Talk:Primaquine

Untitled
related to Chloroquine

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): WucCP133, Dgarcia24, Maryam.havaei, Lizethrivera0720. Peer reviewers: NedaNassr, Lois.chung, Floal1, Collierpharmd, Hwhittemore13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Radical cure
I have removed the bits about primaquine not being effective against the erythrocytic stages of malaria as untrue. Primaquine is very effective against the erythrocytic stages of malaria, but is always given with chloroquine because the effect against hypnozoites is potentiated by quinine or chloroquine. I have referenced this statement in the article. --Gak 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear from this context whether it is necessary to take chloroquine with primaquine once the blood stage treatment has completed. For example, suppose one finished chloroquine 10 days ago and no longer has symptoms or re-exposure. Does one then need to take more chloroquine to potentiate the primaquine in killing liver hypnozoites? And if this would be needed in this case, why would more chloroquine not be needed after 10 days of treatment because presumably the chloroquine is mostly gone from the plasma after 11 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.196.83 (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly anecdotal and WP:OR but...in late 70's Peace Corps Volunteers were given a dose of primaquine to be taken 4 days after leaving malarial endemic areas. Since at that time weekly chloroquine was the PC prophylaxis of choice (at least in West Africa), the number of days from the last chloroquine dose could have been as long as 11 days but no more. Juan Riley (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing Edits through 11/17 (UCSF Health Policy Course)
Our group is planning to make the following changes to the page in the next two weeks:
 * Flesh out the lede (3-4 paragraph style)
 * Update adverse reactions section and nest the contraindications section
 * Remove Manufacturing and Availability section, relocate and condense pertinent information to the lede
 * Add a pharmacokinetics section (incorporate Dosing section)
 * Add a Mechanism of Action section


 * Move dosing for continuity and update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgarcia24 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

WucCP133 (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * We don't discuss dosing per WP:MEDMOS. Unclear if the information that was under "manufacturing" is true; moved it here until someone verifies it (note - the "testing at prison" if true really belongs under History per MEDMOS).  The refs in this article are all very old.  It could use a complete workover based on recent MEDRS sources for the WP:Biomedical information  content and WP:RS for the rest. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't discuss dosing per WP:MEDMOS.  Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

unsoured
moving this here as it is unsourced per PRESERVE


 * Manufacturing and availability

Primaquine was first tested on humans during the Stateville Penitentiary Malaria Study in 1944. Primaquine was licensed for use in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration in 1952 and is available as a generic drug from a variety of manufacturers.

Primaquine is not licensed for use in the United Kingdom. It is available on a named patient basis only from certain pharmaceutical providers. Primaquine tablets available in the UK contain 7.5 mg primaquine base (13.2 mg phosphate salt). Primaquine tablets available in the US contain 15 mg base (26.3 mg phosphate salt).\

-- 18:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Review for CP 133
1.	STUDENT 1 – Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

Yes, the draft submission on Primaquine reflects a neutral point of view. There is no evidence of editorial bias. The editing group drew information from reliable sources, and there was no original research used to validate statements within the article. --Lois.chung (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

2.	STUDENT 2 – Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify…

The source: Baird JK, Rieckmann KH (March 2003). "Can primaquine therapy for vivax malaria be improved?" is not freely accessible and the information cited in the wikipedia page does not appear to be available in the article abstract.

The source: Edgcomb JH, Arnold J, Young EH, et al. (1950). "Primaquine, SN 13272, a new curative agent in vivax malaria; a preliminary report." - I was unable to find online free access to this article. Perhaps because the journal article is very old, there is not online version of it available.

The source: Jacobson LS, Schoemana T and Lobetti RG (2000). "A Survey of Feline Babesiosis in South Africa" - the file that downloads from this source has a different title and different authors than what is stated in the citation. The source is a scientific study (primary literature) that compares effectiveness of various drugs to that of primaquine for treatment of feline babesiosis. However, the study is rather old, and one cannot claim that "Primaquine is used to treat feline babesiosis" from this article, as stated in the Veterinary use section of the Primaquine wikipedia article. This article might be more helpful: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20230438

All other sources are freely accessible and as far as I could tell, all information was verifiable.

Collierpharmd (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Excellent catch, will remove this section as the information appears to be inaccurate.WucCP133 (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

3.	STUDENT 3 – Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles? If not, specify…

Based on "Wikipedia's manual for medicine-related articles" the edits appear to be consistent with the format indicated in the manual. The page has important information such as: uses, pharmacology/ mechanism of action, and side effects among others. It is also consistent with having the headings and sub-headings by having only the first letter capitalized followed by lower case if it has 2 words or more on both the heading and sub-heading. floal1 —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

4.	STUDENT 4 – Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…

I found no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Hwhittemore13 Hwhittemore13 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lois.chung (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

“In Popular Culture”
Would it be appropriate to add this section? I thought I’d do a sentence or two about the M*A*S*H episode that deals extensively with side effects. AutumnAdrift (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)