Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Pharmacology is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
Shortcut:
WT:PHARM

Contents

[edit] Fact-checking

User:ChemSpiderMan (aka Antony Williams) has very kindly taken on an absolutely mammoth task - he is checking every single drugbox (and chembox)for accuracy. He is MANUALLY checking every IUPAC name and structure, as well as generating an InChI and InChiKey for each one. Last I heard he'd spent over 36 hours of hard slog on this! His plan is then to link to Wikipedia from each relevant substance entry on his ChemSpider website. Obviously this is great news for us all round, but we need to get fixing the errors.

He has sent me a couple of PDF files listing probable errors (mostly in the IUPAC names). He is using ACD/Name to generate IUPAC names, which scored very highly in this recent study (I was amazed to see how often even ChemDraw is wrong!). I don't feel right making decisions about drugboxes when I'm not a member of this project, and I also have limited time right now, so I'd like to ask for help from people here. If anyone has time to help me work on these, email me and I will send you the PDF; I am trying to put some basic info onto Wikipedia and I will also try to post the PDFs on my college's website tomorrow. I'd like to hold an IRC meeting on the [IRC channel wikichem channel next week to discuss some of this - obviously you guys are very welcome. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a rough list on wiki, see User:Walkerma/Sandbox, where you can leave comments. The original PDF is available here. Some of these invite a decision by this project. I will update this page as he sends me more. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, am immensely grateful that someone has taken this on. I'll be adding a few comments to your sandbox page; I hope that's OK. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to any direct feedback or questions about the process I am taking with the curation project. I am taking a short hiatus but have progressed quite well. I have some other deadlines then will return to the project. Walkerma has the latest file and will post on his Sandbox when he gets a chance I'm sure.--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would like to recruit editors to the "temazepam" article

Hey friends,

I recently came across the temazepam article and found it to be bloated, poorly cited, and generally messy. I did an initial overhaul, and two other users helped tweak it some, but the individual responsible for the bulk of the content was not pleased about this, reverted to the old version, and began a discussion. Another user reverted back to the trimmed-down (but still in need of work) version, but the aforementioned author reverted it back to his again.

We are in a rather civil conversation -- I'm making the argument for my modifications and further modifications from others, and he's making the argument for his work. I'd like to build a consensus, but right now there's only two people in the conversation. Should anyone with solid expertise in benzodiazepine medications be interested in contributing, I'd love to hear your input. Even if you're not a BZ expert, the article is in desperate need of style improvement. Please have a look at the discussion page first (it is starting to get a just a little wordy, but still easily readable in about 5 or 10 minutes -- and a very interesting read, I assure you), then check out the edit history for both versions. Let's see if we can't all improve it together!

Thanks, RJSampson (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi RJ,
The temazepam article is not a bad article (cenrtainly superior to all other benzodiazepine articles - save perhaps nitrazepam, which I basically built up from almost nothing), you and I will be able to improve it by ourselves as there is not a whole lot that needs to be done.

GoodSon (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability on treatment trials

I know discussion on whether or not to include details of drugs being developed, and reporting in articles on trials currently in progress, gets obliquely discussed from time to time, and the issue came up again at WT:MED#Alzheimer.27s_disease and subsequent widening of this at WT:MED#.22Notability.22_for_experimental_medical_treatments. Please join there to discuss and see if we can come up with some guidence rules of thumb on this (inclusion and fair weight) (formal firm policy clearly impossible as each case needs be considered on its own merits). David Ruben Talk 04:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC discussion on using Wikipedia chemistry pages to provide chemical data

We at WP:CHEM are organising an IRC meeting on Tuesday to discuss data harvesting from our pages - and the drugboxes are a major potential source of chemical information. If you're interested in joining us, please see the details here and sign up. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month

The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month has been resurrected in 2008! The previous collaboration, Receptor antagonist, is now a current Good article nominee, and the new collaboration is Melatonin. Theobromine continues to be a nominee (I've extended its deadline); any user is welcome to nominate other pharmacology articles for Collaboration of the Month! Dr. Cash (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DrugBank overhaul

Fuzzform has let me know that DrugBank now includes links to Wikipedia articles on all its entries. The database has had a major overhaul (version 2.0, see PMID 18048412), and entries now contain quite a bit more information; search capabilities are also sexier more advanced. This should provide an extra push for our improvement efforts. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural POV

Your cannabis article makes plenty of sense, assuming that the reader's perspective is dominated by the American taboo of the drug. I found it nearly useless for objective research.

While searching for the pharmacological properties of cannabis administration, the most relevant article I could locate was titled "Health issues and effects of cannabis." It introduced itself by summarizing the position of cannabis in American political debate and cited research relevant to the American political controversy (yes, I am aware that other nations hold similar taboos).

For the scope of the entire project, I propose that it maintain a strong separation of pharmacology (research resource) and political debate (cultural curiosity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.109.183 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of "objective research" were you looking for specifically? You are of course completely correct that objective and neutral information should be provided, if available, on specific outcome measures in human health. This may refer to fMRI/PET/SPECT studies of the human brain, specific measures of outcomes such as appetite, body weight, etc etc, or mental health outcomes such as psychosis or employment issues. I agree that the political regulation of cannabis possession, use and sale is a completely different issue that - while hopefully informed by health research - is quite unrelated.
Please post specific questions on the article's talk page, rather than making vague accusations of bias, and inform us on this page when you have done so. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
At the time I was looking for pharmacology at the time. Maybe I made an unfair assumption about the authors' POV. What I'm trying to say, when dealing with a drug illict in own's home country it is easily to fall into the trap of intertwining culture issues with the substance's effect on the body, mechanism of action, etc. In regards to that paticular article, even the title seems weasel-worded. I have posted on this project page, because I believe this phenomenon can reoccur whenever one writes an article he feels is targeted at his own country. Imagine if a Saudi Arabian group of writers authored the entire alcoholic beverage article ;).
Anyway, I don't mean to specifically accuse people of malicious bias, but I am saying that it's nearly unavoidable to objectively write about substances stigmatized in our cultural regions. 24.67.109.183 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is not easy to write an article on a subject that many people have cherished opinions about. How about being BOLD and trying to improve things yourself. If the concern is about pharmacology, you can always request our assistance with specific problems. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belated notice

Treatment of multiple sclerosis on the Main Page today. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for an expert view on Resveratrol

Howdy from the Wine Project! I was wonder if some folks from the Pharmacology project would be willing to lend an expert eye to the Resveratrol article. While it is an important wine-related topic, it is a bit too technical for me to evaluate whether the recent furry of changes in the last few weeks should be cause for concern or not. It seems that a few editors (whose contribution history seems to be mostly confined to this one article) are sparing over competing agendas. I noticed that the Pharmacology Project has also posted their banner on the Resveratrol talk page, so I figured this was as good to seek an expert view or help in sorting things out. :) AgneCheese/Wine 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of missing topics

Greetings. I wonder if anyone could have a look at my list of missing topics related to drugs and pharmacology. Thank you. - Skysmith (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup of copy&paste of product literature into articles

Carlo Banez (talk · contribs) whilst making some very useful edits, also transfered large parts of product labels wholesale and directly into many drug articles. This is probably a copyvio (data on FDA site might be freely copiable, but at very least would have need acknowledgement of source) and more certainly as per WP:MEDMOS WP:NOT a collection of technical sheets nor generaly giving specific dosage instructions. Finally inserting "Contraindication" section in all articles which mere duplicates the standard to "known hypersensitivity" is not helpful etc.

I've reverted those edits which were direct copy&pastes (about half of all the edits, as I said many edits most helpful) from today and yesterday, but there are a further 200 odd edits which need checking through. Could others help out on this please :-) David Ruben Talk 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epinephrine vs Adrenaline (again)

With no clear consensus (IMHO) in past discussions to use Adrenaline over Epinephrine and with WP:MEDMOS giving clear guideline to stick with INN, the article recently got moved. I have reverted back, to what IMHO the WP:MED & WP:PHARM projects would generally consider as a useful approach set out in our WP:MEDMOS guidelines. As previously, Google results being cited, but if this is to be the case, then paracetamol would be Tylenol and penicillin would be whatever is the No 1 US brand (Google reflecting the US-predominant internet) and we would have no use of any generic names, let alone INN terms.

Anyway could WP:PHARM members comment at Talk:Epinephrine David Ruben Talk 12:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Bioavailabiity vs oral bioavailability

Contained in the drug box it states bioavailability. Surely it would be more accurate to rename it to oral bioavailability, as that is what it is usually implying. I understand that this is mainly because the bioavailability of a drug given by I.V. is 100%, but what if the drug is given transdermally, rectally, by the eye etc. Alternate routes of administration are chosen largely because they offer different levels of bioavailability. Surely it would worth putting it in a drug box and if a drug isn't delivered by some of the routes the user could delete the different types of bioavilability as needed? Medos Talk 16:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haloperidol

Can someone please have a look at haloperidol and talk:haloperidol? There is an editor (using a variety of IP addresses) that has been consistently adding what appears to be non-NPOV material to the article and its talk page. He's been reverted by a number of people, and I have removed some content from the talk page that I thought was not consistent with Wikipedia's talk page policies - WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. He has been pushing hard and his attitude borders on incivility. I'm certainly open to being wrong, but it really seems inappropriate to me. So I would like others to give a second or third opinion. I don't want to get into a revert war or violate WP:3RR, so if others agree, can you please help out? Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opioid vs. Opiate

Hello, I would like to ask you to take a look on the opioid article. There seems to be a problem (for me, at last) in whether semisynthetic derivatives (like hydromorphone, hydrocodone, oxycodone, diamorphine, etorphine, buprenorphine etc.) can be classified as opiates, which are, in my opinion, only native opium alkaloids (morphine, codeine, thebaine, oripavine); I learned in my lectures, that opiates are only those opioids which can be isolated directly from opium, while other opioids are...semisynthetic or synthetic opioids, can't be called opiates. I know it's perhaps just a pitty wordplay, but I think, and would appreciate, if a consensus about these naming, or a kind of "convention" within WP could be achieved. Thank you in advance.--Spiperon (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not wordplay at all. You're completely correct. People misuse these terms all the time, as if they were interchangeable. Fuzzform (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at MEDMOS

Note that there is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Drug_names_in_non-main_articles in regards to drug names that may be of interest to the wikiproject. WLU (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warfarin

On warfarin, an editor is demanding a citation for interactions between alcohol and warfarin. Every "yellow booklet" mentions that excessive alcohol intake interferes with the INR, yet this editor has insisted (referring to uncited evidence) that problems only occur if someone with a previously high alcohol intake suddenly cuts down. I have asked the editor to provide sources himself rather than ramming {{fact}} on the page, but I was wondering if anyone else had some good sources for this. JFW | T@lk 08:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a basic readup on warfarin/alcohol interactions on MIMS Online (Australian medicine database)- the information they have reports that alcohol can both increase and decrease the results of a PT/INR test- I'll have a look into it at uni over the coming week, if you like? Adolon au (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the Month

In an effort to revitalize the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month program, Melatonin will be the current collaboration until the end of February (another week or so). The article is looking good so far, but there's still a few areas that need to be tightened up (a {{cleanup}} tag in the antioxidant section and a {{POV-Section}} tag in the safety of supplementation section. I think with a bit more editing, the article can be at least brought up to Good article standards, possible featured.

I'll select a new collaboration in March (nominate here; so far, Theobromine is in the lead). Dr. Cash (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a listings of brand names ?

What do project members feel about current version of Levocetirizine with its "Names per country" section taking up almost as much space as the details on the drug itself ?

On basis of WP:NOT (this is not a directory listings) and WP:MEDMOS#Drugs noting for the leader that only "The initial brand name and manufacturer follows..." with nowhere in the suggested-article sections-list making room to try and systematically list out every brand in every country - which is the role of an international pharmacopoeia, and of course WP:NOT#DIRECTORY... I propose to delete the "Names per country" section entirely. Before being WP:BOLD I note this would step on the toes of several editors who have worked to add such information, so any prior views from the project (not that we are a Cabal). David Ruben Talk 01:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Even worse in this article (than say equivalent at Loratadine#Names_per_country) is that info then duplicated in Levocetirizine#History & formulations section which describes some of the variety of country-specific branding too. David Ruben Talk 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:MEDMOS does discourage brand name lists implicitly: "The lead should highlight the name of the drug as per normal guidelines. The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name and manufacturer follows, in parentheses." The consensus appear to be that they are ugly and unnecessary. When I tried to make this discouragement explicit, my proposal was rejected as a rule creep (I quote here because I cannot do the dif in archives):


I wonder if there would be a consensus to change "The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name and manufacturer follows, in parentheses." to ""The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name and manufacturer follows, in parentheses. Unless notable and widely used other brand names should not be mentioned." In many drug articles the lists of brand names are huge and ugly, and sometimes are even larger than the rest of the article. Paul Gene (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That'll lead to possibly ugly fights over what a notable or widely used brand name is, but it at least provides more guidance than the extant version. I'd say there's merit to that. WLU (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (BTW: there should be a comma after "widely used".) Seem like instruction creep. Sometimes there's more than one "initial brand" (among English-speaking countries) but additional brands of generic versions are, in general, not notable. On the few occasions when the current restriction is unsatisfactory, WP:IAR applies. Colin°Talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Makes sense, since people do not generally read instructions. But what is the purpose of this particular discussion, then? And referring to the instructions creep is the instructions creep in itself. instruction creep is not even a guideline but an obscure assay. Paul Gene (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Paul, I wasn't citing WP:CREEP as a formal guideline, but I do think it is a good one. I agree with the principle of your suggested addition, but want to consider carefully whether it is strictly necessary. The more you write, the more people will disagree with and the less they will actually read or take notice of. If you still think the addition is a good one, then I've not got any formal reason to object. Colin°Talk 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Paul Gene (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The variants on Levocetirizine arise as the manufacturer attempts to achieve a similar pronunciation but following language-specific spelling rules. English Wikipedia does not generally concern itself with non-English words so why should foreign-language brand names appear at all? The list/section is no longer required if restricted to English-language countries and non-generic brands. Stick Xyzal in the lead per MEDMOS and forget the others. Colin°Talk 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • A list of brand names in the article can look clunky, and doesn't add very much information. But the lists are important. perhaps the list can exist separately, linked from the article? This would also help international users when searching for the drug by brand -not generic- name. One problem with this is that sometimes it's easy to copy-vio a list of brand names. There aren't many ways to say "UK - Dixipeg US - Dittypeg" so cutting and pasting lists is tempting. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benzocaine multiple brand products

I've just added merge tags to multiple products used for aphthous ulcers which have Benzocaine as their sole active ingredient. Unless good reasons can be agreed for any single product being notable in its own right, then under WP:MEDMOS#Drugs I think they should redirect to the main benzocaine article. Discussion at Talk:Benzocaine#Mergers. David Ruben Talk 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fortisip

Is this product really a pharmaceutical? Does it belong in this project at all?

The article also reads like an advertisement and contains no references to 3rd party sources. I feel that it should be either (a) deleted or (b) rewritten to wiki content standards, avoiding opinion (e.g. it is said to be "palatable" - to whom?) --TraceyR (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Even Ensure doesn't have a dedicated article, and you can't walk into a drugstore (at least where I live) without running into a refrigerator full of Ensure cartons. That said, WP:HOLE is absolutely not policy or anything :) If this is a notable product, then it should be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. In its present state, one could even make a case for CSD G11. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Pharmacology template and added the Wikiproject Food & Drink template. "Nutritional supplements" are not "Pharmaceuticals", and not even regulated as drugs, either. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to mention that :) Drugs ≠ supplements ≠ therapeutic foods. Still, enteral nutrition is a therapeutic intervention? Should this be under the scope of any project? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that enteral nutrition might fall under the medicine wikiproject, since it's involved in treatment. That doesn't classify as a drug, either, and it's definitely not the same thing as an intravenously administered medication. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, of course. Even medical foods aren't regulated as drugs AFAIK. I guess only TPN solutions/products would fall under the scope of WP:PHARM (if any became notable enough to warrant an article). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that Deplin is classified as a medical food by the FDA, and it is RX only. Deplin is used as additive therapy for SSRI-resistant depression. will//defective words, defective thoughts (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Fortisip, ensure, ensure plus, etc probably don't count as pharmaceuticals. But the reasonings given above are a bit odd. In the UK Ensure Plus is "used under medical supervision", is prescribed by doctors, and is used by "patients". Of course, non of that makes it a pharmaceutical, most of that would apply to some wound dressings. So I'd be interested to know what the project thinks does and doesn't count here. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drugbox problem

There seems to be a problem with {{drugbox}}. In drugboxes in which the width of images is specified, the image is incorrectly displayed. I think this is a result of changes made elsewhere - discussion is at Wikipedia talk:ClickFix. Can anyone figure out how to fix it? -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See, for example, this history of Propofol. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. I've made {{drugbox}} use {{px}} as suggested. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! You're quick. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Not working - its fine if width defined, but if parameter undefined (ie "width = ") then no image is displayed at all. David Ruben Talk 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reported the problem at Wikipedia:ClickFix/Broken, too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already investigated the "empty width parameter" issue with the {{drugbox}} template and responded how to fix that at Template talk:Px. And no, this isn't the fault of {{px}}, but David Ruben asked about it there. But I can't fix it for you since that template is locked.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen that other discussion. Thanks for taking the time to figure out a fix. I've temporarily changed the protection level of the template so that the fix can be made. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Done – And the test cases at Template talk:Px looks fine so seems to be working. --David Göthberg (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick heads up, on introducing the px fix for alternative default values, I realised the {{drugbox}} had lost the option to specify width2 for the second image - can't image this often used, but let me know if you encounter any problems David Ruben Talk 04:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Abuse" vs. "Recreational use"?

For some time, there has been debate over which term to use when naming sections of articles. Notably, there are minor edit conflicts occurring on the diphenhydramine and dimenhydrinate articles. I've added some comments to the talk page of the latter, but I realized that this is wider issue that needs to be addressed.

Personally, I don't see the two terms as interchangeable. One can abuse a drug without using it recreationally, and (conversely/controversially) one can also use a drug recreationally without abusing it (though not often is the latter possible). One can also simultaneously be abusing a drug and using it recreationally. There is an overlap between the two terms, but they're not synonymous.

The issue is essentially about POV. Typically, those in favor of using the term "abuse" see (illicit) drug use as a moral failure, whereas those who prefer "recreational use" either use illicit drugs themselves, or see drug use/dependence as an illness. I tend to prefer the latter term, since I see drug dependence as a biological/medical issue, rather than a moral issue.

There is also the related term "misuse", which is less severe than abuse. E.g., someone takes 2g of APAP rather than 500-1000mg - something they're doing out of ignorance (perhaps thinking that it will be more effective), rather than deliberate abuse or a desire for recreational effects. APAP of course has no recreational value. Which leads me to my next point...

Some drugs have no accepted medical use, and are used exclusively for recreational purposes (e.g. LSD). Does this mean that all use of such drugs qualifies as abuse? If this is the case, it means that "abuse" is a relative term which is based on whatever legal system one is living under. For example, in the UK heroin is used in hospitals, whereas in the US it is completely illegal. So, suppose an American is visiting the UK, gets injured, goes to a British hospital, and receives heroin as an analgesic. Does this mean that they are abusing heroin? According to the US government (or any other government), all illicit drug use is necessarily abuse. What it comes down to, in this particular case, is the use of semantically loaded language. How do you discourage drug use? Call it "drug abuse" instead. Leading to my next point...

When doctors want to know if their patient is using drugs, what does he/she ask? Surely not "Are you a drug abuser?". They ask "Do you use drugs recreationally?". Why do you suppose they do this (rhetorical question)? So they don't insult the patient, which might cause him/her to avoid visiting the doctor. The point here is that "drug abuse" is inherently insulting language for anyone that uses drugs to achieve euphoria (i.e., uses them recreationally). Let me end this string of comments with a few open-ended questions.

What is the relationship between drugs and dysphoria/euphoria? Why is reduction of dysphoria seen as good, whereas induction of euphoria is seen as bad (i.e. a side effect)? Are the two mutually exclusive?

Finally... What should the naming standard for drug articles be? Abuse? Misuse? Recreational use? All three? Separate sections for each? I'd appreciate any and all input in this matter.

Fuzzform (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your own morals here,... But as a general rule, anytime that you use a drug without the supervision of a physician or medical professional, or, in the case of OTC drugs, if you use it in a way other than the instructions on the box provide, you are abusing the drug. For something like LSD, which no physician in their right mind would every prescribe (much less the FDA would even approve), and for which there is no clinical use,... use of it still falls under "abuse". Use of it is clearly "abusing" your body (actually your mind). It seems to me like those in favor of the term "recreational use" are really in denial of some serious issues,... But that's just my opinion. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly here on this point it is essential to point out a gaping hole in that statement as LSD is known to be helpful in psychotherapy and doctors did prescribe it before it was banned and the legislature despite an open letter with thousands of signatures on it asking for a medical use exemption in the case of psychotherapy was made, the lawmakers refused and the ensuing actions and the way it warped public perception of the drug basically called a halt to licenses for research on the drug being granted.
The best hope now is with MDMA again under psychotherapy treatments the current studies so far have been showing promise and it is being revealed that not only does it help speed up the psychotherapy treatments by helping the patient to open up to the therapist allowing the real issues to be dealt with but frequently the outcomes of the therapy can last longer or be more effective than the placebo groups. The most likely reason that such a trial was approved is that it's therapeutic benefits emerged after the ban and people saw this as a new thing, trials therefore got support there are in fact several going on around the world. Also it is only "abusing your body and mind" if you consider pleasure seeking behavior abusive, this of course would involve calling any action preformed to seek pleasure abuse including treating oneself to desert.
Also by your definition the articles on Alcohol, Tobacco, Nicotine would need to be corrected to refer to all use of these drugs as abuse as the only currently approved use for alcohol is as a recreational drug, same for tobacco, nicotine has an accepted medical use only for the treatment of Nicotine dependency which is caused (under the above definition) by abuse of the drug. MttJocy (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
With regards to recreational use versus abuse it is clear that recreational use is more appropriate except in cases where significant harm to the user or people around them is being caused by their use of the drug which crosses the line from use to abuse.
It is generally accepted medically that using the term abuse for non harmful or mildly harmful uses is a loaded term that fails to accept the reality of the fact that the way a drug is used and the consequences of that are not so black and white as simply weather or not it is medical use or not, in reality it is actually considered that a number of "recreational users" are actually self medicating especially for mental health type conditions that the drug use provides them relief for relief from stress, anxiety etc.
Therefore it is clear that such loaded terms would violate wikipedia policy on NPOV by introducing linguistic bias, recreational use however is less loaded and does not carry an automatic emotional weighting to it, although no doubt some readers will still choose to assign a negative value to this term at least it describes what the situation really is and leaves the reader to make up their own mind of weather or not it is abuse without leading them into that mindset.
Personally it seams that there is more than enough sources out there which still use loaded terms like abuse when discussing drug use in order to further their political agendas wikipedia has a chance to be an encyclopedia like it should be and provide balanced no loaded information on recreational drugs, their positives and negatives and then let readers form their own conclusions on how abusive or not recreational drug use is.
Unless someone is able to give me some justification for stating that someone in full awareness of the risk who takes actions to minimse that that risk while using in order to derive pleasure, relief of physical or mental pain, to help them relax, or provide them with the alertness needed to do long and complex tasks or similar is no less abusive than consuming vast quantities of a substance without taking any action to research the drug or minimse it's risks then it seams to be unjustified use of a loaded term to place both of these into the same category of abuse, I hope that this sheds some light on the topic for everyone. MttJocy (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Chlordiazepoxide

I think an admin needs to look at this talk page. It seems to have died down now but there has been some serious POV pushing going on. Massive junks of chlordiazepoxide and clonazepam were being deleted with little valid justification. Anyway just to let you know. Medos (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nootropics

The article on Nootropics (aka "smart drugs", "smart nutrients", "cognitive enhancers", or "brain enhancers") needs some very serious attention. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment of multiple sclerosis

There is a dispute brewing on this featured article that could do with some editors with the kind of knowledge you guys have! --Slp1 (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

More voices would still be very gratefully received on this article's talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAS validation of CAS numbers: An update

As you know, over at WP:Chem we have been trying to get the core data from Chemboxes and Drugboxes organised and validated. You can see the list that includes the articles with drugboxes (and chemboxes) here. CAS agreed last month to collaborate with us, and in the coming weeks they will be validating our complete set of CAS numbers for us (they currently have a test dataset of 150 articles). We are currently discussing how we will organise the data, and ensure that the validated data doesn't get corrupted. If you're interested in being part of that discussion (probably on IRC), please let me know, because it will obviously affect CAS numbers in drugboxes too. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the mild opposition in the past, I think that is a massive breakthrough! My compliments, Martin.
Wouldn't it be amazing if we could have a chembox that automatically populated itself on entry of the CAS number? A bit like Dave Iberri's citation tool for PubMed and ISBN? JFW | T@lk 07:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'll certainly suggest this, I think it's reasonable and a definite possibility, I'd say. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] soap boxing on talk pages?

Many medicine articles have problems with the talk pages being used for soap boxing. Most of the anti-depressants, (either individually, eg venlafaxine) or as a family (eg ssri) will have talk pages that are made difficult to use for improving the article. Does this project have a nice, friendly, template that says "this is to discuss way to improve the article, not to discuss the subject of the article, and off topic discussions will be removed"? It might be nice to have a standard template. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a general one at Template:Off topic warning. I'm not sure how a project-specific one would be different anyway. --Galaxiaad (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramax

Could I request some expert opinion on this reopened AfD? A substub on this drug combination was created and listed at AfD. I have moved the article to Paracetamol/metoclopramide hydrochloride per the naming convention in your style sheet, expanded it and added a reference in an attempt to save it, but it is currently heading for deletion. It seems to me that there is no reason why a combination drug should not have an entry, and also that the combination differs from the separate actions of the drugs because metoclopramide is suggested to affect paracetamol's absorption. However, I know nothing of this therapeutic area and so might be missing something. Thanks for your expert opinions, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I always understood metoclopramide acts as a motility agent and also vomiting-preventer both of which help ensure better absorption of any painkiller then given (i.e. not a specific interaction for paracetamol), but I'll have a look at the article and its AfD (but we do have similar product of Migraleve) :-) David Ruben Talk 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, David. Your expert eye is much appreciated. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flunixin meglumine

I switched flunixin meglumine to the combination drugbox since there are two components. But now I'm rethinking it because meglumine is not an active ingredient (I think). So I'd like to ask here it is fine the way it is now, or if the article should be moved to the title flunixin and changed to a normal drugbox. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Flunixin is the INN; I'm pretty sure the meglumine is just a salt form, like "random drug hydrochloride" or "xyz sodium". By the way, if anyone's up to expanding the article, here are plenty of sources here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, if no one objects, I will move it to flunixin. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two images in drugbox

Can anyone figure out why the drugboxes in Quinupristin/dalfopristin and Imipenem/cilastatin will only display one of the images? Did I do something wrong? -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As {{Drugbox}} documentation notes "Generally combination articles will not need display the molecular images of its constituents (the relevant specific articles would have the images)." and these 2 articles should use the 1b) Combination products style of the template use (i.e. set "type = combo" and use component1, class1, component2 & class2 parameters). However nothing in these points or the template should prevent double image display (after all 2 images are still shown in Paracetamol)... hmmm I can't immediately see why this bug is occuring... I shall ponder, unless anyone cares to beat me to it :-) David Ruben Talk 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I've removed the images, per drugbox documentation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Janet Wolfe and Wolfe Laboratories

Articles that you may be interested in, Janet Wolfe, and Wolfe Laboratories have been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfe Laboratories. Thank you. Paulbrock (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Drug Policy

I would like to announce the formation of WikiProject Drug Policy. This WikiProject will seek to organize the existing article set better and coordinate efforts to bring drug policy-related articles to featured status. All are welcome to join. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hemostatic agent article and Antihemorrhagics

Hemostatic agent was originally created to focus on topical antihemorrhagic products like QuikClot. It is now starting to focus on other antihemorrhagics as well. Since there is no article on antihemorrhagics, I am currently proposing that this article focus on the ATC code B02 drugs in addition to the topical products. Any input you have would be welcomed at Talk:Hemostatic agent#Focus of article. --Scott Alter 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aspirin GA

Aspirin is a current Good article nominee. I have reviewed it against the criteria, and made several comments regarding the article. It is currently on hold, so if editors could go over there and address the concerns, it could be hopefully promoted. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anabolic steroid

On the Main Page today. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benzamil

The article is up for deletion and needs not only the WikiProject Chemicals but also the help from WikiProject Pharmacology!!--Stone (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aspirin

Aspirin has been listed for GAC, but the request is on hold because of some disagreements. With a little push this vital article could well achieve GA. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NEW ARTICLE: Small molecule

Unanswered query This question or request has not been resolved
Remove this tag when this is resolved.

I wrote a page on small molecule to fix some articles which give the impression that every ligand is a protein and end up getting confused in the middle. three points:

  • If someone knows about any pages that suffer from this affliction please link them.
  • Oddly I cannot find a reference for the word small molecule, which I would have sweared it is in the simplest of textbooks (hence why those pages make confusion between small molecules and protein? and hence why I just made the page yesterday).
  • And most imporatntly does anyone want to adopt this messy page?

Cheers --Squidonius (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started up some talk page discussion...Small molecule drug seems like a likely subarticle is the overall article is just about everything under 1000 daltons or so (wikt:small molecule drug). — Scientizzle 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to address antibiotic activity

Resistance to an antibiotic changes rapidly, and differs from region to region (even among hospitals within a region). Because of this, different regions (and even individual hospitals) publish antibiotic guides for their particular population. Activity sections don't seem to do this problematic fact justice. Cipro, for example, hasn't been recommended as a treatment for N gonorrhea since 2007 in the US (even as early as 2005 for MSM), but we still state that Cipro is active against N gonorrhea. Depending on where you are, this is either generally true, occasionally true, or generally false. Should we go full-throttle and try to be the Sanford guide, keeping up to date with our bug-drug activity? Should we shy away from making species-specific pronouncements? Do something in between? Antelantalk 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, but I would suggest if possible acknowledging what you have written that sensitivity varies from country to country and even regions within a country.
If ciprofloxacin or any of the other quinolones are not recommended for N gonorrhea in the US then this should definitely be noted in the article. If the article is giving misleading or incorrect information then it needs to be updated and changed. I think there is no need to go full throttle, but general information of important english speaking countries such as uk, canada, usa and australia are relevant. I wouldn't go too deep into the regional sensitivities other than perhaps mentioning that sensitivity can vary in regions within a country. You may like to post over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine for their views.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Resistance patterns are very locally determined. In the UK, some areas have nice E. coli, and other areas have multi-resistant E. coli. It probably depends on previous prescribing habits and migration of various groups of people. In the US, antibiotics have been so heavily overprescribed for a very long time that multi-resistant organisms are a fact of life. JFW | T@lk 05:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] iGuard

On varenicline, 72.82.227.16 (talk · contribs) (probably Akele67 (talk · contribs) logged out) wants to use iGuard as a source for its side effect profile. This seems to be user-generated data that is not "peer reviewed" (despite claims in an edit summary that it is). Does anyone have experience with this system, and how reliable would it be as a source? JFW | T@lk 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources would be better. iGuard looks like a very seriously tertiary source, and isn't even citing where it gets its data from very clearly. There are other sources that are better. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Does the "cohort" consist of people leaving their experiences of a certain drug on the website? If so, I can't even imagine how methodologically flimsy that is. I agree with Dr. Cash that more reliable data (e.g. from studies that are not ongoing) is almost certainly a click away. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Like what? This site? ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Mind you, a lot of our articles (especially tryptamines) are sourced to the vaults, as you've probably noticed :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a pharmacoepidemiologist that uses iGuard to source side-effect data. Basically what they run is a multi-drug prospective registry (active surveillance) across thousands of members, which is reviewed by drug safety and epi professionals. Unlike passive surveillance (e.g. please report when there is a problem... how meaningful is 854 reports for Lipitor?), active surveillance involves actively capturing outcomes from prospective population and therefore can have a denominator (85 reports out of 850 patients). Not sure how this could be considered a tertiary resource, since I use it for capturing primary outcomes data from a closed population. I think this is valuable to the general public as long as it is well described. Yohimbine (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Two very serious problems with Iguard. The participants are the patients subscribed to the service, so it is not randomized. Its workings are not public, unlike any surveillance scheme run by a government agency. So it is both methodologically flimsy and not peer-reviewed. The parent company for Iguard, Quintiles runs marketing campaigns and trials for big pharma. It is conceivable that a pressure can be applied so that certain side effects are glossed over or overemphasized. It is not a reliable source by any stretch of imagination. Paul Gene (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
So a registry (to which patients must opt in, and from which data is frequently not published) run by a pharma company is a better resource? Come on folks. If we're going to use a randomized controlled trial standard for all the information on medications on this site, we'd better start rewriting a lot of wikis. I agree there is always the pressure that pharma can place on results from a private organization, and I do have my concerns regarding iGuard's ownership, but its sure better than any data a drug company selectively may publish itself. Bottom line, whether it is iGuard or a better source (suggestions please!) I think real world incidence rates of side effects should be published where possible rather than a laundry list... laundry lists may not be flimsy, they're just not useful to anyone. Yohimbine (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. I wrote "surveillance scheme run by a government agency". Such schemes exist, for example, in UK, Spain and US, where the physicians report the cases directly to the government. The data published in side effects sections of prescribing information, although originating from the companies, is scrutinized by several FDA experts. The FDA then often requests clarifications, clinical narrative, analyses data, etc. You do not want to be the one to lie to the FDA. Upon the approval, the whole process is made public by posting on the FDA website, where anyone can read it. Paul Gene (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like being lectured, Yohimbine ("come on folks"). Rather than downplaying registries, could you address our methodological concerns with regards to iGuard? Specifically, could you provide us with a good source that assuages our fears that the entire resource is simply user-generated content? JFW | T@lk 06:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In what way is iGuard fully "prospective"? What is to stop patients registering to complain about side-effects of drugs they are (or were) already on? How does it ensure that all registrants bother to keep it up-to-date? What if the registrant stops using the drug or just stops using the site? What if the registrant dies? I can't see how this can accurately capture the side-effect profile of a drug to the same quality levels that active monitoring by a trained researcher can. There's no control group either. I can, however, see some merit to a "pharmacoepidemiologist" in that it may flag up some unexpected side-effects that would be worth investigating.
I agree that WP articles with laundry lists of side-effects are useless and possibly dangerous (could stop someone taking an important medication because they worry about a rare effect). Words like "common" and "rare" aren't particularly helpful and can be influenced by severity. But without comparison to a control group, saying "5% had flatulence" could be meaningless for a drug that treats GI problems, for example. Colin°Talk 09:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole side-effect thing needs a careful think. Even in well-designed trials, most side-effects are non-specific and poorly understood. I think we need to focus on the common side-effects that are at least partially understood and might influence clinical decision-making (e.g. not giving cefalosporins to people who have previously had anaphylactic reactions to penicillin). Just long lists of "when I took this drug I felt lousy" are not likely to be encyclopedic, or factually correct for that matter. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a very difficult aspect to write about and the sources are often poor in this regard too. I think the "might influence clinical decision-making" test is too strong. There are plenty diseases bad enough to make patients put up with awful side effects, or where there is simply no option but to take unpleasant medication. Some side effects won't influence the initial choice (because the doctor can't predict who gets them) but will be a significant cause of therapy failure. And other effects must simply be watched for and treated in themselves, without stopping or changing the therapy. These might all be encyclopaedic. And rare side effects become important if thousands or millions of people take the drug (e.g., the Pill). It is hard to come up with rules for all drug articles. Colin°Talk 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I wasn't for a moment suggesting that we should cast this in stone. Rather, I thought it might be better to generally avoid listing enormous laundry lists of side-effects, and my tests serve only to whittle down those lists. Judgement is required, not rules. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bananadine

Resolved.

A lot in the chemicals in bananas section appears to be incorrect. I'd appreciate some comments. Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Thanks to User:Paul gene Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sertraline

Great news! Sertraline has been featured on the main page as Today's Featured Article! It's also interesting to note that, with Sertraline being featured, at least half of the articles from this wikiproject that have been featured on the main page, have been featured in the last six months! That should say a lot regarding the recent progress of the Pharmacology project! Congrats to all! Dr. Cash (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins: finger on the revert button for the usual "hey I can edit this - hello mum" kind of vandalism. JFW | T@lk 13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:pharmacology stubs subtypes

Please see this proposal for an initial two subtypes that I've proposed, with the likelihood of more to follow. I'd especially like to hear some input from this project as to what other such would be desirable... Alai (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what proposal? That link goes nowhere. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
NS error. Fixed (one hopes). Alai (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)