Talk:Triptan

Oooooooooo!

This;

The average reduction in lost productivity has been estimated at $1,249, at a cost of $25 per day of disability avoided. The annual net savings in reduced health care costs and lost productivity, over the increased cost of triptan therapy, has been estimated at between $114 and $540 per patient; thus the use of these pharmaceuticals represents a cost savings as well as an improvement in the patients' quality of life.

looks dangerously close to an advert.

No title

Sumatriptan is generic now, so cost should probably be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.81.61 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Last I remember the Canadian Blood Service disallows donors who have taken triptans for the past 3 days because it presents a risk to the donor. I'm not allowed to donate to mainstream due to a past false positive, and I have forgotten about taking migraine medication before donating for research purposes, and I definitely felt ill afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.73.201 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Triptan vs. Triptans

Reading this article, it would appear that this page is about a family of drugs, referred repeatedly throughout the article as Triptans ... therefore it would appear that this article should be named Triptans rather than the singular Triptan. As now, Triptans redirects to Triptan ... probably it should be the other way around. Enquire (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What does this MEAN

"Many patients have a recurrent attack later in the day, and only one such recurrence in a day can be treated with a second dose of a triptan."

uh...what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.86.54 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

All statements on Wikipedia should be backed by citations, especially in health articles. This one was not. I did not understand it either. I deleted it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge 5-HT1D receptor agonist

Probably not worth discussing, but I don't have the time to do the merger right now. Maybe later. Part of 5-HT1D receptor agonist should probably merged into Discovery and development of triptans and/or 5-HT1D receptor. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, boldly merged most of the material that seems to belong here (as opposed to Discovery and development of triptans). Lots of copyediting still needed. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Drug safety warnings

Summary of triptan warnings
Do not use if these are present:	Consult pharmacist; use with caution if these are present:
A history of any of these: Heart attack Stroke Transient ischemic attack Familial hemiplegic migraine Currently living with any of these: Coronary artery disease Peripheral vascular disease uncontrolled high blood pressure	Men older than 40 Women older than 55 taking certain antidepressants - ask doctor for specifics family history of early Cardiovascular disease family history of stroke diabetes high cholesterol menopause obesity pregnancy Smoking

Anypodetos In September 2016 you removed this drug safety box saying "(WP:NOTHOWTO; copyedit; some additions and fringe removal)". I posted this. I work for an organization which publishes this and other layman drug safety information.

Could you say more about why you oppose the inclusion of this information? Do you think that Wikipedia should not have drug safety information generally (no WP:HOWTO), or is there a problem with this information specifically? Anything you could share would be useful to me. I acknowledge that most Wikipedia articles do not have safety alerts like this. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

References

My main point was WP:NOTHOWTO #1, which says "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not", so using imperatives such as "Consult a pharmacist" or "Do not use if..." are against policy. I'm all for including contraindications, for which there is a section per MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. Secondly, every drug label has warnings based on the reasoning "We don't have evidence that this could cause problems, but just include it anyway so we are on the safe side in case somebody sues us". I think that many of the points in the second column fall into this category, and I'm sceptical about their inclusion.

Regarding the format, I'm personally not against it, but getting consensus might be a good idea. Anyway, I'll try to get some input from WP:PHARM. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Anypodetos Thanks. Actually, I have done similar things with about 10 articles, and I have heard some of this before.

I think what I really wish for is an infobox for contraindications, possibly connected to Wikidata. The imperatives are out of bounds. The box can be an accessibility issue for having free form text in columns.

I agree that drug safety sheets list too many indications. My organization makes subjective judgements and cuts many of those out when reporting adverse effects, and intends to provide consumer information without any regard to pharma companies.

I will think more about this. I suppose the safe alternative would be for me to add some of this as prose text in the contraindications section. I am going to think about this for a while. Thanks for feedback. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The most glaring issue is the severe lack of WP:PROSE. The way it's written also borders too far on medical advice for comfort. The level of detail is markedly inadequate in the absolute contraindications section. We generally do not cover relative contraindications very much because they are so broad (although it can be argued that we inadequately cover them as a result, but avoiding alert fatigue seems more important), and your list of those is too broad while also suffering from the same issue with lack of detail as the absolute contraindications. You may benefit from taking a look at WP:PHARMMOS. Garzfoth (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I came here from the note at WT:PHARM. I agree with removing the table, for pretty much all the reasons that other editors have given. Per MEDMOS and PHARMMOS, I think the best thing is to have a brief summary in paragraph prose, focusing only on the most significant contraindications. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Bluerasberry: BTW, we don't have those "Smoking Kills" boxes on Wikipedia (I think), but we do have a whole article on the health effects of tobacco. Maybe you can get some ideas from there about how to write about dangers without giving our readers instructions. Best, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree with both of you - Wikipedia should not present information in this way. If this information has a place at all it should be with a fundamentally different presentation more like "health effects of tobacco" than anything instructive. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation of Examples of Triptans Table

It is unclear where the data for this table is coming from, especially that of the L-703,664 and GR 46611 molecules as they are referenced nowhere else in the article and have no article attached to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.10.230 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Good catch! I referenced GR-46611 and deleted the other, which only seems to block 5-HT1D receptors so probably doesn't count as a triptan. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Confusion in introduction with respect to efficacy in tension-type headaches

This is how a pair of sentences in the introduction currently read: "They are not effective for the treatment of tension–type headache,[1] except in persons who also experience migraines.[2] They may be effective in disabling tension–type headaches, which exist on a spectrum of migraine.[2] "

If I understand correctly, they may (with a low degree of certainty) be useful as treatment for tension headaches in migraineurs. This is not what is currently stated, rather it goes all-in on saying they are not effective for tension headaches, it then makes the exception, but in a separate sentence restates the exception. This is unclear and I would be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than myself could tidy and condense this into one sentence, either stating that this exception exists or disregarding it altogether as appropriate.

Anditres (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the second, separate sentence as it is unsupported by the source, which actually states that true "disabling tension–type headaches" do not respond to sumatriptan; those that do, in people with a history of migraine, are actually migraine-spectrum headaches which the patients believe to be (or report as) tension-type headaches because they lack the more distinguishing features of migraine. Thank you for noting this confusion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Z

Uzz 82.118.14.71 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)