that be so (re Wowbagger2). Code change no issue; did so recently with EMA licence (which goes by INN + per-article exception possible).

To consider asking: if we can download complete lists (like in spreadsheet), we can put that in Wikidata! -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Just to add a little, at FDA, drugs (e.g. Idelalisib), can have multiple NDA's (Idelalisib: 206545 AND 205858). this leads to two different pages (for same product), and while the latest label is identical, the review report and the letter (containing post marketing requirements) are not! Conclusion: INN for Usfda is not enough, compared to EMA, a list of NDA's would be more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowbagger2 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Garzfoth: After re-reading the thread I unarchived at Template talk:Infobox drug#licence_US parameter no longer works, I realized it was you that sent an email to the FDA about the non-functional drug search links. Did you ever receive a response from them about this? If so, what did they say? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wowbagger2: The USFDA link used to link to the USFDA search page results for the |licence_US= parameter input. E.g., the USFDA link for amphetamine used to bring up the search page with the list of 37 results that you would see if you searched the term "amphetamine" on this FDA drug search page. Some of those results are grouped under the same NDA/ANDA numbers, but a few of those results (specifically, the generic drug names), when clicked, display a large sub-list of different amphetamine pharmaceuticals with different ANDA numbers. Restoring that functionality would be ideal since any pharmaceutical drug that (1) has been in use for a long time, (2) is currently commonly prescribed in the United States, and (3) is no longer patented will have a similarly large number of search results as those for amphetamine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree! Wowbagger2 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)