Talk:N-Phenylacetyl-L-prolylglycine ethyl ester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Noopept)
Jump to: navigation, search
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 Chemicals (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Lack of Debate on NOOPEPT Talk Page[edit]

As of this time, the relatively blank talk page of NOOPEPT seems quite disconcerting. I think that it would be a good idea for significantly more debate to be placed upon the talk page – provided, of course, anyone knows anything new about the NOOPEPT drug. AnInformedDude (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only scientific information available apart from patents seems to be the original Russian studies (to most of which studies only abstracts are available in english). Probably because this drug has not been licensed in the US, leading one to believe that the drug is not of interest to non-russian pharmaceutical companies. This probably means that you should not expect miracles to happen any time soon, sadly. Tukotih (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The Russian studies can still be cited, but complaining about it won't make it happen. Wikipedia is by and large a volunteer effort. I think the only debate that may be reasonable for this Talk page is if a study is cited but is unclear about a statement or claim. --IO Device (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
"One rat study has noted that, similar to Piracetam, administration of Noopept to otherwise healthy rat pups (8-20 days of age) results in an impairment of memory formation (declarative and procedural) without influencing locomotion. BAD FOR HEALTHY BRAINS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.7.51.86 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
With courtesy, this talk page is intended to be for discussion regarding a wikipedia (encyclopedia) article, not a forum in which to surmise or conjecture; if the authors of the study you mentioned came to a specific conclusion, feel free to include it in the article with proper citation. WikiEnthusiastNumberTwenty-Two (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

personal experiences[edit]

The only "research" on this compound other than the Russian studies is personal experiences from people using it as a cognitive enhancer, actually i'm using it myself but i think Wikipedia doesn't allow such things to be included as sources? Otherwise someone can write the information found out by Atomini on http://forums.steroid.com/anabolic-lounge-off-topic-discussion/523605-atominis-noopept-log.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.114.11 (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The research is clearly sourced in real journals. Why is it being listed as "unreliable source" as if it were linking to some website like Natural News? -Ed

Bioavailability Source?[edit]

I've read the full text of the source for the claim of 10% blood serum concentration, compared to intravenous (Proline-containing dipeptide GVS-111 retains nootropic activity after oral administration.), and there is no reference at all to blood serum concentrations. In addition, the study compared oral administration to intraperitoneal administration (not intravenous). I cannot find a source for the 10% claim, although I've seen it made elsewhere.

mistercow (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well Mr. Cow, here are the sources for the oral bioavailability.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11094-005-0050-y#page-1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10977920

And the full texts if you want to read them:

https://hotfile.com/dl/239810847/569974e/Bioaccessibility_of_the_new_dipeptide_nootropic_drug_noopept.pdf.html

https://hotfile.com/dl/239810985/dc74e87/Bioavailability_of_noopept.pdf.html

Ain't nobody got time to figure out the new Wikipedia editing, so I will leave that up to your capable hooves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.143.145 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

¿RacetaTm?[edit]

Noopept is not technically a racetam molecule (due to not having a 2-oxo-pyrollidine skeleton). http://examine.com/supplements/Noopept/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.14.73 (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Product information" section[edit]

Moved here from the article for discussion. I don't think there's anything here which is WP:MEDRS and salvageable, is there?

"Product information" section, moved from the article

In Russia, Noopept is considered a nootropic drug with neuroprotective properties. It is reported to improve learning ability and memory (including the initial processing of information, consolidation, and retrieval).[medical citation needed] It is also used to prevent the development of amnesia induced by electroshock.[1][unreliable medical source?][2][unreliable medical source?]

In animal studies, Noopept helped to restore memory and other cognitive functions disturbed as a result of ischemia as well as damage due to hypoxia (a condition in which the body or region of the body is deprived of adequate oxygen supply).[3] The therapeutic effect of the drug in patients with disorders of the central nervous system appeared within 5-7 days of treatment. Also reported was the reduction or disappearance of anxiety, irritability, emotional lability and sleep disorders.[1][unreliable medical source?][2][unreliable medical source?]

It has also been observed to reverse and prevent learned helplessness neurosis in rats after long term (21 day) treatment.[4]

References

  1. ^ a b JSC LEKKO product page (http://www.lekko-pharm.ru/products/noopept/)
  2. ^ a b Noopept treatment with moderate encephalopathy cognitive impairment, NN Yakhno, MD http://www.noopept.ru/pic/n310920091.pdf
  3. ^ Zarubina IV, Shabanov PD (2009). "Noopept reduces the postischemic functional and metabolic disorders in the brain of rats with different sensitivity to hypoxia". Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine. 147 (3): 339–44. PMID 19529857. 
  4. ^ Uyanaev AA, Fisenko VP (2006). "Studies of long-term noopept and afobazol treatment in rats with learned helplessness neurosis". Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine. 142 (2): 202–4. PMID 17369939. 

Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Regarding the image, I agree with it not belonging here (as opposed to User:IO Device). The last two paragraphs could probably be salvaged though. --Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering if there are any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. What's above isn't. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Erik, while I currently don't agree with MEDRS, Alexbrn is right. For a source to be MEDRS complaint, I believe it would help for it to have the words "review", "summary", "survey" or maybe "meta-analysis" in its title, or be representative of the same, thereby being a secondary source. As for the images, there was never any real disagreement about them between me and Alexbrn. The images are useful. --IO Device (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Material removed per MEDRS[edit]

I have removed a bunch of material based on primary sources, per Wikipedia's policy for sourcing of medical articles as outlined in WP:MEDRS. I'm still not really satisfied, as I see no good evidence that this drug when orally administered is anything more than a placebo, but this should at least be an improvement. Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, have you tried it (the pharmaceutical drug in at least a 20 mg daily dose)? It has been studied in humans.[1][2][3] Should I just take your word for it though that it's just a placebo? Please stick to the facts, not your beliefs. --IO Device (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't use primary sources, agree with Looie496. Not sure why they're being edit-warred back in against the guidance of WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but what does it DO?[edit]

Yeah, but what does it DO? 71.139.163.158 (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not clear what is meant by this, it's possible that 71.139.163.158 expects Wikipedia to always include a summary of a drugs effects or mechanism of action. -- Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, the truth is that this "drug" almost certainly doesn't do anything at all, unless injected directly into the brain. It's a peptide, and peptides get broken down by the digestive system. Even if it somehow made it into the bloodstream, it probably wouldn't be able to get into the brain. This is basically a patent medicine that when ingested orally functions as a placebo. Unfortunately our article can't say that because all the sources are shit. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please watch your language on Talk pages. If you know so much, perhaps you'd be kind enough to list references indicating the claimed effect. Contrary to your assertion, there is evidence for noopept working orally.[4][5][6] --IO Device (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Those are from Russia, and Russian pharmacology journals are notoriously unreliable -- Russian medical journals in general, as a matter of fact; see http://www.ete-online.com/content/5/1/15. Many of the authors have blatant conflicts of interest. There are no reliable sources saying that the drug doesn't work because no western scientists have any interest in studying it. Looie496 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Irrespective, it doesn't give you authority to state "doesn't do anything" or "functions as a placebo" - you don't know that. Your arrogance on this page is evident. --IO Device (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
You are quite incorrect Looie496. Yes, it is a peptide but it is a dipeptide which have no trouble entering circulation intact [1] But you're the expert. 122.57.118.175 (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

vasopressn is a nootropic 7 amino acid peptide that is functional when snorted. there is also a FDA approved version that is an orally available form thus possibly noopept is unusally active snorted, with the possibility that an oral form could eb developed based on the oral vasopressin molecualar modifications of vasopressin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.99.62 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.. So any comments from intelligent unbiased sources with practical experience Lengthatronic (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Intriguingly it seems to be sold out in certain mainstream areas. Or sold in very minimal quantities. I've read that it is and has been trialled to treat dementia Lengthatronic (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Current vandalism by Alexbrn[edit]

The bottom line is that Noopept has clear and concise effects, but there are no secondary sources yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't do anything, or that this data is not appropriate.

"The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors"

WP:MEDRS doesn't say you must only use secondary sources. They are preferable but when none exist, primary sources ARE OKAY TO CITE so you cannot remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not a correct description of policy. We can bring up the issue at WT:MED if you like, but you will find that your view is not supported. Looie496 (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
N.B. the IP account has been blocked. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia says: "It is sold as a dietary supplement in the US". What about Europe?[edit]

What about European Union?

ee1518 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS[edit]

nothing. If i remove the 5 year limit, there are five; all appear to be from one lab. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)