From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated Stub-class, Mid-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject AIDS
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

On the History, and the Economics, of this important drug[edit]

Hi there. I teach university economics, and use the antiretroviral drug Combivir (which redirects here) as one of my examples for students to look at when we study market power and monopoly.

For a pharmaceutical drug that is as important to human health ( in the treatment of HIV/AIDS) as this formulation has been over the past 20 years, I am amazed that there is not a more comprehensive article about it, including the History of the drug (when it was developed, by whom, for what purposes, clinical trials, etc.) and the Economics (including how it is sold/marketed under a variety of names, how and when it was patented (I think mid-1990s), eventually approved for use in the US (1997) and other countries (???), how it came to be sold at very high prices in the developed world and very low prices in the undeveloped world, when does the patent expire, etc.)

The impression I get from looking at the article is that since it is a medical-related topic, there may be some special Wikipedia rulz that have scrubbed the article of much of the stuff that would ordinarily provide encyclopedic content. I just can't imagine that there is not more here with this article? Am I looking in the wrong places? Where on wiki is this story told? Heck, we have far more history on many garage bands than we do this life-saving drug combo. Cheers, N2e (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Group 14: Page Editing Plan (University of California, San Francisco/Words as Power - Expanding WikiProject Pharmacology, Fall 2016)[edit]

University of California, San Francisco/Words as Power - Expanding WikiProject Pharmacology (Fall 2016)

Group 14

Wikipedia editing plan for Lamivudine/zidovudine

Parts of the page our group members are working to improve:

  • Editing the existing introduction

Sections to add into the wiki page:

  • Medical Uses/Indications
  • Side Effects
  • Interactions (drugs, food, OTC, herbals/supplements)
  • Pharmacology
  • Mechanism of Action
  • Pharmacokinetics/Pharmcodynamics
  • History
  • Drug Formulations
  • Society/Culture

We plan to systematically search for clinically relevant and peer reviewed studies and articles that pertain to Lamivudine/ziovudine through systematic searches on PubMed, EMBASE, GoogleScholar etc. After find the articles, we will determine if the articles meet criteria and contain evidence based information that can be cited to update the drug information for this page.

Goals of our group edits and focus and guidance for peer reviewer group

  • Update the Wikipedia page with information that is clinically correct and evidenced based
  • Clearly articulate drug terminology and medical concepts into terms that is understandable to the general Wikipedia user audience

Dinhtt (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Group 15- Review[edit]

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify…

The points are verifiable with cited secondary sources. This group did a great job in determining which terms required more explanation by linking to the terms' respective wikipedia pages. This was not done in excess which saves the audience from constantly switching pages. One thing I would note is that reference #1 is not completed. Overall, regarding the references and secondary sources, this group did a great job in finding reliable and diverse sources. Felicewu595 (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify There were some statements, especially in the history section that may not reflect a neutral point of view; however, those statements may be necessary to convey certain attitudes toward the drug. "Is believed" in the statement "Lamividuine and zidovudine combination therapy is believed to work synergistically..." may be biased since it indicates an unsupported attribution. Furthermore, "significant" in the sentence "It's impact in history is significant..." is also a word that may introduce bias since it is promoting Combivir's importance. Otherwise, the article was quite neutral with many facts. Chiange (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…

There was no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation that I came across. Overall, the group did an excellent job at paraphrasing and referencing most of their information. I did come across a number of facts that were questionable though. This was mainly because I did not know where they were getting their information. Examples of this include the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic sections where they state certain facts about bioavailability and half-life, but there is no reference to support these findings. Additionally, in this section they include two statements about bioavailability - this seems redundant and displays some uncertainty about the facts. Aside from the plagiarism/copyright concern, I would highly suggest going through the entire page and editing the repeat information (please see the introductory paragraph and the history section). Grammar and punctuation could also be improved throughout the page since there are a lot of inconsistencies with references to trade/brand names as well as punctuation of the generic names of the different NRTIs. Making these consistent throughout the page will make it feel more professional and reliable. Overall, I like the layout and sections included, but I would recommend deleting the repeat information and improving the grammar/punctuation.Adnisley (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)