Talk:Entacapone

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): 11kimbobese, Ttrannn 11, Echung11. Peer reviewers: Dkta10, 10Lndsy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Blood-brain barrier
Does it cross the blood-brain barrier like tolcapone? cyclosarin 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Indications
adjunct to levodopa with dopa-decarboxylase inhibitor in Parkinson’s disease and ‘end-of-dose’ motor fluctuations

Cautions
avoid abrupt withdrawal; concurrent levodopa dose may need to be reduced by about 10–30%;

Contra-indications
pregnancy; breast-feeding; hepatic impairment; phaeochromocytoma; history of neuroleptic malignant syndrome or non-traumatic rhabdomyolysis

Side-effects
nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhoea, urine may be coloured reddish-brown, dry mouth; confusion, dizziness, abnormal dreams, fatigue, insomnia, dystonia, dyskinesia, hallucinations; increased sweating; rarely hepatic dysfunction and rash; very rarely anorexia, weight loss, agitation, and urticaria; also reported colitis, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, rhabdomyolysis, and skin, hair, and nail discoloration

Dose
200 mg with each dose of levodopa with dopa-decarboxylase inhibitor; max. 2 g daily —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittybrewster (talk • contribs) 20:33 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Comtan" or "COMTan" capitalization
Is the manufacturer only using capitalization "Comtan" now (as on its website), or does the packaging still use "COMTan"? If the packaging does not still use "COMTan", can we get a current logo? I have ensured that there are redirects for both, to ease navigation. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 17:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we have results from clinical trials
and some sources for the current content. - Rod57 (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation Course Assignment - Rough Draft 1
Originally, the article before this course assignment was broken down only by 1) lead section, 2) 'side effects', 3) 'products', and finally 4) 'references'. Thus, we felt there was potential to add significant value to this article, particularly for patients and students learning more about the drug.

Our main goal was to phrase the lead section so entacapone would be easy to understand with simple concepts. We placed tremendous emphasis on using lay language and hyperlinked phrases that were needed for context to understand more about entacapone, levodopa/carbidopa, and the treatment of Parkinson's disease. We reserved more technical information for newly created sections.

These newly created sections included headings 1) 'medical use', 2) 'adverse effects' (renamed from side effects), 3) 'mechanism of action', 4) 'pharmacokinetics', and finally 5) special populations. This covers: We believe these headings to be the most pertinent for the audience of this article.
 * what entacapone is being used for
 * what are its side effects
 * how the drug works in the body
 * what the body does to the drug
 * if special populations such as children/pregnant mothers can use this medication

From the original article, we removed the phrase 'Entacapone is a member of the class of drugs known as nitrocatechols'. This sentence had no supporting reference nor wikipedia page for nitrocatechols.

Finally, we edited the right-side panel of Clinical/Pharmacokinetic data with spell check (in addition to the complete article) and verified the numerical values listed for accuracy per entacapone package insert (last revision 2014, Novartis).

Future edits will expand on topics listed here in the Talk section, mechanism of action (picture would be nice), and supporting clinical trials for efficacy in Parkinson's disease.

Ttrannn 11 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing & Peer Review Group 10
1. Does this draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

I think the draft does have a neutral point of view meaning that there isn't any hidden language to suggest that it may or may not be good for patients to use. It might be slightly biased based on the amount of information provided in the adverse drug effects rather than about the drug itself.

2. Are the points included verifiable with cited published material?

Yes, most of the references are from their first cited reference of the Novartis prescribing information.

Very diligent at citing every section.

3. What recommendations?

The article is overall very good and is written with easy language and can be read by those without a high level of education. However, I think the organization is poor. The beginning includes random information that doesn't have much flow and could be reconstructed to be a stronger and more powerful opener. The last couple of sentences would be better suited as the first couple of sentences and so forth.

Also, is pediatrics a relevant population? Do pediatrics take this drug for Parkinson's disease?

The article includes medical phrases such as "wearing-off: and "peak dose dyskinesia” that may not be known to non-medical people. Providing definitions for the phrases may make it more useful for the general public.

The first sentence of adverse effects is unclear ("The following adverse effects have been reported by people with Parkinson's disease treated with entacapone:”) . Possibly a rephrase would be more beneficial. The phrase, "Pregnancy category C: risk is not ruled out" would not have understood it if I had not already known what pregnancy category C is.

The list of side effects seems extensive. For the lay person it is hard to determine what is the common adverse effect. Sources, like Micromedex list everything a patient reports, and may or may not actually be caused from the drug. A statement clarifying this or including the frequency of each adverse effect may be more effective. The black box warning should be emphasized. Statements that include “controlled study, and post marketing research” may also be difficult to understand. In general, medical jargon and adding links to define technical terms is used rather than explaining it in lay language. For example, I think medical use should be rephrased because it may be difficult to understand without a tpx background.

Is there a better source than Koda-Kimble? I feel like a review article available on pubmed is far more accessible to the public than an expensive 5lb textbook

- Group 10