Talk:Haemoglobin-based oxygen carriers

From
From Wikipedia "In general, hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers have been shown to reduce or eliminate the need for allogeneic blood transfusions in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery, elective abdominal surgery, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Trauma victims can benefit from a rapidly available universal oxygen-carrying volume expander that does not require cross matching. HOBCs may also serve as a bridge to transfusion in patients for whom blood is temporarily difficult to find. They may also serve as a bridge in the temporary support of a patient who will not accept blood and who has a reasonable chance of recovering an adequate haemoglobin/ hematocrit within a few days."

This article doesn't give any space to the controversial and dangerous side effects of HBOC's. There is a much more interesting and controversial history here. This looks like it was written by someone associated with one of the products. As it stands, this article is very misleading to potential investors, patients and doctors. Northfield Laboratories stock dropped from $17 to $4 last month on news that in "preliminary results forty-six patients, or 13.2% of those given PolyHeme, died, compared with 35 patients, or 9.6%, who died after getting standard therapy" (Wall Street Journal reference below). Thomas Burton of the WSJ has done a series of articles on clinical trials in trauma patients given without consent in the past year and on past trials with negative results to patients that weren't reported. This was also subject of many articles on the web as well as a 20/20 report. Some of this history and these sources should be included. In article this week in WSJ:

"For the FDA to approve Northfield's blood substitute, the agency would have to look past a series of trial results -- including recent preliminary data from a major study of the Evanston, Ill., company's PolyHeme product and others that haven't been previously reported -- in which blood substitutes were linked to higher death and adverse-event rates than standard therapy in treating patients in different medical settings. Northfield, which declined to comment, has said it plans to seek FDA approval this year."

"Many experts in the field have serious reservations about treating patients with this class of blood substitutes, known as hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers. One doubter is William D. Hoffman, chief of cardiac-surgery critical care at Massachusetts General Hospital and former medical director of Biopure Corp. in Cambridge, Massachusetts, maker of a product similar to Northfield's. He said the "totality of the data" on this class of products is that "so much harm has been shown, without benefit, that the field should be stopped."

Blood Substitutes Face Long Odds History, Scientific Concern Hamstring Sector; Northfield's High Hopes By THOMAS M. BURTON February 13, 2007

69.224.17.217 15:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several contributing factors for the research - See Military Use for one. Units in the field require an HBOC that has a long shelf-life and that can be generally applied without regard to blood type, etc.
 * Hence, the page has value. I would vote for a re-organization that is less academic in flavor and that stresses the pros and cons. jmswtlk 23:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?
What's wrong with this article? Why did it start with 'by Dr. R. Loncar' Institut für Hämostaseologie und Transfusionsmedizin, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Moorenstr. 5, 40225 Düsseldorf? Why does it have a paragraph that is two thousand words long!? This looks either like a massive copyright violation, or like the original author pasted his term paper into Wikipedia. I think that starting over from scratch may be more effective than trying to undo this mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The enormous paragraphs were caused by a failure to leave blank spaces between paragraphs. I've fixed that.  I'm also working my way through the ref tags.


 * I've removed the 'author' line again; Wikipedia is a collaborative writing effort, and Dr Loncar should consider whether he or she really wants to be identified as the author of an article that Dr Loncar is clearly not watching closely (think: vandalism, POV pushers, having someone else's wild claims attributed to you).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How long to allow for a merge of OxyVita?
The template threatens re-nomination if the article is not merged "promptly". If I had the expertise to do it, I would gladly merge the useful info from this article, however as my AfD suggests, I do not know which information is valuable and salvageable. I am concerned that nothing further will happen, and don't want to leave the current advertising indefinitely. Is one month a reasonable amount of time? Longer? Shorter?

Thanks, --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd go for shorter -- perhaps a week. Merging just means copying stuff out of the one article and into the other.  Is there anything in the OxyVita article that you think should be preserved here?  If so, please move it over.  Is there anything that you're sure does not need to be preserved here?  If so, just delete it.  Doing whatever you're capable of might make the task seem less daunting to another editor.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. I was the AfD nominator. I don't have the medical knowledge to separate the wheat from the chaff I'm afraid; to me it's all chaff. I'll leave it a while to see if anyone else takes up the baton; if not I'll consider what the best I can do is. Cheers. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about it either, and I'd probably move very little information anyway, since things that haven't even managed to get into clinical trials yet seem remarkably unimportant to me.
 * I've left messages for the three editors who supported the merge. It's possible that they thought that the closing admin would do the merge for them.  (Well:  probably not Espresso Addict, who certainly knows better and probably has been busy with other things, but I don't know anything about the other two editors, and they may not have realized that Wikipedia expects them to "put their money where their mouths are" in these situations.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've merged in OxyVita. I have no knowledge of this area and haven't checked out the references, but the important features seem to be the novel crosslinking process leading to a very-high-MW superpolymer with reduced extravasation, which is theorised to lead to reduced renal toxicity. I've also added some headings to this section of the article in the hope of making it easier to edit in future. Feel free to prune further, if you have any knowledge in this area. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All I know is, it's a lot better than I could have done. Thanks. --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Poor quality
This article has gapping holes in it coverage. Added a line to the start saying that none of these are actually clinically available because none have been found to improve outcomes due to safety concerns.

Lots of controversy here with some questions of less then honorable practives on the part of the manufactures / investigators. This is still a research / theoretical topic.

Here is a great ref. If anyone wants a copy let me know. http://www.uptodate.com/online/content/topic.do?topicKey=transfus/11560&selectedTitle=1~8&source=search_result -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

POV
Have added a lot of balance and reality to this article. It previously made it sound like this was great stuff that was helping patients arround the world. That a break thru was arround the corner.

There is still POV to fix though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to leave at note a WT:EMS, but here's as good as there: THANK YOU for your help.  I realize that this article needs a lot more attention (from people that aren't in the marketing departments of these companies), but this is real progress.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oxyglobin
Should the canine blood substitute Oxyglobin be included? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 01:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Haemoglobin-based oxygen carriers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080508175659/http://jap.physiology.org:80/cgi/content/full/82/6/1995 to http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/82/6/1995+

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haemoglobin-based oxygen carriers. 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/20120118152838/http://www.ebmedicine.net/store.php?paction=showProduct&catid=8&pid=244 to http://www.ebmedicine.net/store.php?paction=showProduct&catid=8&pid=244
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707233349/http://www.anesth.medicine.arizona.edu/research/clinical-trials-pdfs/TRICC.pdf to http://www.anesth.medicine.arizona.edu/research/clinical-trials-pdfs/TRICC.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)