Talk:Atazanavir

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christineyu247, Tu.kenneth, Kevinhng, JMargiott. Peer reviewers: Pharmatranst, Angelpan55, Hienucsf, Tcisow2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

New form
There is now a new approved single-capsule form of its Reyataz HIV drug to be taken as part of combination drug therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.67.50 (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2006‎

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Atazanavir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306221456/http://today.reuters.co.uk:80/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews to http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-10-20T184537Z_01_WEN7494_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-BRISTOLMYERS-DC.XML&WTmodLoc=SciHealth-C4-Health-5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

UCSF CP133 Proposed Edits
We would like to add:

-a Drug-Drug-Interactions section

-Pregnancy and Lactation section

-Mechanism of action section

-expanding the Adverse Effects section to make it easier to understand for the general public

-Is there a better way to convey the "Chemistry" section to the general public?

-possibly add to the right-hand summary: Trade name, pregnancy category and legal status in other countries

Contraindications section needs to be updated. Additional C/I’s and cautions can be added as well. Adverse events section needs to be updated as well, but this will require some effort in deciding which AE’s to share with the public.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Christineyu247 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC) -Added common adverse effects from the package insert under the adverse effects header ::Tu.kenneth (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Added a mechanism of action section
Have added a general mechanism of action section, but do not know whether resistance mechanisms should be included under this section, or warrant their own. JMargiott (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Updated contraindications section
Removed 2009 FDA warning; FDA safety information for atazanavir has been updated since then, and no longer reflects a contraindication for co-administration with PPI's. Added contraindications found on PI. Kevinhng (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Review of Article for UCSF Project
-"Atazanavir and lopinavir profile in pregnant women with HIV: tolerability, activity and pregnancy outcomes in an observational national study" appears to be an observational study, which is a primary resource. "Prolonged QT interval and torsades de pointes associated with atazanavir therapy Question: Have patients developed Liver stones as a side-effect of this medication?" is likewise a case report, and "Active human immunodeficiency virus protease is required for viral infectivity. appears to be an isolated primary laboratory experiment.

While these papers seem of very high quality, they may represent isolated cases and are not ideal for Wikipedia. What I might offer as a suggestion is to go to these resources and see which other papers cited it. If a more comprehensive review article is available which further confirms the observations made in these studies, that would be more ideal.

Also, "Bristol wins U.S. approval for single anti-HIV pill" did not seem to be accessible to me for some reason.

Otherwise, I think the article was great overall and the choice of references was expansive and inclusive. The only other suggestion I could think to give is to remember wikipedia's audience might be more lay. For example, if a patient diagnosed with HIV wants to know more about the protease inhibitor her physician prescribed for her, I think it would be helpful to explain the action of protease inhibitors more broadly first, then get into the chemical specifics later in the section. Pharmatranst (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Pharmatranst for your suggested edits! Jmargiott and I worked to address these by:

1. Removed the citation of the observational study since it was extra information

2. A colleague will work to address the Contraindications section

3. Supplemented the "Active human immunodeficiency..." with 2 other citations

4. Removed the "Bristol wins..." citation and expanded the Formulations section to include the other forms available, as listed on the package insert

5. Working to edit the beginning section and adding more citationsChristineyu247 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Review of Atazanavir Article
In terms of punctuation and grammar, this group fulfilled all the requirements of Wikipedia's manual of style. The 3-paragraph lead incorporated all the necessary components of the article succinctly. The section division and titles were appropriate. However, it seems that the Chemistry section is currently a citation. I'm not sure if the group decided to edit this section. However, the edit would be more appropriately placed in a sandbox or Talk page until it was ready for public view. Overall, the recent changes have certainly improved the quality of this article.

Angelpan55 (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Overall, the group did an thorough job in maintaining a neutral standpoint through this article. Language was nonjudgemental and avoided leaning towards disuse or use of drug. Information was summarized without biases. My minor concern is one of the sentence in the Pregnancy Section, "It is one of the preferred HIV medication to use in pregnant women who have not taken an HIV medication before”. According the Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View, one should avoid stating opinions as facts but instead attribute the opinion to a source. A better sentence could be: “According to X Source, Atazanavir is one of the preferred medications..” A second concern is under Society and culture section describing pill burden. The word ‘should' needs to be replaced with ‘can’ to maintain Wikipedia’s neutral point of view. Otherwise, the recent revisions to the article has certainly improved significantly.  Hienucsf (talk • contribs) 23:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence of plagiarism on this article. The references listed have links that are easily accessible by the reader, with the exception being the 12th source whose link does not appear to work. Please note that the package insert is cited twice under separate citations (source 6 and source 8). Also of note is that while the first three paragraphs exemplify an excellent summary, there is not a citation included. The line “Atazanavir has less effect on glucose levels than ritonavir” also does not have a citation. Lastly, while side effects and contraindications are hard to place in one's own words, these are listed exactly in the same order as the package insert. A possible suggestion to rectify this problem would be to cite more than one source when listing side effects and contraindications. Overall, the article is appropriately cited, and plagiarism has been avoided with due diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcisow2 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Tcisow2 for your comments. Tu.Kenneth and I have amended the page to consolidate our package insert citations. We have also removed the line "Atazanavir has less effect on glucose levels than ritonavir." Additionally, Tu.Kenneth removed the last sentence on the Adverse Events section regarding torsades. Kevinhng (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)