Talk:Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease

Splitting article in dominant and recessive
I would like to propose splitting this article in two articles, one for the dominant form and one for the recessive form. The two forms are quite different from each other and I think it is probably confusing to describe them both in one article. --WS 00:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Arcadian (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-merge or Delete?
The page for the Dominant form of the disease is much more descriptive and complete than this page, and this page gives the impression that it is the only wikipedia page on the subject (I would not have found the page for the Dominant form without checking the discussion). I recomend either removing this page and directing users to a disambiguation page, or re-merging the Dominant and Recessive pages. Failing that, a recomendation to go to the Dominant page (or Recessive page) should be prominently placed, to help users find the information they want.Chris45215 (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose the re-merge, but support the addition of introductory text to clarify the relationships among these entities. --Arcadian (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Remerge. Seems to me that this is not really analgous to diabetes where two common but completely unrelated diseases share symptoms, but not causality. In the case of diabetes, both diseases are extremely important clinically. By contrast, if you are interested in polycystic kidney disease, you are probably concerned with ADPKD. ARPKD is a rare disease which has fewer clinical implications, since most sufferers don't live more than a few months, if they even survive until birth. I would suggest merging ADPKD into the main article polycystic kidney disease, and having a small separate subarticle with a link for ARPKD. ARPKD is of very little clinical significance, while ADPKD is extremely important to clinicians and families. I suspect that most people and families with ADPKD understand that they have PKD, but don't really know what ADPKD versus ARPKD is about. Why should there be two articles, potentially contradicotry? Metzenberg (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Contradictions? Please clarify. --Arcadian (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Article needs some TLC!!
Will work on this as time permits....

Good review article: http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v76/n2/full/ki2009128a.html

Wawot1 (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the introduction
I've changed the introduction around quite a bit - there really wasn't a general summary statement and it seems that the prior intro was a remnant of when this article was simply polycystic kidney disease, rather than autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. I added a statement about ARPKD being a distinct entity, but I don't think this is the place to say much about it - its own dedicated page is the appropriate venue for this info. I also removed the sentence:
 * "Polycystic kidney disease is the most common life-threatening genetic disease, affecting approximately 7 million people worldwide. "

because the two references behind this statement were the Zerres paper, which is about ARPKD, and the Dalgaard paper, which I don't have access to and which was written in the 1950's - a lot has changed since then. I'm a bit skeptical of this claim (a brief review of UpToDate and one or two other reviews didn't repeat a similar statement). Please, though, if anybody has a more recent reliable source, add it!

Wawot1 (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?
Somebody just made a radical change of meaning to a long-standing statement. I have no idea if it was an improvement.

"Failure in flow-sensing signaling results in programmed cell death (apoptosis) of these renal epithelial cells, producing the characteristic multiple cysts of PKD."

to

"Failure in flow-sensing signaling results in proliforation of these renal epithelial cells, producing the characteristic multiple cysts of PKD.

Reading the (free) source leaves me none the wiser. Someone who understands the topic should have a look. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Tolvaptan
The article implies that tolvaptan isn't approved in the US, but it is. See the Aquaretic section. The phrase in question: "...the approval of the drug [tolvaptan] was either delayed by regulatory agencies or, as in case of the US, altogether denied." ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   14:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)