Talk:Amlodipine/Archive 1

Question on external links
Hi, I wanted to understand why in external links we can see the manufacturer site and it is not allowed to see an exclusive and informative site about the product like Amlodipine.com. Thanks (Rmrr (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC))


 * No response from User:CliffC? --99.145.131.169 (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * CliffC and several other editors responded on Rmrr's talk page here in June. In summary, they told him to stop trying to advertise on Wikipedia and directed him to WP:EL and WP:ADVERT. --CliffC (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories
I do not think, that it is necessary to place this article into "Pfizer" category. Actually, not all Amlodipine is Norvasc, there are many other variants of Amlodipine, created by many other pharmaceutical companies--Армонд@ 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A topic of...
Amlodipine Besylate has been added based on the following http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/pdf/aan/aanchem.pdf --222.64.18.236 (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=A5605|SIGMA&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEY&F=SPEC --222.64.18.236 (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone hear of "amidoipine"?
I have come across this misspelling a few times in the medical field (I am a nursing student) and I wonder if anyone else has, or if anyone has any explanation as to where this jumbling comes from. Is it some type of alternative generic name (as budeprione is to bupropion [Wellbutrin])? Trust me, I have scoured the internet as well as the hospital's online medical library but not yet come across it, so I assume it's some kind of mistake, but would love to hear if there is some other explanation.Hagenb (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Stereochemistry
Just wanted to note that I could not determine, looking at the IUPAC name and the image of the chemicals formula, I only saw 1 stereocenter, yet the IUPAC name shows 2; in addition, the stereocenter I thought I had picked out correctly didn't fit with any of the possible numbering schemes. Because chemistry is an important aspect of pharmaceutical articles and is all too often ignored, I'd really like to see something explaining this. If it weren't important, there wouldn't be the epithet of 'racemate;' methadone is a racemate, but its stereochemistry is not discussed very much because it's only available as racemate and studies with the pure isomers are few, due to the expense and relatively small benefit in isolating a racemate's constituents. Not like it'll happen before I die, in all seriousness; but hopefully this message might indirectly help a future visitor, if only a tiny bit. To recap: someone with the appropriate knowledge would be doing WP and its denizens a service to add even a little bit on that issue here. At the very least, it needs to be cleared up whether there are 1 or 2 stereocenters as well as which carbons they are located on; this could be done by modifying the image to show the resonance differently, or something.. I dunno. Too many words already for something that might never be read. Mr0t1633 (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Moin, moin, Mr0t1633, I agree 100%. The practical importance of stereochemistry is presently underestimated at Wikipedia quite ofton. The different biological/pharmacological behavior of enantiomers is obvious/normal/a rule. Best regards, --Jü (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The compound has one chiral centre (the 4-position of the dihydropyridine ring, where the 2-chlorophenyl substituent is attached). This is clearly mentioned in the article under "Stereoisomerism". The IUPAC name clearly indicates that the drug is a racemate (RS). I don't know, but I guess that the biological activity of the separate enantiomers has been determined. 93.191.24.30 (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Philip Jewess.

Copyright violation !!
See please http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=22972 "Mechanism of Action" and more Nini00 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a copyright violation. Unless otherwise noted, everything at nih.gov is public domain, as stated on the copyright page, which is linked from the main page (it's at the bottom). To wit:

NLM Copyright Information Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain. Public domain information may be freely distributed and copied — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.81.181 (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Can the article be updated if cross-reactions with grapefruit-juice are credible?
I'm not qualified to judge what is said here: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/suppl/2012/11/26/cmaj.120951.DC1/grape-bailey-1-at.pdf and http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/grapefruit-is-a-culprit-in-more-drug-reactions/ but if the above are credible can someone update this Wikipedia article with this information?76.8.67.2 (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * Done! Ashleyleia (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of elimination from the body
In the interactions section, CYP3A4 as the pathway for metabolization, but in Pharmacokinetics and metabolism section, it's mentioned that 60% of the drug is recovered in the urine. Is elimination from the body primarily liver driven or renal driven?Wzrd1 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction Needed
The author claims that there are no DHPR L-type Calcium channels on the heart muscles. Heart muscles release extracellular calcium into the sarcolemma through dihydropyridine receptor channels, which couples with ryanodine receptors on the Sarcoplasm Reticulum to release more calcium in the sarcolemma. Please refer to this article: Katoh H, Schlotthauer K, Bers DM. Transmission of information from cardiac dihydropyridine receptor to ryanodine receptor: evidence from BayK 8644 effects on resting Ca(2+) sparks. Circ Res. 2000 Jul 21;87(2):106-11. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alizargar (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

FDA Plagiarism
There is unquoted and unattributed text taken from the FDA in this article (see Plagiarism) on need for attribution or re-phrasing of text lifted from a free source). I am unable to find an FDA attribution template, indeed, locating the templates for this kind of situation is a challenge.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits made by LDP02
We attempted to improve to clarify the medical use section. We split contraindications into absolute and relative. We organized adverse effects into dose-related, non dose-related, and rare and added percentages. We expanded the drug-drug interaction section. We added an overdose section. LDP02 (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LDP02 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nicely done! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Irischen1 peer review of edits made by LDP02
The group made good edits to the adverse events by prioritizing the common and rare adverse events. They also added an drug interactions section, but should add some commonly prescribed CYP3A4 inhibitors. They should consider rewriting the mechanism of action section so that more lay language is used. For the overdose section, we would recommend sharing common symptoms of overdose in lay language and stress that they should call emergency help. We also recommend cleaning up the references, as there are duplicates.
 * We do not provide medical advice in Wikipedia's voice. Just something to keep in mind...the lay language suggestion is completely right. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits are neutral. The references and links for the specific edits are good and verifiable without citing primary sources. Valerievu1 —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Amlodipine a calcium channel blocker
The lead in doesn't authoritatively state it, only alluding to it as a side note. I think the lead in should be "Amlodipine is a drug of the calcium channel blocker class" Aethalides (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * it would be an improvement..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Tompkic2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)