Talk:Vancomycin

Vague Sentence
Could we make the line, "Likely it is okay during breastfeeding." in the opening paragraph a little more specific? Even something like "Likely it is not harmful to those who are breastfeeding." sounds better. Lukejodonnell (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That did sound vague and informal. I changed it to say that it is safe in this context (per the cited ref). I did not use your actual wording suggestion because it only seemed to focus on the mother, whereas the ref notes that the chemical is transmitted to the child but that even that doesn't matter. DMacks (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

VANCOmycin:: Cystic Fibrosis
VANCOmycin is mainly used for patients with Cystic Fibrosis and is commonly used as the first and foremost the antibiotic used to treat exacerbations. VANCOmycin is very hard on the kidneys and can cause problems if not dealt with immediately.--198.184.147.19 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Jacob Matthew Findley
 * Not mainly used. But used yes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion about the chemical structure image
The image does not show an important detail about vancomycin: that it has axial chirality. The two benzene rings with chlorine atoms, for example, can be as they are drawn, or rotated 180 ºC so the Cl atoms point to the other side. The molecule cannot change freely between those conformations, so having one or the other is an important detail when synthesizing it, and for its activity as antibiotic My point is: why to keep this image, when a better one, that shows all this details, is on Wikipedia Commons? This one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Vancomycin.png If someone thinks as I do, you can add it to the article

Pill is the same as oral capsule
Therefore we can use the simpler of the two in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not though. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * What reasoning do you use to determine that pill is more simple than capsule? Pill is wrong.  Why not just erase the whole article and write that Vanc fixes boo-boos? Hell, if you're determined to needlessly dumb it down, why not change "intravenous solution" to "injection"?  "Intravenous solution" is a lot less simple than oral capsule is. GregMo72 (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A capsule is a subtype of pill thus we have sources like this.
 * Vancomycin does not fix boo-boos, thus the reason we do not say that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're really going to use drugs.com as an authoritative source on this debate? Surely you jest.
 * From the second sentence of the article, "[Vancomycin] is recommended intravenously as a treatment for complicated skin infections." Why would they recommend it if it doesn't work?  Your argument isn't making any sense.
 * There are good reasons to use 'capsule' instead of 'pill'. There are no such reasons for the reverse.  After all, this isn't simple.wikipedia.org, it is a pharmacology article (IOW, a scientific based article), and as such, the more correct term here should certainly be used.GregMo72 (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes I am.
 * We use easy to understand English per WP:MEDHOW. Those who want / demand technical English generally have lots of excellent sources avaliable to them. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * agree 100% w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

1 or 2 chlorines in the chemical formula
I noticed one of the chemical structures has only 1 chlorine in the picture so i am not sure weather vancomycin has 1 chlorine or 2 chlorines in its chemical formula or if there are 2 forms of vancomycin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.163.170 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Vancomycin has two chlorine atoms. Both images in the infobox and also the images below in the text all show both chlorine atoms, as far as I can tell.  Am I missing something?  Which image only has one chlorine atom?  -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Antibiotic classes
I've noticed a gross inconsistency and relative rarity of actually stating what the class of an antibiotic is clearly in a rapidly accessible location. Vancomycin is a great example:the majority of people who look up Vancomycin (I'm guessing medical students) probably don't care about the KEGG, and yet, there it is in the sidebar, easily accessible. But if I wanted to quickly know what class Vanc was in, I'd have to scroll through the text to figure out its glycopeptide antibiotic. This is inefficient and borderline absurd... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.105.212 (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be more easy to find. I have now added the text " class = Glycopeptide antibiotic" to the infobox so that information is now a bit easier to locate.  Please feel free to make this type of change to other articles yourself where you see the same problem.  Regards,  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

by mouth -> orally
Dear Wiki-heros, Shouldn't all instances of 'by mouth' be replaced by 'administered orally'. Orally is the standard and well-recognised term for this, by mouth to me is ambiguous. If orally is not understandable enough for laypeople, I would suggest to link to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_administration

J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasperlevink~enwiki (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

re history
would history not be better placed at the beginning? w. ought to have a degree of uniformity in these articles, i have seen others with history immediately after the summary, and this type, which has it at the bottom. or does it depend on whether a person vs a drug company finds the grail du jour? 64.229.175.25 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Research directions on the combination of vancomycin powder and povidone-iodine lavage
I added a "Research directions" sections where I mentioned on the combination of vancomycin powder and povidone-iodine lavage, based on a meta-analysis.

See

Does the source I given corroborate well with the information I added, and is that appropriate for inclusion in "Research directions"?

I read Wikipedia rules that "Research directions" section should not contain primary sources and should not be a description of studies, it should instead be based on very solid major sources to cover trends.

My hope is that the meta-analysis I given satisfies these requirements. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)