Talk:Atracurium besilate

Old talk
Is there any scientifcally established evidence of bronchospasm with atracurium, or indeed with any of the non-steroidal NMB agents?? I am curious where the current statd information came from? Reference please?? 66.27.52.142 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ssp37097

I entered a simpler IUPAC name : 2,2'-{1,5-Pentanediylbis[oxy(3-oxo-3,1-propanediyl)]}bis[1-(3,4-dimethoxybenzyl)-6,7-dimethoxy-2-methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinolinium]--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Granted it's been some time since I took organic chemistry, and as a neurologist, this is certainly not my primary area of expertise. So please interpret this entire comment as a question. I don't recall "quinolinium" (or quinolin- or quin- ... etymologically from quinine?) as being an IUPAC name, but rather, a trivial name. Ditto for tetrahydro-. I.e., the IUPAC names, as I recall, all consider the the *maximally saturated* form to be the "baseline", and the -en- or -yn- are added to this to indicate the double bonds. All names (at least that I can remember) that *start* with some compound (usually biological, e.g. cannabinol) and indicate additional hydrogen substitution/saturation (e.g. tetrahydrocannabinol) are necessarily trivial names, taken, as they are, from the biological name of the substance, not the most basic chemical name thereof. [see caveat] So it appears to me that such drug names could be called "chemical name" but should not be called "IUPAC names". Am I wrong in this belief? To give perhaps a simpler example -- acetylsalicylic acid is the PI [package insert] name that matches the generic name "aspirin" (multiple trade names), but "acetylsalicylic acid" is certainly not an IUPAC name ... this for a compound that any 3rd-year chemistry student having passed organic chem should easily be able to name in proper IUPAC fashion. At any rate, it is the pharmaceutical companies themselves who provide the "chemical name" for their compound in the PI, but they are under no obligation to make sure that the name provided is pure IUPAC.

[Caveat from above - I realize that some IUPAC chemical names are etymologically derived from biological names, most notably meth- eth- prop- and but- for the first 4 alkanes, and the numeric names only start with pent-. These names have been given an imprimatur by IUPAC, however, ostensibly in light of their longstanding usage. However, such longstanding usage was chosen not to apply in the case of terms such as "ethyl alcohol", "acetyline", "diethyl [a]ether", and "acetone", for whatever reasons. "Ethanol" is common enough, but who really ever asks for the bottle of ethyne, ethoxyethane, or propanone? Or perhaps the chemists that made that decision simply did not like the words "unane", "bisane", "trisane", and "tetrane".]

After re-reading this post before hitting "send", I may have to uncork that bottle of "bisanol" after all ... watch that unanol and isotrisanol, they'll make you go blind ...

Bejmark (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Elimination? Degradation?
According to a package leaflet for Atracurium Besilate, the drug is inactivated by

1) Hofmann elimination, a non-enzymatic process which occurs at physiological pH and temperature

2) ester hydolysis catalysed by non-specific esterases

But "Hofmann elimination (also known as exhaustive methylation) is a process where an amine is reacted to create a tertiary amine and an alkene by treatment with excess methyl iodide followed by treatment with silver oxide, water, and heat". Does not sound very physiological to me. Can someone explain who knows? Moletrouser (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pharmacology
What's up with the pharmacology section? It is divided to clinical and preclinical and both talk about pharmacokinetics. The mechanism of action (a very important aspect) isn't even mentioned. It should be divided into pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics and made less confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.8.42 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)