Talk:Valaciclovir

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexuang, Dannymrowr, Brendado425, Mparagas18, Inshaqari. Peer reviewers: Pkhouder.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Financial Logic for Malice
The profit from the few Herpes infected people foolish enough to take Valaciclovir with the immediate side effect induced discontinuation cannot cover the cost of the ridiculously numerous commercials in an honest air-time market.

We all know, or should know, everything is commercialized at the Alter of Mammon for profit except in cases of malice. Alphaquad 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are probably too many drug commercials on USA television. That doesn't mean Wikipedia is the right place to start analysing this phenomenon. JFW |  T@lk  23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As you wish master control-tripAlphaquad 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA. JFW | T@lk  13:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Valaciclovir and HIV
I was wondering what the source is for the statement that valaciclovir is contraindicated in immuno-suppressed patients. I can't find anything on this. In the Netherlands, for example, it does have an indication for treatment in HIV-infected patients. (in Dutch). It also seems as if it is being used in other countries, for example in this study, where it has been used for the management of the HIV-1 infection itself. Jorishartman 09:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was curious about the use of valaciclovir in immuno-suppressed patients as well. I know for a fact it is commonly used for transplant patients as an antiviral prophylactic similar to the use of gancyclovir for CMV.  --Skelln1 07:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's has been at least one case of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura/hemolytic uremic syndrome in an HIV-patient, but this patient was taking an unsual high 8mg QD of valaciclovir. Other than that, I can only find sources that indicates the use of valaciclovir to treat HSV also in immunocompromised patients, and have removed the (unsourced) contraindication from the article. - Meewam (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a completely legitimate randomized placebo-controlled study that Valacyclovir reduced HIV viral loads by 57% in two weeks in HIV patients not on antiretroviral drugs so it has a direct effect against HIV. I added that last night and today under Research but some idiot "expert" removed it. I didn't know that a double-blind placebo controlled study is not up to the "high" Wikipedia standards. That kind of blatant censure will keep dropping Wikipedia down in search results.

Creator?
I removed a mention of "Christine Moraski" as the creator of valaciclovir. I can find no significant mention of that name on Google or in my Pharmacology textbooks (unsurprisingly). The edit was made by IP here wihout citation, so I think it's probably a hoax. Since it's just a simple esterification of a drug created by someone else, I'm sure GSK just set a bunch of staff scientists on trying slight modifications of the drug, and this one panned out...nobody would have been credited as the "creator". - Draeco (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

IUPAC Name is lacking stereochemistry
Name should be 2-[(2-amino-6-oxo-1,6-dihydro-9H-purin-9-yl)methoxy]ethyl L-valinate —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemSpiderMan (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Molecular diagram spammed
The molecular diagram has been spammed by user at 124.180.148.160 Limeyguru (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

History
When did it go on the market? No mention of its history here.AdeMiami (talk)

"It is inactive against latent viruses in nerve ganglia" - citation or clarification needed
Halford et al. (1997) Virology 238, 53-63 provides indirect evidence that the sentence "It is inactive against latent viruses in nerve ganglia" is not accurate. That paper demonstrates that Acyclovir (the active ingredient of valaciclovir) blocks cytokine gene expression in trigeminal ganglia latently infected with HSV-1. Therefore, there should be a clarification of what "is inactive" means, or an explanation of why valaciclovir affects, but acyclovir does not affect, latent viruses in sensory ganglia.
 * It means that the drug does not eliminate the latent virus from the nerve ganglia. Ruslik_ Zero 06:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

no more generic ?
looks like GSK won patent cases in court

US http://www.drugs.com/availability/generic-valtrex.html Canada http://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00577 Canada	expires	2017-01-17 and 2015-10-13 US expires 2016-07-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither source directly states that. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

quote from a forum: "Last month i spent 40$ on valtrex for a month supply, on sat i went in and it sky rocketed to 130$ for the same amount." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Quotes from forums fall under WP:SPS and cannot be used on Wikipedia. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Valtrex regains its patent right

Pharmapar wants to inform you that the pharmaceutical company Glaxo Smith Kline regained its patent right on Valtrex (Dom-Valacyclovir).

This is the reason why generics companies have stopped selling that molecule since June 1st 2014.

Therefore, it is not a stock shortage.

This new patent will expire by September 13th 2015 at the soonest http://pharmapar.ca/en/news/77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 3b goals
Add History section. Separate and update current "Mechanism of Action" section into "Mechanism of Action" and "Pharmacology" (to include Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics). Add Drug Interactions section.--Mparagas18 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please make sure all group members assign themselves to this article before making their individual edits. Thanks. Health policy (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations II Group 3A peer review
--Inshaqari (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Goals: 1) make sure grammar and syntax are correct so there is reduced reader confusion 2) add hyperlinks to relevant wiki sites Part 1:

1.Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “guiding framework”?

Yes, the group’s edits have substantially improved the article. The group removed repeated information, added information about available dosage forms, and separated MOA to MOA and pharmacology with additional information added. Pkhouder (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Yes the group edit improved the article, the separation between Pharmacology and MOA allowed the reader to follow the article Kylett1 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes the groups edits have improved the article, they gave a more concise view of the drug. Kmhudson22 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC) 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, the group achieved its overall goal for improvement. The History section provided a greater perspective on how the drug came about. Kylett1 (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Yes, the group has achieved their proposed goals for improvement by updating and separating MOA to MOA and pharmacology.Pkhouder (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes the group has met the goals the sought out for improvement. Kmhudson22 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 2:

A. yes the information provided comes from a neutral standpoint. Kmhudson22 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC) B. Yes Kylett1 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC) C. yesPkhouder (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Valacyclovir for Mild Cognitive Impairment (VALMCI)
[Https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04710030 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04710030] Ethan hines (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Adverse effects
The first sentence states "Common adverse drug reactions (≥1% of people) associate with...". Shouldn't that instead be "...(≤1% of people)..."? If you agree with full confidence render the edit if you like, or I'll do so within a couple of weeks. Cheers! H Bruce Campbell (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I published the change in the article this date. Cheers! H Bruce Campbell (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I retracted my change, which I now view as mistaken, only minutes afterward. My sense now is that the "common" terminology in life sciences is such that mild side effects which are highly unlikely to be dangerous are allowed to include a broad proportional range of patients as a matter of real world practicality in record keeping overhead in clinical environments. Cheers! H Bruce Campbell (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)