Talk:Emsam

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Selegiline
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Selegiline

Missing citation for claim

It says: ″Somewhat surprisingly, clinical trials done with MAOIs do not find that they are more effective than other antidepressants when they are tested in large groups of people."

There's no citation here. We should delete this until someone has prove for it to be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoid Robot (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting this page

WP policy is for drugs to be listed under their INN, which would be l-deprenyl, but people have settled on using the name selegeline instead for some reason.

Either way, that article gives more information about the patch than this page, and is the right place for this page to redirect to. Most of the information in this article is not relevant or even correct, and should be moved to the appropriate other pages.

For instance, the bits about the neurologist discovering the tyramine potentiation should be moved to the MAOI page. The rest of the article is either covered in selegiline, or incorrect.

Please reply here, or to my talk page, ASAP if there is any reason not to replace this article with a redirect to the selegiline article. Zuiram 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Both WP:NAME and WP:MOSTM seem to indicate that the article name should not be in all caps, even if the trademarked drug name is. Since the page was moved in apparently good faith at some point in the past I'm treating it as a controversial move, even though I think the case for the new name is unambiguous. Zahnrad (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, we should call it what English does, whatever that may be. (We do therefore cap some acronyms, like NATO, but this coinage isn't one.) Support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per FDA Approves Emsam (Selegiline) as First Drug Patch for Depression and ~~lack of explanation for what E.M.S.A.M. is supposed to stand for~~ explanation that it comes from EMily and SAMuel. Definitely support, then. Chocolatechaos9508 (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per the etymology of the name, it has no relation to what the product actually is; it is therefore purely stylistic and falls under the trademark guideline of WP:NAME. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated information

Two thingsː

The last sentence in the "Inception and development" section is a quote from an article written in 1993. The reason this is a problem is that this particular sentence is only relevant to that point in time, and not everyone checks source dates. It states,
"'Despite long-standing concerns over hypertensive reactions,... (MAOIs) have grown in popularity... (and) the risk of hypertensive episodes is less than 1%.'"
But the very first sentence in the next section states,
"Due mainly to the availability of the newer SSRIs and SNRIs, which are viewed to have more medically benign side effects in the treatment of depression, psychopharmacologists and psychiatrists have avoided prescribing MAOIs because of the possibility of hypertensive crisis […]"

In my opinion, these two sentences seem kind of contradictory, which could be confusing for some people. (Although, interestingly, they both cite the 1993 article. However, the second one also cites 3 other, much more recent, sources.) So I think it might be helpful to take out the first sentence to avoid any possible confusion. I didn't want to make any changes yet though, in case I'm the only one who sees it this way.

Psychopharm Student (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first action on wp at all, so I hope I am doing this right. Why is this unchanged even after three years? Paranoid Robot (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting information

The last line in the first paragraph under "Emsam advantages" says: "The FDA requirement for dietary modifications for the 9 mg and 12 mg doses are based on theoretical concerns, as no adverse events due to diet have ever been reported.[14]"

But then the last line in the "Usage" section says: "All of the dietary restrictions are required, at the higher 9 mg/24h and 12 mg/24h doses of Emsam but not at the 6 mg/24hr dose.[16]"

These would seem to someone contradict one another. The first citation seems to be the newer one (2007), but the second is not far behind (2006).

Omni181 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]