Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 17

note

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Wikitext_syntax_change_for_chemicals--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

WikiProject Pharmacology participants may be particularly interested in the following category: Category:Cannabinoids.

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

TfD: {{Steroid metabolism modulators}} and {{Cytochrome P450 modulators}}

The above navboxes are being proposed for deletion. Your comments are welcome here. Boghog (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Number of "not to be confused with"

We likely need a rule about this. Maybe limit it to three? If one takes a common generic med which lets say has 100 brand names, one can easily get 100s of other medications that sound or are spelled similar to one of those names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That does sound like something worth considering! Are there any articles that have an awful lot of brands listed in the lead like that? Biochemistry&Love (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
We have a few accounts that try to add lots. Would be good to have something to point to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I do recall this coming up once on the sevelamer page, in which the Pakistani brand "Renavel" was added again and again. Three sounds like a good cutoff. I'm trying to think of drugs in which is would ever be useful to list any more than 3 brand names, but all that I can think of is albuterol (ProAir, Proventil, Ventolin, and the tablet, VoSpire ER), estradiol/norethindrone (Activella, CombiPatch TD, Lopreeza, and Mimvey), and perhaps other COCs. Even then, a link to other brand names would probably suffice (which is what the abuterol article does).
TL;DR: I support a "rule of 3." Perhaps also include a note about only adding brands of relevance to en.wikipedia as well. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject Pharmacology Top Icon

Pharmaklog

Hi! I created this little top icon, so I thought I would come here to share and discuss the draft! I used the Template:WikiProject Medicine topicon article as a guide. You can find the draft here:

Let me know what you think about it! I thought it would be something fun to include on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology page. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I like it. Edges could use a little cleaning up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
On your advice, I have attempted to sharpen the edges via Photoshop. I don't think I did a very good job though, haha; it's hard to see any difference. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Please see Talk:Orlistat#Drug_description Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinions needed!

Looking for opinions on: Talk:Psychiatric pharmacy#Name change. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 13/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Pharmacology, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Drugbox}} is expanded for neurotransmitters

{{Drugbox}} has a new section "Physiological data" for endogenous drugs (neurotransmitters, hormones), for example Oxytocin. See documentation. Possible candidates to use this drugbox are in Category:Neurotransmitters (83), often using {{Chembox}} now. -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed name change: "Medical cannabis in the United States" to "Medical marijuana in the United States"

Please comment on the talk page of Medical cannabis in the United States. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Salicylic acid

Salicylic acid is one of the most commonly used medications but this article is only at start class right now. It's missing core information about its pharmacology such as its pharmacodynamics/kinetics, onset of action, etc. I just wanted to bring this to the pharmacology project's attention in case anyone has interest in improving the article. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Is pharmaxchange.info a reliable source for med chem?

The following is in the Isoprenaline article:

The isopropylamine group in isoprenaline makes it selective for β receptors. The free catechol hydroxyl groups keep it susceptible to enzymatic metabolism.[1]

References

  1. ^ Mehta, Akul (January 27, 2011). "Notes - Medicinal Chemistry of the Peripheral Nervous System - Adrenergics and Cholinergic". Pharmaxchange. Retrieved 21 June 2017.

Was briefly discussed here back in 2011, in this thread. Has not been raised at WT:MED, WT:MEDRS, or RSN.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(What do you know, I was in that past discussion.) I'd say that it is certainly a less-than-ideal source because it is not peer-reviewed. In this case, it's medicinal chemistry content about SAR, so I don't see it as a MEDRS issue (no reader will be misled about health concerns based on that sentence). So I would say that it is not so bad that the sentence needs to be removed, but it's very appropriate to replace it with a better source, or to tag it as "better source needed". I started a PubMed search myself, but lost interest, but I'm reasonably sure there must be an RS out there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming standards question

Many drug articles are titled according to a pattern such as WAY-nnnnnn or A-nnnnn or SB-nnnnnn - i.e. a 1-to-3-character alphabetic prefix, followed by a 1-to-6-digit number. In a significant minority of them, the number part is broken up with a comma - e.g. A-412,997 or SKF-38,393, although mostly the sources don't seem to use the comma. Is there an agreed standard for these titles? With or without the comma? Colonies Chris (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I usually don't see commas in the literature as well, or from the manufacturers. The commas should be removed. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 22:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the commas should be removed. For example, at A-412,997 every reference that mentions the code name uses "A-412997", not "A-412,997". It can get confusing as you dig deeper, if I recall correctly with some companies using a hyphen, some using a space, and some using nothing between the letters and the numbers. Best to stick with what published sources use, with priority given to the method used by authors employed by the company that discovered/developed it. ChemNerd (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Are pharmaceutical drugs inventions?

I noticed an anonymous editor has been removing pharmaceutical drugs from being categorized as inventions. See the edits of 203.205.34.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) such as this example. Since drugs are universally patented with individuals listed as inventors, these category removals seem inappropriate to me. I started by reverting a few, but since there are so many, I decided to seek input here before continuing. Any thoughts? ChemNerd (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Since haloperidol didn't exist before someone first synthesised it, and since new chemical compounds can be patented, I don't know how they could be seen as anything else but inventions. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. The category is appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I suppose they could be characterized as discoveries rather than inventions. Wikidata avoids this issue by having a single field "Inventor or discoverer" field. Sizeofint (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This is splitting hairs, but I guess that endogenous substances that are used as drugs are discovered, and compounds that are synthesized and which do not occur endogenously are invented. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I certainly agree that "invention" is appropriate, for lack of a better (?) or narrower category, e.g., "Drugs developed in <COUNTRY>". I am quite concerned that this anon is depopulating Category:Belgian inventions across a broad swath of articles, not only drug ones. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Category:Belgian inventions is a reasonable category for these drugs. The unknown editor gives in the edit summary the explanation "It's not an invention, but a development". However, when filing a patent, one requires a "statement of invention". Even if the molecule isn't designed, the use or application is still an invention. So, patent law suggests that drugs (which are patentable) are indeed invented. Given the consensus above, I'll start reverting the non-hormone drug category edits performed by 203.205.34.102 over the last few days. Klbrain (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Complex question re serotonergic activity of a drug

I find the binding activity sections of articles about drugs a nightmare generallly and we allow primary sources to be used in generating them.

We have an interesting question that goes to the heart of how this drug is classified on the talk page of Mirtazapine‎ that someone who likes dealing with this, could perhaps deal with?

Talk:Mirtazapine#Does_Mirtazapine_really_posses_serotonergic_action.3F Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Generally speaking, binding data should come from IUPHAR (best source IMO), bindingDB, Human Metabolome Database (HMDB), DrugBank, and/or similar databases because they aggregate binding data. Medical reviews are also reasonable sources to use for this, but based upon the compound articles I've worked on, they're typically not as comprehensive as these databases. A primary source is probably adequate for stating that a compound is a receptor ligand with a particular mechanism of action (e.g., agonist, neutral antagonist, inverse agonist, etc.) though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I commented there and covered the entries for mirtazapine in the 4 databases I mentioned above. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

prodrug/drug

Isavuconazonium (a marketed antifungal) is a prodrug of isavuconazole (the active moiety -- not marketed). I moved " isavuconazole" to Isavuconazonium and did what you see there, adding an additional drugbox for the prodrug. Does this make sense to folks? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the INN is isavuconazonium sulfate, in analogy to other compounds with an N⁺, such as tiotropium bromide. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The INN is the chloride salt, actually. Rec INN List 58. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Isavuconazole is also an INN in its own right, BTW. To me, it does make sense to have the article at the prodrug. I don't think we should have separate articles for prodrug and active ingredient unless both are marketed (e.g., fosaprepitant and aprepitant). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Tables presenting clinical effects of a drug

Pls see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Detailed_presentation_of_clinical_effects_of_a_drug Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


Can anyone help me with a source for the Components of Opium Template?

Hello,

We are submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, about the use of metabolomics in opioid addiction research, and when I was researching opium components, I found a terrific table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Components_of_opium. Unfortunately, the table has no source or references but the Wikipedia Information Team provided me with a link to your talk page.

This is my statement, based on the Template: "Opium contains many chemical constituents, which can be grouped by meconic acid, α-naphthaphenanthridines, tetrahydroprotoberberines, isoquinolones, phtalide isoquinolines, aporphines, protopines, alkaloids, and phenanthrenes."

I need a reference that will make it past peer review when we submit to the journal for publication. Unfortunately, a reference to an unsourced Wikipedia table won't be accepted.

Can you help me? Do any of you have a source that would work for the statement I am making? If you don't, I will have to take it out of the paper, but I thought I would check with you, just in case.

Thank you so much for any help you can provide.

WildIrish (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:WildIrish these navigation templates are created by Wikipedians. You can see the others here[1].
Unlikely to be a single reference. While we reference most stuff here we do not ref these templates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There should be references for each of the drugs listed under Category:Natural opium alkaloids. For a peer-reviewed review article on the composition of opium see the first section of Kalant (1999).[1]

References

  1. ^ Kalant, H (March 1997). "Opium revisited: a brief review of its nature, composition, non-medical use and relative risks". Addiction (Abingdon, England). 92 (3): 267–77. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb03197.x. PMID 9219389.
I just want to add that when 1 or more relevant article(s) for the content in a template exist and the content in the template is cited in the relevant article(s), it IS okay to indicate where references for the compounds in a template are located. For example, in the template footer of {{TAAR ligands}} (see below), the footer text indicates which articles contain references for any given compound that is included in that template. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Goodman and Gilman has a reasonably good description of the components, but not all. Here is a Pub med search that seems to include some genetic analyses and may include some chemical ones if you look through it, so you may be able to use a combination of multiple sources, but I doubt that there will be a single source that is all-inclusive. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Expect sources in each of the blue-linked articles in that template. Sourcing quality may vary. -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Example template: Template:TAAR ligands

Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke has been nominated for deletion

Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke, has been nominated for possible deletion, A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Change to each of MEDMOS and PHARMMOS re leads

Please see discussion at WT:MED. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Science Photo Competition 2017

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#World_Science_Photo_Competition_2017.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Vitamin B3 complex article problems

I don't know why vitamin B3 complex is in project Pharmacology (according to its talk page) but it anyone could help out with the problem around article naming and redirects, please do. I'm afraid went to the Molecular and Cell Biology project for help first. Please see the history of Vitamin B3 and this talk section for centralised discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology#Vitamins - specifically B vitamins articles. Donama (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You might get the best help at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Unlike most B vitamins, niacin actually binds to a G protein-coupled receptor (i.e., NIACR1, and to a lesser extent, NIACR2); I imagine that's probably why it's categorized as such. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Lysergic acid diethylamide listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lysergic acid diethylamide to be moved to LSD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 03:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Dosage information mentioned in doxepin

Recently several edits have been made by Medgirl131 that have added dosage information to the doxepin article. WP:PHARMMOS says that:

Do not include dose or titration information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, necessary for the discussion in the article, or when listing equivalent doses between different pharmaceuticals

The dosage information added to the article seems to be mostly (if not totally) supported by secondary sources, but I have never seen dosage information added to other articles, especially to the extent that the doxepin article now mentions it, so I'm cautious, wondering whether this is what was meant by this sentence. I do not think dosage information is strictly necessary for the discussion of doxepin in this article but still I thought I'd seek your opinion on this. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 13:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The dosage information that Medgirl131 has added looks pretty important for the article; e.g., discussing how low doses (~3mg) of doxepin are used for the treatment of insomnia for doxepin's antihistamine activity, whereas higher (25-50mg) doses are used for the treatment of depression. I think that the WP:PHARMMOS passage that you quoted is more about cautioning users from simply listing all possible strengths and indication doses--Wikipedia isn't supposed to be Lexicomp.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 16:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can see how dose specification could be helpful, but I think one could just say low dose to refer to <6 mg/day and standard dose to refer to >25 mg/day, without specifying actual doses. But dosage specification doesn't bother me per se, just thought it might contradict WP:PHARMMOS and sooner it was detected the easier it'd be to undo it. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 17:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

USAN etc in drugbox

Topics: INN and: USAN (US), BAN (UK, commonwealth), AAN (Australia), JAN (Japan)

There appears to be some history I don't understand here. But PHARMMOS is really negative about USAN, BAN, etc, and there is no parameter in the infobox to include national names.

User:DePiep raised a question about this at the talk page of the drugbox template in Dec 2015, here.

Is there some big ugly can of worms that gets opened if we have a parameter in the drugbox for these national names? Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Dec 2015 discussion has lead to the current drugbox title options (Category:Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title (859), see TOC for various logical options). That covers INN (PHARMMOS unchanged: title preferably be INN).
The other names are local (by country) names. I don't see the use to add these to the infobox. Saying 'interesting' is not enough. We're not a dictionary. The can of worms is: that would be indiscriminate addition of facts to the infobox. Time to create a systematic datasheet section? -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is where to put names like USAN etc. They are clutter in the first sentence. since there is no place to put them in the infobox i have been putting them in the history or chemistry section. these kinds of alt names are perfect infobox stuff. Just data bits. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Just found the de-clutter lede discussion. Good background. I can understand they should not be in the lede (an exception may exist, maybe two even).
I also would like to know: is it important enough for the article/lede/infobox? "Just data bits" says it all: data =/= information. Note that these xxxN names are not info by themselves, but are useful in external context only (e.g., in a US database). Adding these to help search engines: not a good reason because not aimed at our Reader. (Better: Redirects or, telling, DAB pages). IOW, it is external info only. This is why I say: not really infobox stuff.
Shortcut idea: I see that per xxxN, a few or a dozen max names are affected. Could a solution be: "When the xxxN name differs from INN, it may be added" (it will show in the identifiers section, or near the synonyms, or best: near the bottom for being a misfunction of infobox). Then: when the infobox does not mention "BAN: ...", BAN=INN implicitly — is that acceptable (BTW, same as INN-title now)? -DePiep (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There is also this (consider minor wrt the question): INN names may differ. Here Libby EMAcomm (a functionary I understand; EMA=European Medicines Agency i.e. the "EU-FDA") states: "Maybe another error could arise because the INN and the active substance are not always exactly the same (the INN doesnt have the salt in the name but the active substance does)". EMA lists ~600 INNs, with 20% redlinks (EMA-INN does not have an article by straight matching; celanup todo e.g. DAB page names). Variant INN names relevant? -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
A field in the infobox where we could put alt INNs and any XXN names would be lovely. An alternative could be to put them in the "brand names" section that often appears under Society and culture. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to skip the alt-INN issue for now & here. Also, to handle (control) these names, I'd prefer |BAN= so that the template can format them and add 'BAN' etc. You agree with the "omit when the same as INN" policy, i.e. implicit? -DePiep (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, do we agree that their info-level of importance is way below that of synonyms, brand names, chemical names and RL common names? They are local only, possibly outdated (replaced by INN, possibly even in that local literature), and only serve to passively identify. IOW, they could be at the bottom of the infobox (and possibly elsewhere outside of it). -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • With the considerations (rules) mentioned, I've made this demo. Labeled: "local INN variants" (INN page could be expanded for this). Left out JAN (Japanese) for being not an English language. Comments? -DePiep (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


The way to include USAN, BAN, AAN, and JAN as well as other types of alternate names (slang names, the prototype brand names, notable alternative chemical names, etc.) in the introduction of a drug article shouldn't be via the infobox or by cluttering the lead itself; I agree with DePiep that adding all that stuff to a drugbox is bad. It just creates unnecessary clutter in the drugbox itself and potentially impacts article formatting when the drugbox extends (further) into article sections as a result of the vertical space required to list those.
The only practical solution that allows one to (1) include alternate names in the article's introduction, (2) not clutter the lead, AND (3) not clutter the drugbox is: shown in this link next to the very first word in the article.
I don't know why other editors have not opted to adopt the practice of adding the alternate names (and optionally bolding the important ones) to a note next to the first word/use of the drug name in the first lead sentence, given the issues it avoids and the flexibility it allows. It's currently used in TWO featured pharmacology articles (amphetamine and psilocybin) and it was used in those articles at the time that each were promoted to featured status, so there's clearly already two consensuses for this practice. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Seppi333 links to Amphetamine, which has this opening line: "Amphetamine[note 1] (contracted from alpha‑methylphenethylamine) is ..." (also shows this way in mobile view!). The note lists lots of synonyms, and apparently still a bracketed name clarifier is needed. That's what I call cluttering the lede, twice even. It also mixes name places: both in the note and in the infobox. That looks bad to me. Should we consider a regular section in the article that deals with all naming issues? (Still some could show up in the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Articles on a number of drugs that are no longer under patent protection will likely require multi-table formatting for trade names, chemical names, nonproprietary names, and the like, if a names section is included. One example of a drug article with a large amount of trade names listed is Metoclopramide#Brand names. It became so unwieldy that in order to make it even read coherently (as opposed to leave it as a paragraph-length run-on sentence / blob of text), it needed to be organized in a table with brands listed by letter. Of course, this generated a lot of vertical space for a section which is almost trivially insignificant, so the table was collapsed in a manner that still allows those terms to be found in a search on Wikipedia.
Also, a drug can have multiple USANs if there are drug products with different inactive moieties; in other words, listing the USAN isn't as straightforward as listing the INN because the USAN doesn't have an equivalent to INNM (modified INN). "Dextroamphetamine" and "dextroamphetamine sulfate" are both USANs for dextroamphetamine formulations, whereas dexamfetamine (no pharmaceuticals) and dexamfetamine sulfate (most common pharmaceutical form) are the INN and INNM, respectively, for those USANs. The amphetamine article actually has multiple USANs listed in the 1st table in Amphetamine#Pharmaceutical products. Hence, USAN may be confusing for the drugbox of articles with drug products that contain different inactive moieties. I suppose that it could be indicated in the LHS field of the drugbox USAN parameter that the USAN refers only to the active moiety though. For comparison, BAN has BANM, so what BAN refers specifically to the active moiety. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
re Seppi333: Metoclopramide#Brand names is a good example of solving this (>12 names). Those names cannot be in the infobox.
re USAN variants: too complicated for me now. For example: should we even think about an inactive moietie here? What about this approach: "A drug article (=INN name) can have |USAN=". Would we miss or error something? (IMO, it is not wiki's task to explain all USAN in each article). -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'm two-faced in this. I don't think these secondary, local xxN names should be in the WP:INFOBOX. But also, I understand the Jytdog reasoning: where else? (sure not in the lede). So I offer this demo with tough restrictions (to be in /doc): only when different from INN, expected only 12 per xxN, suppress prominence, etcetera.
But no way here I claim any statement over all variant names: IUPAC, brand, commercial, development code, INN, AAN/BAN/USAN, street, ... names. No way. That should be discussed wider.
My statement re all possible names wrt chemical infoboxes: an other practical solution is to add a section to the article ==Data sheet==. Cold have a good template. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
that looks ok to me! Thanks for drafting it up. i wonder how others think. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We already have "| synonyms = " for the drugbox. I typically put these there if they are uncommon. But often the INN and the USAN are the most commonly used in the English literature so I also put them in the first sentence. We can have "Name 1 (USAN), Name 2 (JAP), Name 3 (BAN)" in the infobox but that level of detail does not belong IMO in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly that is the lede-cluttering we are working against. For USAN, BAN, AAN there is this proposal. Into the infobox (for now, no better option), and heavily restricted. BTW, can someone explain why enwiki should have Japanese ids? -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, Doc James did you even read the thread? You know: OP question, considerations, links, demo? Did you? All you write here is "We already have ..." and "I typically put ...". How is that a response? Didn't you understand a question was put up? -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I am explaining what I typically do. Is this a big ugly can of worms? Meh not really. Alt names are some of the more useful stuff in the infoboxes IMO. Decluttering the infoboxes is a different discussioni than de cluttering the leads.
I also often put these names in a section for "names" under the "society and culture" heading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's what you (and maybe others) do currently lacking formal options, standards & guidelines. Now this new Jytdog proposal comes up (to add the xxN's systematically and consistently to the infobox, + a demo available within 12 hrs), and we still don't know what you think of that. Support? Reject? Tweaks needed? I've put up strong rules with it, are they OK with you?
Note: This being about the infobox, "Decluttering the infoboxes", or to keep them decluttered, is the topic. -DePiep (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I am supportive of keeping them in the infobox under synonyms. Happy to look at what Jytdog drafts and may change my mind. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
re: Doc James: and [I, Doc James] may change my mind: thanks, Doc James, but not really. Here you say you cannot be trusted. Better not spend another hour on this, with you around. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
re, LOL, Happy to look at what Jytdog drafts: as you could have read, Jytdog already supports my draft. -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah missed that. Does not look unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You missed more, lots of. For example, just a few lines above: and [I, Doc James] may change my mind. Now that you have had to agree, all you can say is Does not look unreasonable (while we must expect: you always may change my [Doc James's] mind). So far, you have not contributed iota to the discussion. Arrogance. -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, let's all focus on content and not the contributor, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Also: let the contributor focus on content. -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Restart

OP Jytdog and Doc James reconsidering their opinion after noting that existing |synonyms= could be used. See demo /testcases10. The opinion by Sepi333, above, is still in play. (-DePiep (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC))
  • sorry about this, i didn't realize that Template:Infobox drug had a "synonyms" parameter. It is not with the "name" and "INN" parameters in the topmost section, but rather down at the bottom of the "Identifiers" section. Ack, my mistake. Depiep I am grateful for your assistance and I am still fine with adding the "XAN" stuff but now that I know there is actually another place to put this, i don't see it as necessary. A "nice to have", not a "this would be really, really great to have". Again my apologies for asking for something new, when something use-able already existed. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    • IMO we should move "synonyms" up to beside "brandname". Yes I initially missed its existence aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Glad we're together here again. All existing name parameters now are demo'ed in the demo BTW. See also /Archive_10#Alternative_names (Mar 2016). I learned there are two name groups: drug product (like trade names), and working substance (chemical) (and possible third: popular/street name?). Sepi333 input here is not discarded btw.
  • My new suggestion: add XAN to synonyms OK, but only when different from INN, and then add the XAN linked, like for the Paracetamol drugbox:
"Synonyms: acetaminophen (USAN), APAP"
This keeps the relevant info in view, not just listing another synonym. (The template can add the link, using dedicated new parameters like |USAN=. I will put this in the demo, one of these days).
re moving synonyms data row up, to right below |tradenames=: OK, as long as we maintain (with MOS-like power, eg per documentation) that product names and substance names may not be mixed. -DePiep (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I've made a new propsal. See /testcases10. Setup:

1. Synonyms moved from Identifiers into Clinical data (more in top, right below Trade names).
2. XANs are added to the synonyms list. They have a link (like BAN) and are categorised.

Question for Seppi333: are there, at this infobox level, more specifications needed for the USAN/INN aspects you mentioned above? -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

My main point is that you will likely have multiple entries in the USAN parameter for a given drug in some drug articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
OK then: That's responsibility of the article editor then, and does not require adjustment of this proposal. -DePiep (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
... but there is no place for explaining texts. So it's name(s) only. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Sizeofint (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
May not have had anything to do with this convo up 'til now but I'll add my minor pedantic commentary. Shouldn't BAN come before JAN? Might as well have the synonyms listed alphabetically so it's AAN, BAN, JAN and USAN, in that order. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 18:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, be alphabetic. And no, you are not pedantic. Thx. -DePiep (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Was ordered by country 'UK' not XAN like 'BAN'. Will be. -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

checkY Consensus. Preparing the change. Tracking category is Category:Infobox drug with local INN variant (94). -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Should MDMA state it has no medical uses in the first paragraph?

Please offer your thoughts.

Sizeofint (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Featured topic on substituted amphetamines

I just realized that if substituted amphetamine were improved to WP:Featured list status, our WikiProject would have more than enough GAs/FAs/FLs on articles/lists about substituted amphetamines or specific drugs within that drug class to merit a WP:featured topic on substituted amphetamines (current FAs: amphetamine, bupropion; current GAs: mephedrone, methamphetamine, Adderall; potential FLs: substituted amphetamine; only 50% of the pages in a featured topic must be featured article or featured list with the rest being GA-class to merit a featured topic).

Would anyone be interested in working with me to improve substituted amphetamine to satisfy the WP:Featured list criteria and being a co-nominator at WP:FLC and subsequently WP:FTC? I don't particularly care if you don't have any experience as a nominator or reviewer at WP:FAC/WP:FLC/WP:FTC since I've never nominated or reviewed an FLC or FTC; I just don't want to do all the work myself. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. FT criterion 1d probably wouldn't be satisfied if just those 6 articles were included. The smallest subset of substituted amphetamines which includes most of those would be pharmaceutical substituted amphetamines, which according to PMID 22502775 includes amphetamine (Adderall), methamphetamine, bupropion, phentermine, mephentermine, methoxyphenamine, selegiline, amphepramone, pyrovalerone, and tranylcypromine. That would require improving 7 articles to GA and 1 list to FL to merit a good topic. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Student editors

FYI: there is a student project at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of California, San Francisco/Revising Wikipedia -- CP 133 Health Policy (Quarter), where they are mainly working on pages in this topic area, and the students and pages probably need some watching. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge Competitive antagonist into Receptor antagonist?

Should we merge this page? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And likewise for Non-competitive antagonist. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed; it is a pity that these important topics are so briefly covered, but until they expand I agree that they are best discussed on the same page. This also means that it is easier to compare and contrast them. I'll add the merge templates with discussion linked to here; in order to link more easily, I've changed this section heading slightly. Klbrain (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with both proposed merges, per Klbrain's rationale above. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 01:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  checkY Merger complete. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Transporter reversal (i.e., Wikipedia's article on neurotransmitter efflux & reverse transport)

This article was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transporter reversal. I'm mentioning this here in the event anyone wishes to comment on this topic's WP:notability. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Closed as keep. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Should we have separate articles on a WHO Essential medicines?

This was posted at WT:MED. To gain wider input I am posting it here as well.

List of drug interactions

I don't think there is any purpose to List of drug interactions. It's never going to be complete, it won't be useful without being thousands of lines long, and if someone wants to find a drug interaction, they can look up the specific drug. Any thoughts? Natureium (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Although I don't feel strongly, I see this as something where the perfect should not be the enemy of the moderately useful. Lists, like any other content, are works in progress, and this one provides some useful information, and does not appear to do any harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
In this, I can agree with the OP. The list will be hard to maintain (keep complete & up to date). It this really a search page anyway (who goes there)? Maybe add to {{Infobox drug}}. -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A merge proposal has been initiated here: Talk:Equianalgesic#Merge_proposal. Comments are welcome. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Result was: no, do not merge. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

INN

I know this is a small point, but is it correct that international nonproprietary name is uncapitalized while British Approved Name, United States Adopted Name, and Japanese Accepted Name are capitalized? ChemNerd (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting point. Whatever the result, we do capitalise the name grammatically: when in title (article, drugbox title), and at beginning of sentence. When lowercase is the rule, we should keep lowercase in lists and midsentence. I note that recently, the XANs are listed with other synonyms (see #USAN etc in drugbox). -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I thought the general rule of thumb was proprietary names are capitalized, while non-proprietary, regardless of type (INN, USAN, BAN), are not. I am having trouble tracking down a definitive source though. Boghog (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Boghog: Yes, proprietary drug names are capitalized and non-proprietary drug names are not. But that's not actually what I was asking about. I'm asking about the actual terms "international nonproprietary name" and "British Approved Name", etc. The title of the article for British Approved Name has each word capitalized but it is not so at international nonproprietary name. Sorry if my question wasn't clear. ChemNerd (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry! I misread your post. WHO capitalizes it at the official web site. So I think it is pretty clear that International Nonproprietary Name should be capitalized. Boghog (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Followed Boghogs WHO link. I did not find examples of the uc usage (could you specify?). Further down I found this (en) link. It does not show or use capitalisation (but does not actually prescribe lowercase). FWIW, I'd say this pfd is more defining. BTW, also interesting wrt salts and chemical groups. -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
See this INN list (2017): lowercase. Does this settle the INN case? -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: You are making the same mistake I made. ChemNerd is not talking about individual drug names (e.g., aspirin), but rather whether international nonproprietary name should be International Nonproprietary Name (see this edit). Everyone agrees that the INN for a particular drug should be lower case (aspirin and not Aspirin). Boghog (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
See also this discussion concerning whether to capitalize the title of international nonproprietary name. I am not sure I agree with the conclusion of that discussion. Boghog (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep, got it. (still happy with my little research). -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how I missed it, but this has actually been discussed (Talk:International_nonproprietary_name#Requested_move_5_January_2016) and the page was moved to the uncapitalized title with the summary, "There is a rough consensus that, because reliable sources do not consistently capitalise, we should downcase per MOS:CAPS". ChemNerd (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
...And with Boghog, I am not happy with that result (lc). Proper name is key IMO. Can we reopen that discussion legally?
At least, shall we freeze that right here right now for the OP question: keep proper name uppercase for BAN, USAN, JAN and I add AAN? -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 best article prize (WikiJournal of Medicine)

There are 8 weeks left to submit an article to the WikiJournal of Medicine for it to be eligible for the 2017 prize. For more information, see this advertisment from January or visit this author information page.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 04:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Receptor antagonist

I think this article needs to be copyedited for consistency with IUPHAR's definitions[1] of terms related to receptor antagonism; a few concepts like functional antagonism (i.e., physiological and indirect antagonists) aren't covered there at the moment. I imagine that a similar type of revision is needed in the receptor agonist article, but I haven't looked at it yet.

On an unrelated note, should we merge irreversible antagonist into receptor antagonist? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And again, there is also irreversible agonist. I'm of two minds about this. There is certainly a reasonable case for combining them all, but on the other hand, I can see some logic in treating irreversible ligands as a separate topic. Maybe it would make sense to combine irreversible agonist and irreversible antagonist into something like irreversible receptor ligands. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
That seems fine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it'd be better to merge them by their impact on the receptor (i.e. agonism vs. antagonism), rather than their reversibility. Similarly, beta-1 receptor blockers and beta-2 receptor blockers are categorized in beta adrenergic receptor blockers, rather than separately as beta-1 receptor ligands and beta-2 receptor ligands.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I think the receptor antagonist article should cover reversibility and surmountability and explain how these concepts relate to (non-)competitive receptor antagonism. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Neubig RR, Spedding M, Kenakin T, Christopoulos A (December 2003). "International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification. XXXVIII. Update on terms and symbols in quantitative pharmacology" (PDF). Pharmacological Reviews. 55 (4): 597–606. doi:10.1124/pr.55.4.4. PMID 14657418.

Science images from WSC2017

Please take a look in here about newly uploaded scientific images on commons during Wiki Science Competitions 2017.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:GA review of β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid

Is anyone here willing to take on the GA review of β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid? As of today, it's been listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Biology and medicine for 8 months and 0 days.

The article has gone through WP:Featured article candidates 3 times already, so I'm certain it's GA-quality as is (note: I'm also basing this statement on a quality comparison between this article and the 3 other pharmacology GAs and 1 pharmacology FA I've written). Consequently, I can't imagine the GA review for this article would take very long. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Currently being reviewed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Pharmacology

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 17:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Acetazolamide: Pregnancy and Lactation section - and the issue it raises for other medicines

In the Acetazolamide article "Pregnancy and Lactation" section, it states: "It is also excreted in breast milk and hence breastfeeding is advised against in mothers taking this drug"

A couple issues:
1) The source for that info leads to a website that states: "The requested document is not currently available." So I don't think the statement meets Wikipedia's 'verifiable' guideline. Maybe it's just me. But, anyways:
2) Since I started working in the newborn unit, I've had to provide advice routinely to new mothers on medicine and breastfeeding, and my go to source is a tool called "Lactmed" from the US National Institutes of Health: https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/lactmed.htm A description of the tool: "The LactMed® database contains information on drugs and other chemicals to which breastfeeding mothers may be exposed. It includes information on the levels of such substances in breast milk and infant blood, and the possible adverse effects in the nursing infant. Suggested therapeutic alternatives to those drugs are provided, where appropriate. All data are derived from the scientific literature and fully referenced. A peer review panel reviews the data to assure scientific validity and currency. Updates: LactMed is updated monthly."[1] In short, it's legit - and meets an exceptional threshold for up-to-date/high quality pharmacology/lactation info.
3) And in the case of acetazolamide, it states: "Summary of Use during Lactation: Limited information indicates that maternal doses of acetazolamide up to 1000 mg daily produce low levels in milk and would not be expected to cause any adverse effects in breastfed infants." This directly contradicts what is currently in the article.
4) In case you haven't figured out, I'm very poor/new to editing Wikipedia, so before I go change this one article, I found this talk page in the hopes of finding some intrepid Wiki-Pharmacology folks who might clean up all drug-lactation related info using Lactmed.

I just don't want new mothers (and their support networks) to have anything but the best info!
Cheers, Ftc68 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/lactmed.htm
Hello, and welcome! About point 1, we do not reject sources simply because they are not accessible online, per WP:PAYWALL. But it's fine to replace a mediocre source with a source that is better according to WP:MEDRS, so please feel free to do just that. Also, you might get more feedback at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit late in replying to this thread, but all of the TOXNET database entries (e.g., those from the hazardous substances databank, Lactmed, etc.) that aggregate data on a compound/substance in a monograph are WP:MEDRS-quality citations (i.e., those monographs satisfy MEDRS). It's difficult to systematically add data from external databases to all relevant Wikipedia articles though, so that's typically done manually by individual editors; however, WP:AutoWikiBrowser can sometimes be used to make that process easier/faster. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:List of drug prices

New draft article launched. It needs a lot of drug prices added to the list. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Folding@home FAR

I have nominated Folding@home 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. GamerPro64 17:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

What defines "alcohol poisoning"?

I'm posting this here as well as at WikiProject Medicine. There is a disagreement involving the article alcohol intoxication concerning the distinction (if any) between alcohol intoxication and alcohol poisoning. The article currently begins "Alcohol intoxication, also known as drunkenness or alcohol poisoning .. ", citing a source which does not seem to back up the claimed equivalence between inebriation / drunkenness and poisoning. A talk page discussion is under way. Comments welcome. FrankP (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Next steps on draft Post-Finasteride Syndrome article

History

1. Article submitted, then declined. I submitted Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome on 13 January. It was declined by DGG on 14 January, and recommended to merge the material into the Finasteride entry.

2. Help desk post. On 15 January I posted a comment to the AfC help desk. You might want to read the whole comment, but the key point is three examples of articles about substance-related disorders, which are separate from articles about the substances themselves.

Disorder Related substance
Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome Antidepressant
Opioid use disorder Opioid
Alcoholism Alcohol

From a common sense point of view, and based on these examples, I believe it makes sense for the Post-finasteride syndrome article to be separate from the Finasteride article.

3. Classification into WikiProjects. After I posted to AfC help desk, Worldbruce placed a heading box on the article talk page designating the article in the scope of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology.

Next steps

I'm not sure what the next step is. Can someone look at this article and let me know? Mariedegournay (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

One way forward would be to merge it to Finasteride, as suggested following the review. Would you be happy with this? So, the this could be done be creating a separate section on the Finasteride page, perhaps under Finasteride#Adverse effects, where the ideas of sexual dysfunction and depression are already mentioned. It's better to integrate material rather than create parallel pages which discuss the same topic.
Alternatively, I note that in the defense of your draft you've alluded to Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome, Opioid use disorder; and I might add Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome. All of these are syndromes that relate to drug classes. So, if this is a class issue, then perhaps merging to 5α-Reductase inhibitor#Side effects (which also mentions the symptoms mentioned in your draft) might be better.
Regarding the structure of the draft, the other issues I see is that you're largely listing research, rather than creating an integrated text regarding our current state of knowledge; the latter is preferable. Klbrain (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Mariedegournay: As far as I know, there is not yet a scientific consensus regarding the existence of "post-finasteride syndrome". It is likely too early to give the subject its own article. There is already a section titled, Controversy, in the finasteride article; perhaps some information can be integrated there, as well as under Adverse effects as Klbrain noted above. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Klbrain:@Biochemistry&Love: I gave some thought to this and opted to incorporate more details on adverse effects into a revised Finasteride article (not published). When I turned to that article I found it needed restructuring, updating of the text and references. Some references were broken while others didn't reflect recent research. The revision has a lot of changes, so before making the updates I wanted to get your input on how to proceed. Here's the revision: Finasteride-major revision (DRAFT). Note that I didn't go over all sections in detail. I focused on the Overview, Adverse effects and Research, with a few edits in other sections. Mariedegournay (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Zotiraciclib

A review is requested. Does this draft satisfy the guidelines on medically reliable sources and should it otherwise be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The topic is notable; I've softened some of the claims in the article (regarding uniqueness) and added two WP:MEDRS-compliant reviews, which use the code name for this compound: TG02. I've added that code name as a synonym. Klbrain (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

How we can use this drug price database

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices, which is about improving our coverage of prices in articles about WHO Essential Medicines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_13&oldid=1136048814"