Talk:Anti-diabetic medication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


PMID 17638715 may be helpful for an expansion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been added in detail to Diabetes mellitus type 2.Badgettrg 20:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Question: where to place discussion of selecting anti-diabetic drugs?[edit]

The new insulin randomized controlled trial in NEJM (doi:10.1056/NEJMoa075392), along with the question above, raise the important point of where to discuss the trials that guide selecting a treatment regimen for diabetes? This discussion could legitimately go under Diabetes mellitus type 2, Anti-diabetic drug, or insulin. So we do not grow parallel content that is difficult to harmonize, I propose this content only go in one of these places with the other two places noting the discussion and linking to it. I would like to clarify this now before adding doi:10.1056/NEJMoa075392.

I propose this discussion go under Diabetes mellitus type 1 and Diabetes mellitus type 2, which is where most of the discussion is currently. Is this ok?
Badgettrg 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative/complementary treatments[edit]

The "Herbal extracts" section could use some expansion and better referencing. I was surprised to find no mention of Gymnema sylvestre, since it seems to be used widely, both traditionally (especially in India) and as a supplement, and a lot has been published on it (no RCTs, though). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well. Two years on, there is still no mention of Gymnema. I also find it odd that the article mentions Myrcia extracts and not Bauhinia fortificata (pata de vaca), which is arguably the most popular folk remedy for diabetes in Brazil (and for which there is ample evidence of efficacy in animal models), or Syzygium jambolanum, which is also very popular (and has been very extensively researched, although there is no clear-cut evidence to support its use). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


Testosterone is the most powerful and safe anti-diabetic drug and therefore I have inserted one paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is too POV "Testosterone deficiency (hypogonadism) can easily results in diabetes mellitus, therefore testosterone replacement therapy is proven to be very effective against diabetes mellitus type 2 because it reduces insulin resistance.[1][2]"


  1. ^ Rice (2008). "Men's health, low testosterone, and diabetes: individualized treatment and a multidisciplinary approach.". The Diabetes educator. 34 Suppl 5: 97S–112S; quiz 113S–4S. doi:10.1177/0145721708327143. PMID 19020265.  |first2= missing |last2= in Authors list (help); |first3= missing |last3= in Authors list (help); |first4= missing |last4= in Authors list (help); |first5= missing |last5= in Authors list (help); |first6= missing |last6= in Authors list (help); |first7= missing |last7= in Authors list (help)
  2. ^ Corona (2009). "Following the common association between testosterone deficiency and diabetes mellitus, can testosterone be regarded as a new therapy for diabetes?". International journal of andrology. 32 (5): 431–41. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2605.2009.00965.x. PMID 19538523.  |first2= missing |last2= in Authors list (help); |first3= missing |last3= in Authors list (help); |first4= missing |last4= in Authors list (help)

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It is what the articles say! if you want you may also change the sentences, but leavineg the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Which article said this? I looked at both of them and missed "most powerful and safe anti diabetic drug" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Just ignore this - rehash of indef blocked SPA Testosterone vs diabetes (talk · contribs) giving undue weight to primary sources, but not reflecting majority (general medical consensus) - anon sock block evasions are now being blocked and rehashed talk sections deleted: (talk · contribs) & (talk · contribs). David Ruben Talk 03:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-diabetic medications[edit]

Moving to this title as medication is the more accepted term Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I'm not at all sure this is a good idea. (Internationally, actually, "drug" or "medicine" are more widely accepted.) See my post over at WP:PHARM. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Would support the use of medicine rather than medication. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


I was going to edit the comparison table to remove "effective" from the advantages of secretagogues (metformin and the glitazones typically reduce A1C just as effectively) and add "inexpensive" to metformin (it's long been off-patent). But then I saw that the table was taken directly from a published source and I'm hesitant to tweak it. Suggestions? --Yaush (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This direct quote seems very one-sided in summing up the controversy described in its paragraph: "This weak evidence for adverse effects has reduced the use of rosiglitazone, despite its important and sustained effects on glycemic control." I did a little looking around and find that Ajjan and Grant, to whom the quote is attributed (see footnote 15), disclose a business relationship with several manufacturers of the type of drug described in the controversy. See "Disclosure" in , which mentions consulting fees and research paid for by a number of drug manufacturers. I would think that this sentence should be removed from this article, given the article's otherwise-apparent intent of objectivity. Robtrodes (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


The hyphen should be removed from anti-diabetic in the title. The text has been edited as it was inconsistent. Just as antibiotic isn't hyphenated (nor is antihyperglycemic in the article), antidiabetic does not require hyphenation. MS Word doesn't like it, but that doesn't make it correct. The American Diabetes Association uses the nonhyphenated form. (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)KBoehm

Thanks for this note! I have reverted for now - we can discuss this and if we get consensus we'll rename the article and fix all the instances, all at once.
About your claim that ABA uses "antidiabetic"... we generally need sources, not just claims. So I looked.

Small sample, but they are not consistent in any way that I can see.

Antidiabetics Antidiabetic Drugs Drugs, Antidiabetic Antidiabetic Agents Agents, Antidiabetic

I am in favor of using MESH terms as much as we can so I would support switching to the unhyphenated version... What do others think? Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)