Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

MDMA RFC

Please contribute to the RFC on the MDMA talk page. It concerns the whether or not some content asked for in various manuals of style, including this project's, may be undue for inclusion in the article lead. Talk:MDMA#Chirality and drug class in lead Sizeofint (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hello WikiProject Pharmacology,
You are invited to join the Essential Oils WikiProject, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to the study and improvement of Essential Oil and related articles.
To join the project, just add your name to the participants list. We're so glad you're here!
                      – Ilikeguys21 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

A drugbox for a non-pharmaceutical dietary supplement

Is there any reason a non-pharmaceutical dietary supplement with a chembox shouldn't have a drugbox if there's no (significant) loss of data from the change?
β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid/β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate has clinical and pharmacokinetic data (e.g., see the diagrams in Talk:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Reviews and CC-BY-2.0 diagrams) which could go in the dbox and all the current chembox data except the jmol image has a corresponding drugbox parameter. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am supportive of having a drugbox instead of a chembox. All the essential medicines should have a drugbox at least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that all non-pharmaceutical dietary supplements that contain one active compound (a drug) should have a drug box. So, that is "any substance other than food, that ... consumed ... causes a physiological change in the body" (quoting from the current Wikipedia page for drug, which is referenced there). If there is more than one active compound, then I'd just link to pages for the active compounds. If there is evidence for a effect, but no active ingedient has been identified, then I'd argue that it could be called a therapeutic substance or a medicine, but not a drug and shouldn't have a drug box. Klbrain (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Marijuana (cannabis)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis#Draft:Marijuana (cannabis) --Moxy (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Update content on antihistamines

Folks please see this at Doc James Talk page. A new editor has asked that we updated content on H1 antagonists to reflect current scientific knowledge that most of these are inverse agonists, locking the receptors in the "off" position allosterically, and killing constitutive "on" activity, which in turn causes some of their side effects. The sources they cite are PMID 11972592 and PMID 22021988. They are saying they don't have the skills to update but are asking folks to do that for them. Seems down WT:PHARM's alley. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This is place to have that discussion, btw :) Jytdog (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The place to have a dicussion about H1 antagonists is on Talk:H1 antagonist, not here. It would probably be better to go with IUPHAR's description of a ligand's activity over these reviews. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I hope I did not seem disrespectful on Doc James talk page, that was not my intent. I am capable of learning, I have a BA in a law related degree, I've been studying epigenetics for 14 years and am still under 30, I know some programming and know Latin well enough to read it. The issue here is not a medical argument, I need not make it. Anyone knows anything about epigenetics knows that it is pointless to try, the causes of diseases are not only limited by technology but science ethics. The argument here is regarding English language rules. The rule is, is that if a word is not accurate in what it is describing, it must be replaced by a more abstract word. That is all there is too it. Latin is a very precise language and which is why it is the language of medicine. It is very important to know what a medicine does. Look at what Hitler's doctor injected him with.[1]
It is because they did not know how the substances actually worked. There is no argument on why we would keep this as H1 Antagonist, if it is true that there are significant inverse agonist activities occurring. There may be enough to call it H1 Inverse Agonist. But that does not exactly seem like a helpful change. What is helpful is to become more abstract, to cease using this word which incorrectly links the reader to a concept that isn't actually occurring. And we don't need to ask anyone permission to do that, all we have to do is look at the studies, judge if they are right or wrong, and if there is any doubt that the mechanics of these drugs are not only operating by antagonistic mechanisms, well then English rules dictate that a more abstract word must take its place. That has nothing to do with medicine, or bureaucracy, or anything like that. That has to do with sustaining our language as an effective tool of communication.
There cannot be an argument as to why to keep that as H1 Antagonist, unless it's inverse agonist receptor properties do not exist. If they do exist and someone says they are insignificant, how can anyone know if that person is telling the truth? Epigenetic disease has been linked to this drug, how do we know that it is not doing something? All we know is that if it is, we will never be able to find out. We therefore don't attempt to assign any medical based argument to this, because the times where science was providing us with sure answers is about over. We do not have to accept correlational studies as proof, but we do need to take all the causal studies that we do have and make sure our articles are in line with those studies, and that the wording is accurate in light of these studies.
This is not happening, while editing articles, I removed citations from 1994 while asserting that Benadryl[2] operates by inverse agonist properties. This stuff hasn't been updated in ages. It cites stuff that occurred 9 years before the human genome project was completed. We have problems so big now that we have to admit that we will not be able to stop the causes of the disease any time soon. But if we stop following English rules regarding words, we are really in big trouble. Look up the US definition of soluble and insoluble fiber.[3]
"In the USA, labelling of total dietary fibre is mandatory. The labelling of soluble and insoluble dietary fibre is optional and a labelling scheme has been defined whereby the energy value assigned to insoluble fibre is 0 kcal/g and the energy value for soluble fibre is 4 kcal/g."
It's defined by calories. Keep in mind that this is how the science paper was defining soluble and insoluble fiber, when addressing the mechanics of fiber. This issue of misusing words is very widespread. It is a sign of the degeneration of language itself. If we even fix this issue, the basic notion of connecting words to the idea they are supposed to represent is still going to be a very big problem. If we cannot solve it, then it doesn't matter what new studies come out. We will just assume that when someone uses a word, it doesn't connect to an idea.
That's not good. It's a headache to study the microbiome, because I never have any idea what anyone means by soluble and insoluble fiber. I have found them using this caloric definition of the word. It erodes trust in the sciences when you have to look up every word instead of just using the right word and having it mean what it is supposed to mean.Salvia420 (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Paragraphs please. Sizeofint (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that is much easier to read. With regard to the "antagonist", "inverse agonist" etc. issue, we basically have to follow whatever convention the literature is currently using. We can't just make up our own terminology because the literature isn't doing a good job. I'd find some review articles or meta-analyses from the last few years and follow their convention.
Removing content citing evidence from studies in 1994 is good. The science has advanced a lot since then. With regard to the soluble/insoluble fiber issue, it looks to me like they are defining labeling of the caloric value of fiber. Not fiber itself. My understanding is that fiber is just non-digestible portions of consumed plant products. Sizeofint (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I am capable of learning and accepting a no :) It's just that if Wikipedia is limited to looking to state-business based organizations for change, then I know that is a 30 year wait. The fiber is non-digestible by human cells, however the articles that me and Seppi333[4] have worked on, such as butyric acid[5], indicate that the bacteria ferment this fiber (insoluble or soluble, science contradicts these definitions when it comes to the microbiome, this happens whenever science advances) and release powerful substances. As we can see it is not that I am wrong on the drug's mechanics or wrong on the point that a word should connect to the idea it represents.
I never deal well with restriction, especially when I am right and have a valid point. I look down upon the organizations people are looking to for change here. They give dietary advice that they know makes people sick, and then sell them the pills so that they can live. We all know this, they can barely sell Pepsi because it has fructose in it, they have to switch to sugarcane. Even the business model is falling apart and still no change. States can tax plastic bags and the cans that soda comes in, but it's too inefficient to tax what is in it in the most obese locations. Corruption. At a genetic level my executive function is harmed by stress, and I will not be fighting an impossible battle that the state-business entity is well equipped to win. They are well entrenched even in the education system to somehow manage convince people that a word should not represent an idea it is supposed to represent.
If editing at Wikipedia means I have to sacrifice my capacity as an intelligentsia, well I have no need to. I can develop trafficked mediums and promote health through Seppi's work for example, while meanwhile reserving my right to be precise with words and unrestricted by lesser entities that happen to have more material and hypnotic power. Even a 6 year old cannot be convinced that a square is a circle. Adding new knowledge is easy and faces little critique. Treatments are easy.[6] But trying to accurately convey how a 70 year old drug works is impossible here. It can be done but at the meta level the words lack consistency, so it's not scientific. That cannot work as a medium for the level of change that needs to occur, because it is not up for discussion, that precision of the word is paramount. It is nice to edit obscure articles in peace, however I am the only one to edit sulforaphane regarding autism[7], of which 1 in 68 children are currently diagnosed with. We can't exactly run a society when every single person suffers from autism, partly because you can't tell people how drugs work. I can easily sensor myself by means of obscurity here. If nothing changes, then why would I increase energy expenditure?Salvia420 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The fraction of ingested daily fiber that is fermented into short chain fatty acids really depends on an individual's microbiome and the type of fiber, but most often it isn't a particularly large quantity. Based upon the literature I've read, I'd guess the average percentage of fiber that is fermented is somewhere between 5–30% for most people. Overall, this change in energy (calories) isn't that significant compared to a person's daily total dietary intake. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Historically the intake of prebiotics has been extremely high. Hunter-Foragers in the southern section of North America consumed up to 135g of inulin per day.[8] The Jerusalem Artichoke tubers were traded by the Native Americans before the arrival of European explorers. Foods high in prebiotics are among the first mentioned in recorded literature.[9] As for westerners being a model of human health, they seem to be a poor one.
Healthful foods based on the human genome seem to suggest fish protein and oils, meat from large game, inulin from tubers and starchy foods (starch is more easily utilized by muscles). Seeds and nuts, etc. Modern foods such as milk are generally genetically not tolerated by the genome of most humans. Many people including myself have genes that indicate intolerance to wheat. Furthermore there was an extensive amount of aerobic exercise and walking going on, which made it easy for them to enter into ketosis and beta-Hydroxybutyrate can nourish the colonocytes I do believe. It seems likely that they had better intestinal health. I popularize your works here by the way.[10]
Most OTC drugs do not fill any urgent useful purpose and should be eliminated actually, due to the failure to find the sources that cause autism, it is actually realistic that we could have too many autistic people in just a generation or two to be able to run a western society. Actually, that may be hyperbole, but it's definitely on the rise and we also have many other new diseases on the rise. In reality it's a war we are running here, in a war you do not have luxuries such as time or certainty. All that is certain is that these drugs that we take, we don't know how they work or what they do, and eating well and exercising is often enough to stave off most ills. Butyrate and beta-Hydroxybutyrate are actually demonstrated to reduce allergy.[11][12] Tylenol seems not so great.[13][14] We don't know how these drugs work. Salvia420 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm flattered.

The interaction between the human microbiome and diet on the synthesis of compounds that are beneficial or detrimental to one's health is currently a very active area of research; considering that this has significant health implications, I'm sure it will have some bearing on the dietary recommendations from governmental/health agencies in the future when there's a clearer picture of all these interactions. A related issue with probiotics is that there are health-promoting compounds which are synthesized by a very small number of bacterial species which aren't present in the GI tract of everyone and not currently available as a probiotic (e.g., the coversion of tryptophan to 3-indolepropionic acid by Clostridium sporogenes).

On the flipside, there are also some bacteria which are not necessarily considered pathogens and are involved in the synthesis of compounds that are detrimental to health and/or hygiene. For example, the conversion of dietary choline into trimethylamine (smells nasty/fishy), trimethylamine N-oxide (an atherogenic compound), and N,N-dimethylethylamine (also smells nasty/fishy) requires certain species of intestinal bacteria.

I guess my point here is that health recommendations involving diet and probiotics probably won't change until there's a more complete picture of the metabolic pathways of the countless bacteria that are present in the human microbiome and the health effects of the various compounds that are exclusively synthesized by specific bacteria (as opposed to compounds that are also synthesized by human enzymes). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully the Obama administration launched a microbiome initiative today[15] so perhaps we will be obtaining more expedient progress on arriving at clearer government ordained definitions that are relevant to biotics when it comes to starch and fiber. I am not surprised they are moving quickly on this. Salvia420 (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

section reflist

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Morell#Substances_given_to_Hitler
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenhydramine#Mechanism_of_action
  3. ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2005.00481.x/full#ss28
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seppi333
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyric_acid#Research
  6. ^ https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02561481
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulforaphane#Research
  8. ^ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7793089&fileId=S0007114510000966
  9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicory#History
  10. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/Prebiotics/
  11. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25413686
  12. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25302070
  13. ^ http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-11/does-the-medicine-in-tylenol-also-reduce-empathy?src=usn_fb
  14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Neurobiology
  15. ^ https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/12/national-microbiome-initiative/

Pricing

RfC around including pricing details when well sourced Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Price_of_medications Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Create a category for CNS depressants (Category:Depressants)?

I just noticed that we classify CNS stimulants in a category (i.e., Category:Stimulants), but we don't have a related category for CNS depressants (should be titled Category:Depressants for consistency). I realize that this proposed category encompasses a large number of drug articles; it will probably end up being expanded organically over time if it's created though.

With that in mind, do others think that this category is worth creating? It is a notable drug class after all. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Sizeofint (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
One problem I see is significant (or complete) overlap with Category:Sedatives. Checking that category against the examples of the Depressants page shows just how great this is. I wonder whether sedatives could/should have a Template:Category redirect. Klbrain (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Protein/drug navboxes

(Also posted on project MBC)

User:Medgirl131 has recently created {{Cytokine receptor modulators}} and {{Nitric oxide signaling}} navboxes and has been adding these to a large number of articles. My major concern is that they combine endogenous proteins and recombinant protein drugs in one infobox which I think is confusing. Additional concerns that I have about these navboxes are their large size and that they violate WP:Bidirectional which makes navigation more difficult. I have highlighted my concerns on their talk page here. What do others think about these navboxes? Boghog (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've given up complaining about bloated pharma navboxes. See e.g. {{Serotonergics}} (and many others). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Migalastat for DYK

See Template:Did you know nominations/Migalastat. Just so you know. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Glycerol

...could use some attention to sourcing, if someone could spare the time. It appears to have had a lot of CAM-driven input, so that too will need some attention. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge Macrogol into Polyethylene glycol?

Comments at Talk:Polyethylene glycol#Merge Macrogol? would be welcome. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Proton-pump inhibitors equally effective?

Regarding this edit by User:Hyperforin, I'd like to ask here whether [1] (or [2]) count as reliable sources. Alternatively, does anyone know about a high quality source comparing the effectiveness of PPIs? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The first one appears borderline. On the surface, it looks OK, but it is not listed in PubMed. The second citation is a summary of PMID 21089251 which is clearly a MEDRS compliant source. Boghog (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Have added a second ref. There are few if any meaningful differences when comparable doses are used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Some of the issue derives from dose comparisons. For example the review states "There is controversy about the appropriateness of dose comparisons in head-to-head trials comparing esomeprazole with omeprazole. The US Food and Drug Administration’s clinical review of esomeprazole indicates that esomeprazole 40 mg is “pharmacodynamically thrice that of the s-isomer” in omeprazole 20 mg (see US Food and Drug Administration Medical Review, executive summary, page 4).9 While the doses approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of erosive esophagitis are 20 to 40 mg daily for esomeprazole, and 20 mg daily for omeprazole (both for 4 to 8 weeks), because of differences in drug chemistry and pharmacology, there is no clear equivalent dose of omeprazole and esomeprazole." [3] Therefore the conclusion is "Among 16 head-to-head trials, those with comparable doses did not find differences in symptom relief or healing of esophagitis." "Three head-to-head trials in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease but without erosive esophagitis on endoscopy found no difference between esomeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg, pantoprazole 20 mg, or rabeprazole 10 mg. These studies used different outcome measures." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Announcing WikiConference North America in San Diego, Fri-Mon 7-10 October

I am inviting participants in WikiProject Pharmacology to WikiConference North America to be held in San Diego Friday to Monday 7-10 October. Here are further details:

  • The conference includes a track called "Health care and science", so submissions with that theme are particularly welcome
  • We are accepting submissions until 31 August.
  • We are accepting scholarship applications 9 August - 23 August. About 40 scholarships are available only for people in Canada, the US, and Mexico. Last year about 200 people applied for scholarships.
  • More volunteers are needed. In the usual wiki-way, anyone may comment on program submissions. At the conference in person, all staff will be volunteer and all attendees are encouraged check in with conference organizers about volunteering for the task queue even for an hour. Anyone interested may contact Flonight and Rosiestep to offer volunteer support.
  • Major sponsorship for the conference comes from the San Diego Public Library who are providing the venue and a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • This is the third year of this conference, with WikiConference USA being in New York in 2014 and in Washington DC in 2015. Check the schedules of those for examples of what kinds of programming will be offered this year.

Discussion about the conference on-wiki could happen at meta:WikiConference North America.

I am one of the organizers for this event. If anyone has questions or comments, then conversation can happen here at this WikiProject also. I am advocating for medicine to be well represented at this event. If any participants at this WikiProject wants to talk by video about the conference, I am available to meet by video chat if you email me. I might, for example, support anyone in making a presentation submission if you are unfamiliar with the wiki conference format. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Psychoactive Substances Act, infoboxes and OR

A while back, I created the article on the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (PSA for short), a law in the UK that attempts to ban "legal highs", which is interpreted by the government to include synthetic/"designer" drugs that are analogues of existing banned narcotic drugs. I now periodically get notified about new articles that link to the PSA page, which are often articles about exactly the sort of compounds that the law is intended to ban/restrict. The editors of these pages say they are controlled under the PSA, but unlike traditional drug control legislation like the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, there isn't any determination that something is a banned "psychoactive substance". Editors adding this to infoboxes or articles are presumably then adding original research, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's rules.

One of the problems with the PSA that its critics allege is that there's not really any way for someone to know whether a substance is banned under it (because of the lack of scientific precision in the wording of the law). Alas, that criticism also applies to anyone (Wikipedia included) attempting to say whether a substance is controlled under it. If the police and the prosecuting authorities don't even know whether a drug is banned, it seems difficult for Wikipedia to do likewise. Such substances live in a sort of land of legal uncertainty: unless a prosecution is brought against someone for supplying the substance, we don't really know whether it is or isn't a psychoactive substance. If a Wikipedia article on a drug mentions that it is controlled under the PSA, should we remove that as original research if it does not have a source? If a noted expert in psychopharmacology (e.g. members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) say that it is likely covered by the PSA, that's probably enough. If a politician responsible for drugs policy (say, the Home Secretary) says it is banned under the PSA, that's probably enough for Wikipedia to say it is. But without that, we're really just guessing. I thought I'd leave this here as a discussion point as the rules around pharmacology infoboxes isn't really my bailiwick. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Meodipt and Aethyta as they seem the most active in this area. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
We had a related discussion on this topic a while ago Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_10#Drug_laws. I think the consensus was to leave it out of the infobox and explain it in the text. Sizeofint (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Physical and chemical properties section name

Currently this MOS includes the following recommended section:

  1. Physical and chemical properties
    Include information on the chemical structure, stereochemistry, and chemical composition of the drug (e.g., free base, hydrochloride salt, etc.). Basic physicochemical properties such as melting pointing, solubility and other raw data should be placed in the drugbox.
    1. Synthesis (only necessary for articles tagged by {{WikiProject Chemicals}})
    2. Detection in body fluids

I find the Physical and chemical properties heading somewhat inappropriate. Synthesis is not a fundamental property of a drug as there are many ways of synthesizing it. Detection is also not a property. Hence I thinkPhysical and chemical properties should be renamed Chemistry. Chemistry includes both synthetic and analytical (detection) chemistry. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Due to the unanimous support for this change thus far, I went ahead and updated MOS:PHARM and MOS:MED accordingly: Special:diff/722095913/735788998 and Special:diff/735092668/735789004. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The only issue with that for MEDMOS is that the sectioning is used in articles about medical devices ; for those "physical properties" is a more useful title, so for implementing this in MEDMOS that should remain stated as an option. But otherwise "chemistry" is more straightforward. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"First in class" ?

Our article on tigecycline describes it as a "first in class" glycylcycline; I initially thought that meant it was the first glycylcycline to be approved for use on humans, but I've since found various research papers describing it as "first-in-class", so apparently that's not it (and many other antibiotics are similarly described).

What does "first-in-class" mean in this context? Thanks. DS (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"First-in-class" usually means that a compound is the/a prototype member of a class of structural analogs that have analogous pharmacological effects. In the instances where I've encountered the term, the compound that is called that is usually the parent compound of the structural class.
If you're referring to something like how PMID 16609746 describes it ("Tigecycline (Tygacil): the first in the glycylcycline class of antibiotics"), this is referring to what PMID 16982286 asserts: "Tigecycline, the first glycylcycline to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is a structural analogue of minocycline that was designed to avoid tetracycline resistance mediated by ribosomal protection and drug efflux." Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Effervescent tablets

Our article is just named after the tablets like Alka-Seltzer but there are effervescent powders and granules too. (see search for "effervescent" at eMC here

Trying to think of the best name for all of them.

  • Effervescents
  • Effervescent formulations
  • Effervescent dosage forms
  • Effervescent preparations
  • Others?

Have found all of these in the literature... what do you think is best for a rename? Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep it simple. The most common effervescent formulation are tablets, hence I think effervescent tablets is appropriate. Or how about plop plop fizz fizz ;-) Boghog (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Effervescent medicines would keep it general without getting too geeky? Certainly in the UK, powders are reasonably common. Le Deluge (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Out-of-process categories

It looks like User:Mario Castelán Castro has been manually trying to move around some of the psycho-active drug categories outside the WP:CFD process. It's not my area at all, I came across it whilst doing some non-topic-related category work but could someone take a look at his recent edits? I've no idea whether he's being helpful or not, but looking at his Talk page history it looks like he's not the greatest consensus-builder. TIA Le Deluge (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have reorganized some categories. Diffs for categories do not show the relevant differences. Therefore, you can't easily see the difference that I have made. However, you can see the end result. The content is now more logically organized. No coverage in topics was lost due to these edits. For example, now psychoactive drugs can be browsed by effects and mechanism of action (those are just 2 examples of several categories I have created which have been populated the same day because they were highly needed to organize otherwise scattered categories).
If you are going to write your opinion on an editor's contribution history, please take the care to look properly instead of just taking a quick glance at the first page of "Special:Contribution". Your criticism to be highly biased against me. I have performed several contributions far overshadowing the pre-existing content in those articles in length and importance. The most recent one is when I added 50,000+ characters with tens of sources from scientific journals about the molecular biology of Skin whitening. More recently, I have been working in building consensus in Talk:Diesel engine.
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC).
It would have been preferable to obtain consensus before you made your edits. Boghog (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It may be preferable for you. In other words, according to your taste and preferences, which are neither binding on my actions nor especially relevant. The relevant official guideline is WP:BOLD and it clearly states that no such bureaucratic process is required. What I did is a reorganization. No information was lost; if any category looks less populated, it is because I have (1) removed many cases of eponymous overcategorization (for example, Category:Caffeine does not belongs to all the categories that include the article Caffeine; see Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories) (2) moved some categories and articles to sub-categories to keep the articles ordered more logically. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC).
WP:CONSENSUS is critically important and is policy for the entire project. As a practical matter, making changes to the categorization of a large number of articles is likely to be controversial and it would be prudent to obtain consensus beforehand. Boghog (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Without repeating what I've said over at WP:MED or what's going on at Mario's talk page - what Boghog said. Wikipedia is founded on consensus, and large-scale messing round with categories is one of those areas where it's pretty much expected that everything goes through WP:CFD. Mario - this is one of those cases where a bit of humility would go a long way, there's no need to be so angry with everyone.Le Deluge (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Now you again pretend that I am the one causing the problem. You are the one making a conflict where there was none.
  1. You were the one to start post the complaints and comments against me in Wikiprojects' talk pages.
  2. It's you the one who expects me to abide by your favorite procedure (“it's pretty much expected [these are weasel words] that everything goes through WP:CFD”).
  3. It's you who wants me to abide by your preferred way of editing as if it was a policy or your opinion was privileged (it is not, your opinion is just another opinion).
  4. Also it's you the one making the unfounded personal remarks against me (“Experience also suggests that people who blank their User Talk page usually do so because they have something to hide about their interactions with other Wikipedians, [...]”).
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC).
The best way of avoiding conflict is to obtain consensus before making potentially controversial changes which you have not done in this case. This is not only my favorite procedure, it is a community wide favorite procedure. Boghog (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward

I think it would be useful to go ahead and start a separate discussion about the changes themselves. This isn't comprehensive, but here is an overall picture of the restructuring of the categories:

In addition to this they moved articles from Category:Psychoactive drugs to the newly formed subcategories in line with WP:OVERCAT and also populated some categories with things that weren't categorized. This all looks like basic WP:SUBCAT activity applied to Category:Psychoactive drugs which was filled with an enormous amount of psychoactive drug-related articles and categories. For a look at the category from a few weeks ago, see this archived version. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Because the category changes were so numerous and generally without comment, it was difficult to figure out the overall intent. Hence the above summary is very useful. I think the new subdivisions generally are reasonable. After the controversy created by renaming List of designer drugs without prior discussion, making large numbers of changes to psychoactive drug categories also without prior discussion was a yellow flag for me. A short note left here explaining the plan would have gone a long way to dispel those concerns. Boghog (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Your final statement though goes both ways, at no point have any of us actually asked them about their edits. I argued their edits were uncontroversial, others argued they were controversial, they were told to start discussions at WP:CFD and at wikiprojects, but none of us ever asked them what they were doing. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Safinamide kinetics

Has anybody access to this paper? I'd like to confirm the structures of safinamide's metabolites and the relevant enzymes before I add them to the article. It should be on page 2 judging from the fuzzy preview. Also, does the paper mention "O-de-fluorobenzylsafinamide" (NW-1199) as a metabolite? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I can read the Krösser et al. paper - it confirms the safinamide acid (NW-1153), an N-dealkylated acid (NW-1689) and the glucuronide" as main metabolites, but doesn't mention "NW-1199" or "fluorobenzylsafinamide" (did a search on the text for those terms). Perhaps that's from the incomplete Haberfeld reference, but I can't get to that. Klbrain (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Yes, NW-1199 is from Haberfeld who however doesn't give a structural formula. So it isn't dubious in the article, but it is dubious in this file I just uploaded, so I'll probably have to remove it. Could you double-check my upload with the mentioned paper and tell me what the missing arrow labels are? That would be great! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Of the bland arrow, First "down" arrow is "CYP3A4 (2C19, 2J2, MAO-A)"; third down arrow is "ALDH"; you seem to have the rest fine. ALDH is defined in the text as "aldehyde dehydrogenases" (unsurprisingly). The path to NW-1199 isn't in the Krösser et al. paper (as discussion above). Let me know if you need more. Klbrain (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Lolitrem B needs "translation"

Hello. Can someone please "translate" the above article so normal readers can understand somewhat what the article is about? I've added an {{expert needed}} tag to the article with the |reason= parameter filled in. I originally asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry to do this, but they directed me here because the article is about a neurotoxin. (They did try simplifying the lead before directing me here.) — Gestrid (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

i took a shot at making it understandable. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

benzodiazepine biosynthesis

help fill the section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimobiler (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no point in that, because they are exogenous medicinal compounds. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

TGBA01AD

Any idea what structure this article is about? The link to the developer's website talks about "FKB01MD" which could conceivably be the same thing. The link to PubChem does have "TGBA01AD" as a synonym but is about a pyrimidine nucleoside which is a somewhat unlikely structure for a serotonergic. Nothing found on ChemSpider, UNII, ChEMBL, KEGG, PubMed, ClinicalTrials. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to split testosterone into scientific and medical articles

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

norepinephrine antagonist

created, now provide data for articleMinimobiler (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with the user who redirected this quickly to adrenergic antagonist: the same receptors for norepinephrine (noradrenaline) and epinephrine (adrenaline) means that the sets are identical, so it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. However, feel free to fix adrenergic antagonist, which could use more work! Klbrain (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Does it make sense to have both adrenergic antagonist and sympatholytic pages? It is my understanding that these are largely synonyms (with the technical exception that sympatholytics also include ganglionic blockers). Biochemistry&Love (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree that adrenergic antagonist and sympatholytic are largely synonyms. There are many other ways of reducing sympathetic tone other than the use of the antagonists, including the use of agents that decrease CNS sympathetic outflow (which are of many different classes, including alpha-2 agonists), the ganglion blocking drugs, but also drugs that are substrates for the norepinephrine transporter and block sympathetic function (like guanethidine). The reason that the adrenergic antagonist page is so short is that most of the relevant information is found on the linked Alpha blocker and Beta blocker pages. So, I do think that the concepts are worth keeping as distinct as the scope is very different. Then again, as this is close to my research field, you're allowed to consider my bias! Klbrain (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! It's really cool that this is your research field! It sounds like there are a lot of other ways of reducing sympathetic tone, outside of the direct, postganglionic antagonists. I thought it might be best to merge them when I looked at the beta blocker page; i.e. there isn't a specific page for nonselective beta blockers, or cardioselective beta blockers. Since adrenergic antagonists are sympatholytics, I thought it might be a sort of overcategorization. Of course, I'm pretty new to the whole "editing" thing, so that's just my opinion. (: Other thoughts? Biochemistry&Love (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that, arguing by analogy with other receptors in the peripheral nervous system, there are pages for Muscarinic antagonist and Anticholinergic; Nicotinic antagonist and Neuromuscular-blocking drug. So, overlapping categorizations exist elsewhere. Also, adrenergic antagonists aren't inevitably sympatholytic. For example, the alpha2 adrenoceptor antagonists, like yohimbine can amplify sympathetic transmission by inhibiting the prejunctional (presynaptic) negative feedback. Klbrain (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a really good point! I hadn't considered the MoA of alpha2 antagonists. The adrenergic antagonist page refers to AR-antagonists as a "type of sympatholytic," which is not necessarily true, as you pointed out. Rather, some adrenergic receptor antagonists are sympatholytic, while others are sympathostimulatory. That might be a useful distinction to include on the adrenergic antagonist page. In addition, do you think it might be useful to create a page for sympathostimulators? There's already a sympathomimetic page. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

UCSF Student Additions

The School of Pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco is dedicated to providing up-to-date accurate knowledge to the general public regarding drug information. In an effort to reach more people a small group of us students will be spending the next few weeks adding to this drug page. We hope to assist the current editors of the page by adding information to a few categories, including but not limited to: Medical Uses, Adverse Events, Interactions/ Contraindications, and PD/PK information. We look forward to working with current editors to gain a better understanding of the drug. Kylie.mitchell (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Parnaparin sodium vs. Bemiparin sodium

Something seems to be wrong since the infobox of both compounds contains the CAS RN 91449-79-5. If that information is indeed correct, what about merging? --Leyo 08:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

They are different drugs as far as I can tell (different INNs, different ATC codes). There seems to be a common CAS№ for heparin sodium salts [4], but of course there could be separate numbers for the individual substances, as well. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The CAS RN given in your link (9041-08-1) is different from the one in the articles. --Leyo 17:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I know, but that doesn't make the situation any clearer :-/ --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I just added the DrugBank ids to those articles. Both DB entries show CAS RN 91449-79-5, but that is the generic entry for all of the heparins. It isn't included in the free-to-use subset on commonchemistry.org which is why it is confusing. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The CAS RN mentioned above (9041-08-1) is given in the articles Tinzaparin sodium, Semuloparin sodium and Dalteparin sodium instead. --Leyo 08:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Business-y question about sales of a drug

See Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Constructing_a_sales_chart if you like. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Splitting endogenous molecules used as drugs

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Splitting_articles_about_endogenous_molecules_used_as_drugs Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Input requested

[5] Enigmamsg 00:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I notified WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Levofloxacin during pregnancy

The lead says the risk appears to be low, but I can't access the source on Google books. The body basically says "don't know", which is true AFAIK. Can somebody please check source [5]? Tx, --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Reference 5 has a webarchive available which does confirm low risk. Klbrain (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Brilacidin summary confusion

In the summary there is a parenthetical about confusion over whether brilacidin is a peptide or non-peptide HDP mimetic. The confusion looks bad but I'm not qualified to determine which it should be. If anyone can look at it and remove the offending part that'd be great. BHC (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on drug name

Requests for comment are sought at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § RfC on drug name on how to state the name of a drug mentioned in court documents about a living person. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Elimination (pharmacology) and Excretion

How I feel every time I see something like this: Facepalm Facepalm

Unless one of these terms happens to be more general or specific than the other, which way should we handle this?

  1. Merge Elimination (pharmacology) → Excretion
  2. Merge Excretion → Elimination (pharmacology)

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Random aside

Also, why does our WikiProject seem so dead lately? Never mind, bot was archiving overzealously. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Bempedoic acid

Bempedoic acid is hitting the news for passing stage I(or 3?) trials in lowering cholesterol. But there's no article. Heaviside glow (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Anypodetos is doing a good job on the new article. Klbrain (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I could have started the stub, but oh man is that infobox daunting. Heaviside glow (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Expert eyes are needed at Technetium (99mTc) sestamibi

Some expert eyes are needed at Technetium (99mTc) sestamibi (a pharmaceutical agent used in nuclear medicine imaging). For background, see this discussion at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion standard

Is there a guideline on drug notability? Arcadian (talk · contribs) created numerous unsourced one-line stubs a decade ago on drugs that I can find very little information beyond basic chemical information on. Ex: Simfibrate, Penthienate, Bevonium, and many more. Any idea what to do with these? Natureium (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Any drug which has been used or is under investigation (e.g., 3-Indolepropionic acid) for use in clinical practice is inherently notable w.r.t. this WikiProject. That said, MOS:CHEM indicates that compounds in general are important topics and hence notable. I have yet to come across an article on a compound that I would nominate for deletion at WP:AfD. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
What should I do with all of these articles that have very little information/RS available? I'm trying to clear out the unsourced articles. Natureium (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If I recall correctly Arcadian created articles such as these using Medical Subject Headings listings - they should have had some medical use at some point to end up on that list. I think there are plenty of references to use for these articles. A search in SciFinder, for example, returns dozens of references for each of your three examples. They might not be readily accessible without a good library though. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Gut bath

Gut bath, which currently redirects to Pharmacology (an article where it is not mentioned), has been nominated for deletion at RfD. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 16#Gut bath. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Noting that this has been resolved through the creation of Organ bath. Klbrain (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Phase IV clinical trial vs postmarketing surveillance

Reposted from this link on Wikidata

I've been updating the wikidata items on clinical trials. Is there a useful distinction between phase IV clinical trial (Q42825046) and postmarketing surveillance (Q7234359)? Otherwise, should they be merged? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Evolution and evolvability: Thank you for the question, and for your work with wikidata! While phase IV clinical trials ("Clinical Trials, Phase IV as Topic"[Mesh]) are a form of post-marketing surveillance ("Product Surveillance, Postmarketing"[Mesh]), there are other forms of post-marketing surveillance that do not take the form of a clinical trial. I would oppose the merging of those topics. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 17:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/MCE-CN and Special:Contributions/MCE-EN. Some help would be appreciated. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

If you haven't done so already, you should notify Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Pharmacology redirects up for discussion

C19H24ClN3 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect C19H24ClN3. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. There is also a discussion for C24H27N2O13 which could use interested editors' input. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Older notice

Would appreciate input from others from this project here.

The thread pertains to a proposal to add 1 new external link parameter/field (GoodRx) to the drugbox and another proposal to move all the drugbox fields with external links (including the proposed field for GoodRx) to a new template in the external links section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I fixed the link in the title since it was pointing to the template and not its talk page earlier; my bad. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Drugbox external links|GoodRx= [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo Adderall], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo-xr Adderall XR], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-sulfate  Evekeo]| MedlinePlus = a616004 | license_US = amphetamine | licence_EU = yes | INN_EMA = amphetamine | Drugs.com = {{Drugs.com|parent|amphetamine}}| ATC_prefix = N06| ATC_suffix   = BA01| CAS_number_Ref = {{cascite|correct|CAS}} | CAS_number = 300-62-9 | PubChem = 3007 | IUPHAR_ligand = 4804 | DrugBank_Ref = {{drugbankcite|correct|drugbank}} | DrugBank = DB00182 | ChemSpiderID_Ref = {{chemspidercite|correct|chemspider}} | ChemSpiderID = 13852819 | UNII_Ref = {{fdacite|correct|FDA}} | UNII = CK833KGX7E | KEGG_Ref = {{keggcite|correct|kegg}} | KEGG = D07445 | ChEBI_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEBI = 2679 | ChEMBL_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEMBL = 405 | NIAID_ChemDB = 018564 | PDB_ligand = 1WE| smiles = NC(CC1=CC=CC=C1)C}}
For the discussion about splitting out the links, see Template talk:Infobox drug#Prototype for Template:External links list Drug
For the discussion about the new template field for GoodRx, see Template talk:Infobox drug#GoodRx

In the event anyone is interested in commenting, the discussion in the 1st thread linked above pertains to removing all of the fields shown to the right from the drugbox and moving them into a new template which will be placed in each drug article's "External links" section.

The 2nd thread linked above pertains to adding the consumer price data field at the top of the example template to the right to the drugbox (temporarily) and moving it to the new external links template when the template split takes place (provided there is a consensus supporting both proposals). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wholesale drug costs - Why?

Why are we including wholesale drug costs on any Wikipedia article at all? It looks inappropriate, unnecessary, overly specific, sales-catalog-ish and promotional of certain formulations over others. Drug prices change so often that it is like quoting the price of gasoline - regional, situational, in constant flux and with different prices offered to different clients. I understand the sorts of people who utilize wholesale drug information, I am confident that they never look to Wikipedia as a reference, and as far as the minuscule group who actually buy drugs wholesale - they are specialists, experts, by definition not the general public (The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Dept. of Labor for instance). They also certainly do not use Wikipedia for this information. These numbers are not useful, not accurate, do not represent meaningful data. On a side note, most of the articles which quote these wholesale numbers fail to attempt representing the entire class of drugs or variety of formulations and thereby end up promoting (or mudslinging) individually licensed and trademarked products. This can easily be interpreted as promotional and/or biased. Thank you for considering this viewpoint. --Luke Kindred (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Luke Kindred: You raise several issues. I will start by recognizing two of them - why is it good to post prices, and how do we do quality control. It is good to post prices because we know that lots of people - hundreds of millions? billions? - make medical decisions based on cost. The way we do quality control is with the best system that anyone in the world has identified, which is the current wiki way. I acknowledge that all the problems you raise are valid. At Wikipedia:Prices there is some developing documentation on the issue and I will add a link to this discussion to that page.
I wish it were possible to get all the benefits of presenting prices without experiencing the drawbacks. So far as anyone has been able to identify, Wikipedia does this better than anyone else with free and open data. Whether this is good enough is another issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Your response seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the difference and relation between retail and wholesale drug prices. Millions/Billions do not make medical decisions based on wholesale cost (drugs specifically). It appears to be around 50,000 which is a rough approximation of the number of retail, mail-order, and LTC pharmacies in the United States [1] (and probably the 6,000 medical insurers as well[2]). These are the customers to whom wholesale pricing applies. But even they do not pay the listed wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) because wholesale, by definition, is negotiated on a case-by-case basis and can be as much as 40% lower than list.
To recap: wholesale drug prices do not apply to the general public and actual users and consumers of drugs, so why are we bothering to publish them on Wikipedia? WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Just because the source exists for this data does not mean it should be included. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service. There needs to be a justified reason for the mention of pricing, please tell me this reasoning?
Naturally I can see this discussion shifting to defend retail (since there is no consensus on this issue, some drugs detail wholesale prices and some detail retail). Your millions?billions? *might* utilize retail drug pricing to make health decisions - if 95% of customers for prescriptions weren't using insurance (they are). Only 5% in this country pay cash for prescription drugs and may find value in a published retail price. But this is not true either since the drastic variation in retail drug prices is basically famous in the U.S. [3] Consumer Reports studied popular drugs at major pharmacies and found a 2,000% price discrepancy for the same products [4] This use of reference prices, as I stated before, is not just unreliable - but downright inappropriate. I read through the entire history you provided at Wikipedia:Prices and I think this issue should be seriously discussed for the creation of an official WP policy against the use of pricing data on pharmaceutical entries --Luke Kindred (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.kff.org/other/report/follow-the-pill-understanding-the-u-s/
  2. ^ https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-industry-overview
  3. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prescription-drug-prices-can-vary-by-thousands-of-dollars-depending-on-pharmacy/
  4. ^ https://www.drugchannels.net/2018/04/why-retail-pharmacies-still-overcharge.html
@Luke Kindred: I responded briefly because this is a controversial and well discussed issue. I have been in this discussion for a while and I can share brief direct answers to whatever you want to know. However, if you have a goal, like "seriously discussed for the creation of an official WP policy against the use of pricing data", then I would prefer to offer a little support now to help you frame and advance that goal-oriented discussion which will lead to policy. I also would like clarity on these many points but any one of them is a long discussion. What do you want to happen and how do you want things to proceed? A post in Wikipedia:Requests for comment, something other, or what did you have in mind? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

A few things:

  • We have a 68k byte article on Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing
  • Wholesale and retail prices are very close. Prices are generally in three tiers and reflecting those tiers is useful (ie developing world, developed world, USA). Use providing the lowest generic price can help people not get mislead.
  • We know that the pharmaceutical industry really really wants to suppress the cost of medications.[6][7][8]. Wikipedia is not censored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I tried to make US retail pricing information available in the Infobox (via the price aggregator GoodRx), but there’s only a marginal majority supporting that proposal. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Seppi333 I liked your idea, just wanted you to take it farther and provide the actual value. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Doc James: Like I mentioned in the wikidata proposal (and alluded to in the template talk page), I’m personally not opposed to doing that; I don’t think GoodRx would be ok with it though. The reason I say that is that their pricing information API’s (see [9], which also includes a section on non-API-related requests for GoodRx data) include certain “branding requirements”. Obviously, we would not be using a GoodRx API to display their prices because it’s not possible to do that; but, we would still be showing their price data and some of those requirements either aren’t feasible or contraindicate displaying old price data. Despite what’s stated there, they may still consent to our inclusion of their price data with certain conditions though. In any case, I don’t think it’s a good idea to approach them with a request for their data without first getting consensus on if and how we want to implement my GoodRx proposal. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_11&oldid=1160607020"