Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

rxwiki.com

Is rxwiki.com a sufficiently reliable source for Wikipedia's pharmacology/medical articles? The website appears to be crowd-sourced, but it also claims to be "written, edited, and reviewed exclusively by licensed pharmacists". I have noticed quite a few editors who do nothing but add content referenced to this website. (For example, here are two from today: User:Kc2749, User:66.90.153.55.) Is this appropriate? Is it possibly some kind of promotion? Or is it helpful and constructive? ChemNerd (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis Safety

Since Cannabis (drug) was assessed as a "B" by Project Pharmacology, there has been heavy editing of the article, particularly related to the claimed safety of cannabis; There is currently a POV tag and there are active discussions and editing. Additional comments are welcome. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Update to current article on afatinib

WikiProject Pharmacology group and all other editors,

I would like to propose an update to the current article for afatinib. The current text, as a whole, is out of date and it contains many inaccuracies, so in a sense, a major re-write is suggested. To do this though I would think that there would need to be a consensus in favour, so I would like to propose that someone from this WikiProject Pharmacology group or another interested editor review the suggestions and reply and/or accept and implement, if possible – or – if I can implement only some edits, that would be feasible as well. The suggestion is below for review.

Looking forward to the community feedback,--Sagschneider (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Great we will look at it at some point in time. Per the WP:COI policy you should not edit the article yourself. There are a few issues with the text below. One is that the references are not very well formatted and the second is that many of the sources are primary rather than secondary. Per WP:MEDRS we MUCH prefer secondary sources. If you want to adjust you suggestion to comply with this that would be great. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick feedback. We understand and want to respect the WP:COI policy and therefore have an internal policy to engage with the Wikipedia communities first about certain content suggestions. Only when patient safety is at risk, would we edit an article ourselves but always give a reasoning for this via the Talk pages. And thank you for the resource tip – I will look into this WP:MEDRS and respond soon again.--Sagschneider (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is some more advice about formatting content WP:MEDHOW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to contribute! Another suggestion: Keep in mind that Wikipedia is for a general audience, not for medical professionals. Most people won't get as far as the word "cancer" in the first sentence of your suggestion, they'll probably give up on ErbB, malignancies, or one of the other technical terms; or they'll click on ErbB and forget to come back. Try to start simple and give technical details later, as in "Afatinib is a drug under investigation for the treatment of various types of cancer that are driven by mutations of a family of proteins called ErbB. ..." Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to contribute! Based upon the feedback above, please see below for the updated suggestion. I have included more secondary resources and edited the introduction text as well. Looking forward to further feedback.--Sagschneider (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I just wanted to check back for feedback on this Afatinib article suggestion below. Looking forward to feedback on the entire suggestion or on individual suggested edits as well. Thanks! --Sagschneider (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Afatinib

Afatinib (trade name under discussion) is a drug currently under investigation for the treatment of various types of cancer that are driven by mutations and overexpression of a family of proteins called ErbB. The cancers include Epidermal growth factor receptor (ErbB1) mutation positive (M+) Non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC,) HER2 (ErbB2) positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and squamous head and neck cancer (HNSCC).

The LUX-Lung, LUX-Breast and LUX-Head & Neck clinical trial programmes are investigating afatinib in a number of clinical settings within these disease areas.

Mechanism of action

Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB Family Blocker, inhibits signal transduction of all kinase receptors from the ErbB Family, blocking key pathways involved in cell growth and division. Since ErbB Family signalling can be initiated by a variety of homo- and heterodimers, a combined inhibition of more than one ErbB Family member may provide a more successful blockade of ErbB Family signaling.

The ErbB Family is frequently dysregulated in cancer cells; overexpression of ErbB receptors can lead to the development of a variety of solid tumours and is associated with poor prognosis and advanced-stage cancers. Over-activation of these receptors triggers intracellular signalling cascades that ultimately cause uncontrolled tumour cell proliferation, migration and metastasis, and inhibition of apoptosis. There are a variety of mechanisms leading to constitutive activation of this signal-transduction pathway, including receptor mutation (e.g. EGFR mutation in lung cancer), receptor overexpression (e.g. HER2 overexpression in breast cancer) or ligand overexpression.

Development status

Afatinib is currently being investigated for ErbB-driven malignancies including Non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC,) metastatic Breast cancer (mBC) and squamous head and neck cancer (HNSCC).

The LUX-Lung clinical trial programme is investigating afatinib in a number of clinical settings with advanced NSCLC. One of the pivotal trials in this programme is LUX-Lung 3, a global, multicentre, randomised, open-label, Phase III trial, studying afatinib in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients who had not received prior therapy (first-line). Positive results from this registration trial were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting 2012 and a further analysis was presented at ESMO 2012 (European Society for Medical Oncology). Data from this trial formed the basis of submission of afatinib for marketing authorisation to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and a New Drug Application to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)for treatment of patients with EGFR M+ NSCLC.

Afatinib has also shown clinical efficacy in EGFR M+ second-line NSCLC (LUX-Lung 2 Phase II trial) and is being investigated in later lines of treatment (LUX-Lung 1 and 5). LUX-Lung 6, the sister trial to LUX-Lung 3, is investigating afatinib as a first-line treatment in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients in Asia (China, Republic of Korea and Thailand).

To further explore the potential of afatinib as an NSCLC treatment, Boehringer Ingelheim has initiated two trials aimed at comparing afatinib head-to-head with targeted treatment agents. LUX-Lung 7 is a Phase IIb trial evaluating afatinib versus gefitinib as a first-line treatment in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients. LUX-Lung 8 is a Phase III trial evaluating afatinib head-to-head versus erlotinib in second-line treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung.

The LUX-Breast clinical trial programme consists of three key clinical trials, investigating the safety and efficacy of afatinib in patients with mBC. In total, an estimated 1020 patients will be enrolled into the LUX-Breast clinical trials in more than 300 locations in more than 30 countries. The LUX-Head & Neck 1 and LUX-Head & Neck 2 Phase III trials, initiated in January 2012 and October 2011 respectively are evaluating afatinib in patients with metastatic and recurrent HNSCC, and in patients with locally advanced disease, respectively.

References:

References

Date stamp for the archiving bot: 08:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicinal botany

FYI, a wikiproject on medicinal botany has been proposed, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Medicinal botany -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

OHSU Project

I have been in talks with some faculty at OHSU School of Medicine for a few months now about a wiki editing pilot project. I just spoke with the students (a total of 8, so it should be quite manageable) about editing the ins and outs of editing wikipedia a bit. It is part of a course on pharmacology, and the "prompt" they were given had something to do with methamphetamine, or perhaps other sympathomimetics or indications for same. And FWIW, I have also spoken a bit with Lane Rasberry and Doc James about this in the past, it's just now getting going.

I just wanted to drop everyone (WP:USEP WP:ENB, WP:MED, WP:PHARM) a note who might be interacting with some of these folks over the next month or two (the course runs until April 10). I gave them a rundown on some of the common mistakes students make as part of these projects, e.g. assuming that one's edits have to stay up in order for them to be useful as a grade (which I've seen a number of times). I am confident they will be able to avoid most of these common pitfalls.

As it stands it appears that they will be looking for either stubs to build out that are related to the clinical vignette that is their initial prompt; they might instead/also work on rewriting part of an article that is jargon-laden or otherwise confusing to adhere more closely to WP:MEDMOS. The consensus was that they would try and sandbox everything before putting it in an actual article.

Most of them, as of right now, do not have WP accounts, but should be making them soon. If you see them around, say Hi!

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

---Updated links UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect 1,25-dihydroxyergocalciferol for deletion

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 12#1,25-dihydroxyergocalciferol. Creating the article would be preferable, of course... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A cursory PubMed/Google Books search doesn't yield much work on 1,25(OH)₂D₂. I wonder if there's enough for a decent stub... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Update to current Olodaterol Article

WikiProject Pharmacology group and all other editors,

I would like to propose a small update to the current article for Olodaterol. The current text contains a few inaccuracies and I wanted to suggest a few more additions as well. To do this though I would think that there would need to be a consensus in favour, so I would like to propose that someone from this WikiProject Pharmacology group or another interested editor review the suggestions and reply and/or accept and implement, if possible. The suggestion is below for review.

Looking forward to the community feedback and thanks for your time with this, --Christoph Hallmann (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Olodaterol is an investigational long acting beta-adrenoceptor agonist under development for treating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease COPD. It is being developed as a once-daily maintenance bronchodilator treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with COPD including chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema.1-6 Olodaterol is being evaluated as a once-daily inhalation product administered in the Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler.4-6

On January 29 2013 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee (PADAC) recommended that the clinical data included in the new drug application (NDA) for olodaterol provide substantial evidence of safety and efficacy to support the approval of olodaterol as a once-daily maintenance bronchodilator treatment for airflow obstruction in patients with COPD.7

References:

1. Bouyssou T, Casarosa P, Naline E, et al. Pharmacological characterization of olodaterol, a novel inhaled beta2-adrenoceptor agonist exerting a 24-hour-long duration of action in preclinical models. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2010 Jul; 334(1): 53-62 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20371707

2. Casarosa P, Kollak I, Kiechle T, et al. Functional and Biochemical Rationales for the 24-Hour-Long Duration of Action of Olodaterol. JPET 2011; 337: 600–609 http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/337/3/600.full.pdf

3. Bouyssou T, Hoenke C, Rudolf K, et al. Discovery of olodaterol, a novel inhaled b2-adrenoceptor agonist with a 24 h bronchodilatory efficacy Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2010; 20 (4), 1410-1414 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20096576

4. Joos G, Aumann JL, Coeck C, et al. ATS 2012 Abstract: Comparison of 24-Hour FEV1 Profile for Once-Daily versus Twice-Daily Treatment with Olodaterol, A Novel Long-Acting ß2-Agonist, in Patients with COPD. http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/reprint/185/1_MeetingAbstracts/A2930?sid=0fb45a56-8e92-42dc-b8b7-13b9725c56f6

5. van Noord JA, Smeets JJ, Drenth BM, et al. 24-hour Bronchodilation following a single dose of the novel β(2)-agonist olodaterol in COPD. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 24(6): 666-72 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21839850

6. van Noord JA, Korducki L, Hamilton AL and Koker P. Four Weeks Once Daily Treatment with BI 1744 CL, a Novel Long-Acting ß2-Agonist, is Effective in COPD Patients. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2009; 179: A6183. http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/reprint/179/1_MeetingAbstracts/A6183?sid=998dc07a-878a-4098-9654-153a94e60f04

7. Hollis A. Panel Overwhelmingly Supports Boehringer COPD Drug Striverdi. FDA News/Drug Industry Daily 1/30/2013 http://www.fdanews.com/newsletter/article?articleId=152790&issueId=16510

Secondary sources:

1. Cazzola M, Calzetta L, Matera MG. β2-adrenoceptor agonists: current and future direction Br J Pharmacol. 2011; 163(1): 4–17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3085864/

2. Cazzola M, Molimard M. The scientific rationale for combining long-acting β2-agonists and muscarinic antagonists in COPD Pulmonary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2010; 23 (4):257-267 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20381630

3. van der Molena T, Cazzola M. Beyond lung function in COPD management: effectiveness of LABA/LAMA combination therapy on patient-centred outcomes Prim Care Respir J 2012; 21(1): 101-108 http://www.thepcrj.org/journ/vol21/21_1_101_108.pdf

4. Barnes PJ. Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: a controversy. Respiration. 2010; 80(2): 89-95. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20501985

5. Ford PA, Russell REK, and Barnes PJ. ICS and COPD: Time to clear the air. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2009; 4: 289–290. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722868/

Thanks for your initiative, please go ahead and add your text! Just some minor points:

1. You don't have to link words every time, just link the first occurrence (e.g. COPD).
2. What about the asthma study mentioned in the present version of the article? Is this indication still in the pipeline, or has it been discontinued?
3. If you have problems with Wikipedia's citation system, I can do it for you when you have added your text.

Cheers, and happy editing, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your quick feedback. Good suggestion to not hyperlink words every time, will remember this. The asthma study is not referenced any longer as Olodaterol is not further developed for the indication asthma. With your proposal to add the entire suggested text, to avoid COI, we ask the Wikiproject Pharmacology expert members first for their review and for their help with adding in what they see as appropriate for Wikipedia. --148.188.1.60 --Christoph Hallmann (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see no POV problems in your suggestion; it looks perfectly neutral. If you intend to expand the article beyond WP:Stub status, a few sentences on side effects, contraindications and interactions would be appropriate when this information is available. Regarding asthma: I'd find it nice to retain that information ("... was also investigated for the treatment of asthma, but these studies were discontinued [because of...]" or the like) for historical reasons. That's precisely the kind of information you don't find in package inserts or drugs.com, but only on Wikipedia :-) Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New diagrams

Reaction mechanism of paracetamol, aspirin and caffeine

A new diagram was added here [1]. Not sure about copyright and utility. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Uploader is the same as the author per here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The oxidation products for are N-acetyl-p-quinone imine for acetaminophen, which involve two proton and two electron transfer, and 3,6-dioxocyclohexa-1,4-dienecarboxylate (a) or 5,6- dioxocyclohexa-1,3-dienecarboxylate (b) for aspirin, which involves two electron and one proton transfers . The mechanism of caffeine electro-oxidation, involves four electrons and four protons. In this more complicated process, the first step is a two electron, two proton oxidation of the C- 8 to N-9 bond to give the substituted uric acid (c), followed by an immediate two electron and two proton electro-oxidation to the 4,5-diol analogue of uric acid (d), which rapidly fragments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.68.217 (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Aren't these just some random unrelated mechanisms? Oxidation of paracetamol, hydrolysis of Aspirin, oxidation of caffeine. Why are they in one image, and how are they related to the effects of Aspirin (as they have been placed in that section of the Aspirin article)? There also seem to be some errors -- eg., the third line shows 3 identical structures. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey thnx for pointing out the reaction on line 3. I made the reaction from the original article (I am the first author of that article) colored for wikipedia and forgot to put a double bond. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankim07 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering if there is any clinical significance? Ie What do these mechanisms mean to someone reading the article? Is this how these meds are metabolised? Eliminated? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The first line shows the creation of a toxic metabolite of paracetamol, the second an inactivation step of Aspirin, and I don't know about the third. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, even if it is a toxic metabolite, does it matter? It is truth. Truth can be even bad. M I rite? I am telling again. The third step was a mistake on my part (one double bond in the main reaction is missing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankim07 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

pheniramine pregancy catagary A or C?

the wiki page on pheniramine shows that it is pregnancy catagary "A" drug, but does not specify is it US FDA catagory or a Australian catagory. A search on web shows the drug to be catagorized by US FDA as catagory "C". I request any competant doctor / pharmacist to look into the matter and correct the catagory. 49.202.33.171 (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC) viral Patel

That is indeed the Australian category. Pheniramine is pregnancy category C in the U.S., although I don't think any systemic formulations are available anymore. I have amended the drugbox accordingly. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

ELQ-300

If anyone has access to doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3005029 and is willing to flesh out this stub, it would be greatly appreciated. This compound will probably be all over the news in the coming days. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

More eyes needed at GW 501516

GW 501516 is used in doping and according to New Scientist "tests on rats showed that at all doses, the drug rapidly causes cancers in a multitude of organs, including the liver, bladder, stomach, skin, thyroid, tongue, testes, ovaries and womb." Somehow our article failed to mention that GSK abandoned their research on it in 2006 and painted a pretty rosy picture instead. I've quickly made it more NPOV, but could someone with more experience with these things take a look and prune any sources which don't meet WP:MEDRS? There many also be problems with Acadesine#5-Aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide_riboside. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through both pages, and hopefully I've helped with that issue. There are still a lot of primary sources (not review articles) that are cited. That didn't seem to me to be a problem, but other editors might want to double-check that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that an IP editor has started a thread about this at the dispute resolution noticeboard, not that they really have much of a valid complaint. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

An edit war has started on GW 501516‎ and also a prolonged discussion on the talk page. I would appreciate some further input. Boghog (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of the ongoing edit warring, I have protected the page. Any additional assistance from the regulars here to help resolve this efficiently would be appreciated. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be some resolution happening now that the discussion has gone through several iterations. Foamyslippers (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It still needs more eyes. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Have had a look at the article and commented on the Talk page. There are at least two claims still in the text that should be removed immediately IMHO. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, may I remind everyone that WP:MEDREV is there for a reason and deserves close reading. I've been seeing a lot of pitchfork-wielding opposition to primary sources lately, and while I'm sure everyone has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, our policies and guidelines do note (quite rightly) that they can be acceptable and useful within the bounds of editorial judgment and common sense. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Other similar articles

I've found quite a few other articles with similar problems:

• Growth hormone releasing hexapeptide
• CJC-1293
• CJC-1295

There may be more. If people could take a look at them it would be helpful. SmartSE (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename PPAR modulator to PPAR agonist?

See Talk:PPAR modulator. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nanofitin / Affitin

I've received a request to re-rename Nanofitin to Affitin. For pros and cons see User talk:Anypodetos#Nanofitin / Affitin. Any idea which is the current (and preferably non-commercial) name? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Epimerox

Epimerox has just had an infobox added. See here for the revision containing this infobox. I'm not a chemist, but I'm a bit perplexed as to why the molecule in the infobox seems to be different from the molecule given in the systematic name taken from the article: particularly the presence of bromine instead of chlorine, which even I can spot from the names and formulae. Clicking the "verify" button also gives what seem to me to be peculiar results.

I also note that adding this infobox appears to be User:Imanorganicchemist's first and only edit here, so they may be struggling with the infobox syntax and conventions -- I know I am. Can someone knowledgeable take a look at this and check it out, please? -- The Anome (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The structure in the chembox is what is shown in the first reference, figure 3A. That being said, the name listed in the synthesis is indeed different (minorly so) from the figure. As a chemist this frustrates me a lot; chemical accuracy is my currency. I suppose it's best to just table the issue. Imanorganicchemist (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. On taking a look at figure 3A, this does indeed seem to refer to the bromine compound as epimerox, which as you say, is different from the chlorine compound in the description. I agree with you that that's really frustrating. Is there anyone here with suitable knowledge who could help with this? -- The Anome (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Both compounds [2] [3], along with fluoro-, methoxy- and other derivatives have been patented. Which of those was used in the study is anyones guess... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops, overlooked that the two structures also differ in furan vs. thiophene. Fig. 7 in the section Supporting Information of the mentioned article shows the dichloro/furan compound, but I'd prefer a second and independent source. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that wasn't spotted by the reviewers. I wonder if the authors have published anything else on the subject? -- The Anome (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ricin

Being a top concern in America right now, it needs some attention! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean attention specifically to the pharmacology content of the page? I don't see any obvious problems, but I might be missing something. I think the current events are mentioned on the page, and at Incidents involving ricin; and obviously they are not about the pharmacology of the compound as such. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Mortar

The usage of mortar is under discussion, see talk:Mortar -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to create/maintain drug infoboxes

I run an academic research group, and one of our current projects is to develop the Gene Wiki project. Basically, we helped to create/maintain a template for key information on human genes. In cases where a gene page already existed, we just added/updated the template. When they didn’t exist before, we auto-created stubs. Now, we maintain a bot that keeps these infoboxes up to date with the source databases.

After the success of the gene pages, the idea of expanding to other biomedical topics has been suggested several times by other scientists I’ve talked to. The set of drugs and compounds that are relevant to human diseases is one natural area. Clearly, Template:Drugbox is already serving a very valuable role here tracking links to external databases and providing lots of relevant data. Relative to what already exists, I can see a few possible ways we might contribute:

• Systematically determining, adding, and maintaining the data mappings
• Identifying a “comprehensive” list of notable compounds for stub creation
• Providing wikilinks to related genes and diseases (with references)

We would appreciate any feedback, thoughts, and suggestions on whether this community thinks our involvement would be useful and productive. (Note, we’ve also started a very similar discussion with WikiProject Medicine [4] on the idea of expanding disease topics as well.) Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I also like this idea. Probably easier than diseases not already covered as there are fairly well defined lists of medications. User:Boghog build a bot dealing with the medication templates a while ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a fairly exhaustive list of INN names by the WHO here [5]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I also think this is a worthwhile proposal. A couple of notes:

• Data maintenance: User:CheMoBot run by User:Beetstra had been maintaining the chemical data within {{drugbox}} templates. The last edit by this bot was a year ago. Hopefully this bot will resume operation at some point, but regardless, any proposal for drugbox data maintenance should be coordinated with User:Beetstra.
• Stub creation: good idea that I fully support.
• Adding wiki links to related genes and diseases: I had previously proposed adding target/MoA information to the drugbox (see here and here). This turned out to be more complicated than I originally thought. Many drugs, particularly older but still important ones display polypharmacology. Listing all the targets for a particular drug could become rather messy. But maybe we should again consider this. Boghog (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Great ideas, thank you both. Just to summarize those points and a few ideas:

• Other accounts: We will definitely coordinate with User:Beetstra and User:CheMoBot. And of course, we've had many productive interactions with User:Boghog so I look forward to continuing those...
• Compound lists: The INN list seems like an excellent starting point. I'd been thinking of the more research-oriented sites (PubChem, ChemSpider, Chembl, etc.), but the INN list seems a great alternative/complement.
• Polypharmacology: Let me get caught up on those past discussions. Though taking a cue from the Gene Wiki pages, we could have a show/hide section of the template when the list gets too long. Also, we are starting to work with the Wikidata folks, so we could also categorize that data over there and figure out how/if to display it on the Wikipedia page later. (I should have mentioned that Wikidata figures prominently in all the bot work we're planning.)

More soon! Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

One more suggestion for a data source: DrugBank data was used a few years ago to redirect trade names to INN's by User:PotatoBot. All their data is available for download including target, transporter, carrier, and enzyme information plus a lot more for each drug. Perhaps the redirects could also be updated then as I think that was a one-time job. --WS (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Drugbank is definitely on our list of resources, and maintaining the redirects is definitely something we can add to the scope of our bot. (I also just invited User:Anypodetos who operates User:PotatoBot to join the discussion.)

I've also been catching up on the past discussions that Boghog linked for connecting genes and diseases. Definitely lots of relevant thoughts there. In addition to the PDB and Drugbank as resources, we've also just started looking into PubChem data as well. Boghog, were you planning on continuing work on those prototypes (which look great to me BTW)? I certainly don't want to get in the way if you're already on it. Otherwise, I'm happy to join forces. Right now, we're trying to pick a small ecosystem of articles (one or two diseases, plus all related genes and drugs/compounds) that we can use for prototyping using all the various resources. I'll post here when we start moving forward... Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been over a year since I last worked on the prototype (I obviously ran out of steam ;-). In any case, I am happy to join forces Andrew and resume work on a prototype (this example could be used as a starting point for discussion). Boghog (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That all sounds great, thanks for the initiative! At the moment, I can only add a couple of thoughts to the discussion:

Possible errors in data bases: When PotatoBot created the trade name redirects, quite a number of errors in Drugbank turned up. If I remember correctly, they have names of combination drugs in the Brand names section (although, meanwhile, there is a separate Brand mixtures section, so maybe that's fixed). I also caught a number of "brand names" that were actually chemical names and some genuine errors (brands that contained different substances altogether). I gave up fixing the redirects, there are too many of them. So unless someone can convince me the data quality has significantly improved, I won't run that task again.

PubChem also contains errors. Notably, all polymers are listed as monomers (including molecular mass, InChI, SMILES etc.). [Not meaning to be negative, but all the positive feedback I can think of has already been added to this discussion :-)]

ATC lists, ATCvet lists: Is there any chance of getting machine-readable lists? I'm manually updating the drugboxes once a year, and still haven't finished checking the boxes for missing codes, so doing this by bot would be of great help.

Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, great caveats, thanks! I've made a special note to keep an eye out for those issues. On the ATC issue, I'm hoping (naively?) that we can find a machine-readable list, and if so, we'd be happy to take over maintenance of that property... Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to centralize the discussion with all interested parties and actually work on tangible prototypes, I've created User:ProteinBoxBot/Phase_3. We'd welcome your input and continued involvement over there! Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is pretty spread out, but I made a comment about Wikidata here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Proposal_to_create.2Fmaintain_disease_infoboxes. The short summary is that it is probably time for this project to also build a presence on Wikidata. Properties are already created and we need all the expertise we can get. I can help out with any Wikidata related questions. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just finished some excellent discussions regarding how to improve these drug boxes. One would be to add these overview from the EMA [6]. They come in many different languages and thus could be an improvement for many different wikis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way pubmed health is also a good source. They contain lists of brand names. I am wondering if we should get a bot to add this somewhere? It should also be in Wikidata. [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doc James! If your interested in what data should go into the infoboxes then you could make a task force page on Wikidata and assemble a list of things that should be included. I can help out with any Wikidata specific problems (or I can set up a basic page with existing properties). In the meantime everyone is invited to vote on already proposed properties: medicine proposals. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We should join it with these efforts here [8] as there is much overlap between the two groups Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I started mapping of the drug infobox at d:Wikidata:Medicine_task_force. 5 properties (excluding very generic things like "named after" and "image") are available already. I have 7 pretty straightforward strings lined up for creation. The only help we currently need is an occasional visit and maybe a comment to one of the proposed properties. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply -- was out of town for a week. Great point on Wikidata of course, so thanks for including those links. We've starting thinking about the Wikidata model behind {{GNF Protein box}} at d:Wikidata:Molecular_Biology_task_force/Properties, and we will have a GSoC student this summer working on updating User:ProteinBoxBot to upload content to Wikidata. So I hope all of that will be highly complementary to your Medicine Task force work (and to d:Wikidata:Chemistry_task_force).

However, I have to confess that at the moment, I'm selfishly most interested in designing the new and expanded template prototypes at User:ProteinBoxBot/Phase_3. (Those prototypes are important for us to get continued funding to support our contributions here.) Once we decide all the great information that can be harvested from reliable sources and displayed in these infoboxes, I'm sure we can work out the technical details of how to make it happen (relying heavily on Wikidata). Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew! I already visited the Molecular Biology task force page a couple of times to update the tables. I also looked at the new infoboxes and they look really great. We should stay in touch on the MB task force page. If you think of any queries that should be included in the infobox we can try to find a way to implement that into our data structure. There was also recently this request to generate pictures out of raw data from GenPept (link) from User:Wnt. You might also be interested in something like that for the infobox. --Tobias1984 (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the script to generate the pictures is what I have (at least in a rudimentary way - see Module:ImportProtein, for example Template:ImportProtein/Src (gene). But a key issue is somehow getting all that text source data from NCBI to be accessible to Wikipedia. So far, Wikipedia seems to have been very wary of directly importing data from outside sources, which means a local copy of a great deal of information is needed. I had hoped to avoid putting it on a single-language project, but the approach Wikidata takes seems cumbersome. The script I have still takes quite a few parameters to produce readable output, so it isn't really fully automatic anyway, and maybe gene-by-gene cutting and pasting here is sometimes worth it, but at some point I think we could do better. Wnt (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wnt! I think that you're idea is great, but that you are a little ahead of Wikidata. Wikidata is still far behind what WolframAlpha can do in terms of dynamic content generation (e.g. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=foxp2). And you're absolutely right that the data deposition is cumbersome at the moment. We should stay in touch and try to work out how something like that could be stored independent of its source. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pethidine3Dan.gif

file:Pethidine3Dan.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bupropion

Bupropion has several problems that I feel compromise its status as Featured Article. Please read Talk:Bupropion#Problems for my two cents. If these problems are not addressed, I will take it to FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions and if each isomer should have its own article page

I have been working on pages related to amphetamines.
A few questions on style convention on pharmacology pages.
On naming convenition for drugs, it advises to use the INN name if available. The INN for amphetamine is amfetamine, however I think that is unconventional. This page in the "other names" section says that it refers to racemic form and must be named using this name for European products.

So, should we title it amfetamine? Also, should dextroamphetamine have its own page, or should it be a section in amfetamine/amphetamine? What should it be named? Dexamfetamine or dextroamphetamine? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, spelling with an "f" is indeed very unconventional, for any of them. Let's stay with "ph", please! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's my understanding too, but did read the guideline for naming of drugs on Wikipedia? "The article title and the first name to mention in the lead should be the INN of the drug" PAGE. - Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My reaction is that this is a good reason for (1) WP:IAR, and (2) this WikiProject to reconsider that sentence of the guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:UCN overrides that. So you don't need to use IAR, since UCN is policy -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question... any idea on the appropriate title for amphetamine blends known in the US as "Adderall"? The INN would be listing out each ingredient. "non proprietary name" listed on Shire's page is "Mixed salts of a single-entity amphetamine product". Either of these are too long to be used as the title. I have it titled as "amphetamine salts combo" which is how it is named by pharmacies/industry, but a few editors expressed concerns that "combo" is too informal.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Bupropion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Saroglitazar (Lipaglyn) in the news

This dual PPAR α/γ agonist is the first glitazar to be approved. Just in case somebody has time to write an article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I started it as a stub. It could certainly use some expansion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Will be good to know that it won't end up like muraglitazar. JFW | T@lk 19:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

This submission is of relevance to this WikiProject. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I gave it a quick look, and I wonder whether we should suggest to the editor who has been working on it that it become a part of an existing page (not sure which one), instead of being a page on its own. It's not clear to me that it really is a single free-standing topic on its own. But I'm not confident in that assessment, so I'm asking here what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose mode of action would be a logical place to merge this article. On the other hand, the amount of material in this new submission would overwhelm the existing article. Boghog (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Perhaps the new material could be generalized, so that it would not be exclusively toxicology, or perhaps it could just be made a long page section, with future edits to add a parallel pharmacology section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note on the talk page of the editor who created the draft page, telling them about the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that the page has been accepted into the mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename "Amphetamine mixed salts (medication)" back to "Adderall"

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research. The group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. (Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account).

Thank you Cochrane! If you are an active medical editor, come and sign up!

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

JZ-IV-10

Could someone have a look at JZ-IV-10 please? It seems to be the product of a problematic sock, but it may have a little useful content. TIA. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's basically a summary of the medicinal chemistry of a series of syntheses. It's not clear to me that the compounds actually have any pharmacologic usages, beyond some trivial structure-activity relationships. For that reason, I'm inclined to support page deletion. But first, I'd like to see if anyone else in this project feels that this is something on its way to clinical use, because that could be something I'm unaware of, that could make it notable for our purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Doing a Google Scholar search for "JZ-IV-10 clinical trials" doesn't show anything of interest: [9]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hearing no opposing opinions, I've put it up for WP:PROD. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Respiratory stimulant

Should this be a redirect to something? It has virtually no content. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I made it a redirect to doxapram, since it really is just a neologism – could it include bronchodilators? sympathomimetics? anticholinergics? mucolytics? WP:NOTDICT. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Club drug, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Fluorodeoxyglucose vs Fludeoxyglucose - WP:MEDMOS vs WP:COMMONNAME

Please consider commenting over there. -- Scray (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Spectrum of Bacterial Susceptibility and Resistance

Tiffankim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding a section titled "Spectrum of Bacterial Susceptibility and Resistance" to many antibiotic articles. I don't know if this is relevant information for those articles or not, so I thought I would ask here. It looks like WP:REFSPAM to me since all the content is being referenced to company web pages at toku-e.com. It will probably continue since it seems that he is going through all the articles alphabetically and he is only on C. ChemNerd (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Pharmacy - Skysmith (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Methamphetamine content split/merge with Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture

(Also posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine)
I've made another, more complicated proposal to split or copy and merge the socio-cultural and historical components of the methamphetamine article to the recently split content from Amphetamine, which is now at Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture. The talk page discussion is at Talk:Methamphetamine#Split sections.

I need feedback on my tentative plan for which sections to move and which sections to copy to that article, which will also need to be renamed. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Large rewrite of Amphetamine#Pharmacology

Hi everyone, I recently rewrote a large chunk of this article's pharmacology section (Amphetamine#Pharmacology) - combining it with the former mechanism of action section and updating the content from 2 recent reviews. I'd appreciate it if someone familiar with the TAAR1 receptor could give this section a quick review. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Amphetamine verified drugbox fields

I'm not entirely familiar with the identifier verification system, so I was wondering if anyone from this wikiproject would be able to validate the links in this article, as they seem to go to the correct place. I intend to nominate the article for FA status very soon, and I have a feeling a bunch of N marks in the drugbox won't help my cause in the review process.
(Also posted to the chem wikiproject)
Thanks in advance, Seppi333 (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The instructions for verifying drugbox data may be found here. I manually verified that the links with red checks (KEGG, ChEBI, and ChEMBL) were all OK, and then updated the Pharmacology/Index, which in turn prompted CheMoBot to mark the links as OK. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Seppi333 (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Need a TAAR1 agonists page/cat to replace the releasing agent page/cat for certain amphetamines/trace amines

Given the size of this change, I've temporarily reverted my deletions pending discussion - but I did expand the agonist category last night. Seppi333 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Collapse by Seppi333

I just went through and deleted every reference to "trace amines" and non-designer and non-cathinone "amphetamines" that I could find in associated reuptake inhibitor or releasing agent pages. These two groups could just as well be called endogenous and exogenous TAAR1 agonists, respectively, because that's basically what they are and how they work. Lumping these in with cathinones and hallucinogenic amphetamines/designer-psychostimulants/bath-salts is just bad categorizing. This is a fairly well-established category in the literature, so we should really update our content accordingly - especially because literally no one (at least in the past 5 years in relevant secondary sources on these) has called amph/meth that term. Edit:I forgot to link the only pubmed source on this topic: PMID 24275046 There's more MEDRS and non-MEDRS sources on TAAR1, some of which have lists of ligands, but these are what I've cited in amphetamine: I cited this the most with this to support it. I'm about to add a bunch of pages to Category:TAAR1 agonists in a minute, but I could probably use some help setting up an analogous page for TAAR1 agonist (to parallel the releasing agent page where these came from). Seppi333 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC) References

Hello~ I'm interested in pharmacology. May I join, and how may I help?

Pharmacology is my main area of interest, layperson as I am. May I join you, and how may I help? hollyperidol 07:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to make your membership "formal", you can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Participants, and add yourself in the "active" section. But really all it comes down to is editing pages you want to edit within the subject matter. I see from your user talk page that you are already in touch with the Teahouse, and that's the ideal way to get advice about editing. (Please also feel free to ask me on my user talk page if you ever have any questions.) By watchlisting this talk page, you can find out whenever there is something that has been brought to the attention of the WikiProject where you and other editors might want to help out. By the way, I like your username! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: the username - thank you! It makes me smile to be complimented on such a thing.

Thanks for the tips. I'll add myself to the list, grab a ubx, and get stuck in. One thing I've noticed is the squiffy grammar in a handful of pharmaceutical articles. Would it just be retentive of me to go editing them? hollyperidol 07:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all! Go for it! WP:BEBOLD. There's plenty of unmet need for copyediting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

BNF article

Would anyone like to help me expand and clean up the article on the British National Formulary? I'd say that, at least for UK readers, it's a pretty important topic, but the article is a mess. (Consider this a note to self as much as anything; I'm on a school computer, and have three minutes until roll call starts!) hollyperidol 07:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia.

Is there more recent data on the scope, completeness, or accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia than this 2008 study?

Clauson, KA.; Polen, HH.; Boulos, MN.; Dzenowagis, JH. (2008). "Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia". Ann Pharmacother. 42 (12): 1814–21. doi:10.1345/aph.1L474. PMID 19017825. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Cheers. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You are presuming that the Clauson article was methodologically sound. JFW | T@lk 19:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't even read past the abstract. So, no. I'm assuming nothing about that study. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving ball-and-stick images

I find images like this one rather distracting from the text, but I don't want to discourage the author (User:MarinaVladivostok) if this is only my personal perception. What do other people think? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The speed's a bit overwhelming, and it doesn't really meet wp:ACCESS. I can stop it by hitting ESC, but it really should be still by default until a reader activates it. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I agree, there is no doubt, that this one is too fast. But these ones have less speed: Ticagrelor-D09017.gif and Ticagrelor-D09017-1.gif. Which of the two variants is better? MarinaVladivostok (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a strong preference for the second one (rotation only about one axis) since it is easier to view and it is much less distracting. However I agree with LeadSongDog, the graphic should be still by default. Boghog (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of replacing the original version of the graphic with the second one provided above. Boghog (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: There's a lot more, see Special:Contributions/MarinaVladivostok. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer non-moving ones in the articles, I always find them very distracting when reading an article. However it would be nice to have a link to the animated version in the caption in that case. --WS (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes a still image is enough, sometimes it is hard to understand something without animation. And is it possible to insert a link on animated image in drugbox? MarinaVladivostok (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Marina, none of the above comments say not to use animation, but rather do it differently. WP:ACCESS discusses animated images and has recommendations on how to do them. Please remember also that not all users have fast machines, broadband connections, large screens, and modern browsers. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Anyone interested in reviewing this? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This submission needs extensive editing. The main problem I have with this article is that it is essentially a repackaging by Nicholas Bodor of soft drug and targeted drug delivery approaches with a specific terminology that has not been widely used by independent third party sources. Amazingly we currently do not have a Wikipedia article on the more basic concept of soft drugs (also known as antedrugs). We do at least have articles on prodrugs and targeted drug delivery. I think the retrometabolic drug design submission needs to be shortened and an article on soft drugs be created. Boghog (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Redback spider

The Redback spider article has content that might be of interest to WP Pharmacology, because of the spiders venom and a specific antivenom injection. Medical pages on this genus of spiders include Latrotoxin and Latrodectism. I would like to know if the Wiki article on individual species of venomous spiders are within the scope of WP Pharmacology. Snowman (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say articles on venomous substances such as latrotoxin are within our scope but not those on syndroms (latrodectism), which belong to WP:MED, nor those on species. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories "Biased Ligands", "Receptor heteromer ligands", "Receptor heteromers"

Receptor heteromers as well as biased signal transduction are becoming increasingly important in pharmacology and in drug development. I think it would be good to have corresponding categories and I put this thought up for discussion. – What is the best naming? Anything to consider for embedding it into the category tree? etc. --Hm20 (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Such categories should have the same names as the articles explaining the concepts (only in the plural). Regrettably, we don't even have articles on that as far as I can tell: Biased ligand, Receptor heteromer ligand, Receptor heteromer are all red links. Maybe you have got the knowledge and time to start on these articles? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Biased Ligands" is synonymous to "functionally selective ligands" and refers to the articles "Functional selectivity" and "Ligand (biochemistry)". "Receptor heteromers" refer to "Heteromer" and "GPCR oligomer". Emerging examples are TRV130, ergotamine, 6'-GNTI, SNC-80, SKF-83,959, D1-D2 Dopamine receptor heteromer. --Hm20 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Biased Ligands" are synonymous with functional selectivity and selective receptor modulators the later of which have been around for quite awhile. LG100754 which is selective for RXR/PPAR heterodimers was discovered in 2001 (see PMID 11463859). It just took the GPCR folks a little longer than the nuclear receptor people to figure this out ;-) Boghog (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC). :-D Hm20.

We have a lot of overlapping articles here. To summarize:

• Biased ligand – a selective receptor modulator which is functionally selective
• Receptor heteromer – a GPCR oligomer (or a nuclear receptor heterodimer) which is in turn a special case of a protein heterodimer
• Receptor heteromer ligand – heterodimer selective ligand, we don't yet have an article on this topic.

Part of the problem is that the GPCR and nuclear receptor fields have developed slightly different terminology to describe equivalent behavior. The question is whether we should have two sets of parallel articles or try to merge them. I am leaning towards merging leaving appropriate redirects behind. However one problem of merging is that this might represent synthesis since I am not aware of any general review articles that covers both biased GPCR and nuclear receptor ligands. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate to have a superordinate article in the long run and I suppose Boghog is, at the present, the only one who could manage it. Indeed, I am not familiar with nuclear receptors. One has to consider that transporters (PMID 11071889, PMID 12746456) and ion channels also can multimerize and, in addition, the range of these proteins are supposed to do so across classes (Wang 2010). It's a broad field and – a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush – I found it easier to begin with a more restricted task. I chose the term "GPCR oligomer" as a working title and it was envisaged that the article once might be integrated into a broader framework (oligomer → multimer, GPCR → receptor/target protein in general). --Hm20 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Escitalopram (Lexapro) page seems very biased to me

I am unfortunately not qualified to join your team, but I thought I would direct your attention to the Escitalopram page. Much of the article is not about Escitalopram per se, but seems to be a thinly-veiled argument about how anti-depressants are ineffective and can cause permanent damage.

I certainly think there is legitimacy to reasoned arguments questioning the efficacy and safety of many drugs, including this one. But compared to many other wiki articles about similar drugs, the current article does not seem objective to me, and seems to strongly push an agenda.

As someone seeking information about this drug, I did not feel I could consider this page a reasonably reliable or objective place to begin my research.

I have no background or technical knowledge of pharmacology, so I can't act on my evaluation of this article, but I thought I would draw this to this team's attention. After all, Lexapro/escitalopram is one of the most commonly prescribed anti-depressants, so I would imagine this page gets quite a few visitors.

Thanks for your work and contributions. — StrangeAttractor (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes SSRIs have been very effectively marketed on very poor quality evidence. The best available independent sources raise these concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok, got it. So, there's no need to provide much information about SSRIs, since they are just products of marketing based on poor evidence. Carry on, then. StrangeAttractor (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think one can make that argument Doc, and that there is some good supporting evidence. But is it the overwhelmingly dominant thought among psychiatry experts? There are a whole slew of articles on both sides around the assertion "When both published and unpublished trials are taken into account the benefit appears to be little to none in those with mild or moderate depression.", but one, representing a single side of the argument, has been presented. NPOV states "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". I'd say the intro to this article is as good of an example of that as can be found in Wikipedia. 98.155.21.76 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What the evidence states if of primary importance. Usage does not always match the evidence. Usage should be discussed in the society and culture section. And if there is data dealing with the discrepancy between usage and evidence should also be discussed there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

More information needed for "Binding Coefficient"

Would be helpful to have definitions of solvent vs. cosolvent. Also derivations of equations would make for a nice complete story. Does anyone have this info off hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinmcasey (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Meclizine or meclozine?

I know this is nitpicking, but there's a discussion on Talk:Meclizine#Title needs to be changed which is the correct INN. Any ideas? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Update needed on current status of generic levothyroxine

A few years ago the AMA had recommended against prescribing generic levothyroxine due to dosage fluxuations. I was told this by many doctors over the last decade. As a patient, I can't find any information online about the current status of this controversy and neither my doctor, nor my pharmacist knows. The levothyroxine article should describe this problem, how standards have changed, and the current status.

Most recent information I can find is from 2006. http://thyroid.about.com/od/thyroiddrugstreatments/a/oct2006.htm

98.221.153.47 (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC) You may find a wealth of information on the FDA web site or by including "FDA" in your search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.7.192 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

St Johns wort drugbox

St John's wort currently has a redirect to its plant name - the page's infobox is just a box with its binomial name and a picture. I assume its a wikiproject plants format, but given that it's a pretty well researched drug (interesting neuropharmacology - it's a monoamine reuptake inhibitor - MEDRS review) which is prescribed in some countries for depression, shouldn't this be a drugbox? What's normally done when a topic has multiple associated wikiprojects with different infoboxes? Seppi333 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that the existing page has a section about the medicinal use, but you raise an interesting point. It seems to me that the pharmacological formulation easily satisfies WP:N for a standalone page. It's probably just a matter of someone wanting to do the work of creating it. Personally, I think that would be a better outcome than simply expanding the infobox, but I doubt that anyone at this end would object to putting an infobox in that page section. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Another fringe article with odd citations

I came across this article: Adaptogen, which relies heavily on pharamacological concepts, but doesn't adhere to WP:MEDRS. It could do with some work, perhaps removing references from books such as The tao of medicine. CFCF (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nitrovasodilator nominated for DYK

See Template:Did you know nominations/Nitrovasodilator. Still begs a bit of expansion, though. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a FAC review on a high-importance WP:PHARM article

Since I'd prefer to avoid a potential wait of 6–9 weeks for my FA-nom to close, I'd really appreciate it if a few people from WP:PHARM would provide their input on the amphetamine FAC page. Any/all constructive feedback or criticism is welcome!
(Cross-posted on WT:MED) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much longer this nomination will be open, but if anyone else is interested in providing feedback/taking a position on the amphetamine FAC, more input is always appreciated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane Wikipedian in Residence Application

Hey folks,

Just a reminder that Cochrane is taking signups for a Wikipedian in Residence: Wikipedia:COCHRANE/WIR.

Cochrane is a fantastic organization which published systematic reviews about medical treatments and efficacy.

Wiki Project Med Foundation is helping to coordinate the search for great candidates.

The Wikipedian in Residence would ideally be:

1. An active Wikipedia editor, a Wikipedian in good standing, for at least 1 year and with 1,000 edits (more is preferable)
2. A science and/or healthcare enthusiast, preferably with a background as either a student or professional
3. An ambassador, capable of interacting between Wikipedia's community and Cochrane groups
4. A teacher, helping Cochrane contributors to properly and successfully navigate and use Wikipedia
5. A collaborator, comfortable working in and among a distributed network of professionals
6. A remote facilitator, adept with email, scheduling, online meetings, and conference calls
7. A passionate individual, both about Wikipedia’s mission and Cochrane's approach and goals

The position is open to anyone who can meet these criteria but may be particularly suited to students or recent graduates looking to expand their skills and experience, or those who work part-time in another job. Candidates should have an excellent level of written and spoken English, although those that speak more than one language are particularly welcome to apply.

Location

Cochrane is structured as a network of groups located throughout the world to which people contribute in different ways, but primarily as authors of Cochrane Systematic Reviews. The WiR will work remotely from their chosen location and will interact with a number of groups and their contributors via email and online. Cochrane will provide a selection of online collaboration tools to facilitate communication.

Reporting

The WiR will report to, and be guided by, Cochrane’s Head of Communications & External Affairs, and a Senior Editor of The Cochrane Library. They will also interact regularly with other members of Cochrane’s senior management team and representatives of its publishing partner for The Cochrane Library.

Working hours

The WiR will be expected to work flexibly at different times of their day to suit their schedule and to help support Cochrane groups throughout the world (some work in the evenings is likely to be required). The exact number of hours per week will be agreed with the successful candidate, but is likely to be in the region of 7-12 hours per week.

Remuneration

The WiR will receive a stipend of up to $6,500 USD/£4,000 for the initial six month term, which will be paid in two instalments at the beginning and middle of the term. In addition, the WiR will be funded to attend and present a session at the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium in Hyderabad, India, 21st-25th September 2014.

Applying to be WIR

We want to learn more about you and see how we can best give you an opportunity to work with Cochrane. Signup! WP:COCHRANE/WIR.

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Fluoroquinolone articles

I've been working on the ciprofloxacin article over the last few weeks and would appreciate any commentary on what else needs to be done there, particularly with respect to content. I'm planning to take a run at the other fluoroquinolones over the next few months and it would be good to have a feedback on cipro article before working on the others.

I was also interested to see in the history of these articles that all of the fluoroquinolone articles seem to have been re-written in 2009 and then mostly dominated for 2 years by an editor who self-described as the head of the "Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation". Digging around on the internet (the group's website no longer exists), the goal of this group seems to have been to "support those seeking compensation for injuries caused by fluoroquinolones" and it seems likely that the editor himself was involved in litigation against one of the manufacturers. I was wondering if someone could fill me in on the history here and whether there are now policies in place regarding this sort of situation.

By way of disclosure I have previously done some work on these articles as a registered user.

Thanks 98.155.21.76 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! I'll try to have a look when time allows.

The basic policy id WP:MEDRS, i.e., everything in or articles should have high-quality sources. Case reports, animal studies etc. are insufficient for claiming adverse effects of a drug, just as they are insufficient for claiming effectiveness. Dealing with people who have an agenda to push (be it the addition or removal of adverse effects) is difficult to neigh-impossible, unfortunately. In theory, there is of course WP:AGF, telling the editor about or quality criteria, discussing the matter with them, and ultimately blocking them. But blocks seldom occur of there is no blatant vandalism, so the effect often is endless discussion (as was the case with the editor you mentioned).

I'm not saying we should issue more blocks (this could drive inexperienced editors away), but it is sometimes difficult to find a balanced stance towards "difficult" editors. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone who makes biased edits should be challenged with WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and eventually down the WP:ANI path (if not collaborating) or WP:DR (if collaborating but genuinely feels that their minority viewpoint should be represented).

Blocks should be applied in those who won't play by the rules.

As for drug articles containing biased stuff by special interests groups, this is a serious issue. I am actually surprised that pharmaceutical companies have not already tried to improve their brand protection on Wikipedia. It should be possible to be a declared drug company representative seeking fair treatment of a product within the constraints of Wikipedia policy (although "paid editing" seems very much frowned upon for COI reasons). JFW | T@lk 15:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)