Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 9

Copy and pasting
Hey All. We have just starting running edits from this project through the "copy and paste" detection bot found here [User:EranBot/Copyright]. There are some false positive and negatives. All results need human follow up. But it is decent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of a pharmacology article for deletion
Good evening. I'm just posting here to notify this project that I have nominated a Pharmacology article for deletion due to the fact that barring one sentence and an infobox, it's empty and has only been edited twice since 2011. If you have any input, would someone please be kind enough to expand Ethallobarbital to at least a stub if possible. Right now, it's not so much a stub, more like a Zygote :) If anyone has the opportunity to fill this in, please do!  It's been empty since 2009 and utterly unreferenced, barring a PubMed citation.  I'd rather it carry on than get shifted off.  Thank you! CharlieTheCabbie| Yack to the driver  00:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Free 'RSC Gold' accounts
I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics (including, of course, pharmacology). Please visit RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 December 2014‎


 * Thanks Andy, that is amazing. Thanks also for involving this WikiProject. JFW &#124; T@lk  22:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Notification -- many pharmacological navboxes have changed
All medical, anatomy and many pharmacological navigation boxes have changed.
 * TLDR

The small line of links at the bottom of the navbox has now changed to an "Index of..." with "Description", "Disease" and Treatment" subsections. This will affect almost all medical, anatomy and pharmacology navboxes. As an example, see here:

The links at the bottom ("Index of the peripheral nervous system...") are what have changed. A full list is at Template:Medicine navs.

Previously all navboxes have had a line of links to other navboxes embedded within them. An example is here:. Prior to today, that line that was a list of abbreviated terms that linked to relevant templates. This attracted a lot of negative feedback, and a length discussion was held on how to improve them. See here for the RfC: Template_talk:Medicine_navs. We concluded that it would be better for the embedded navboxes to be expanded in full form. This is much easier for mobile use, links are clearer, and lay users who may not be familiar with the abbreviated forms can now use the templates with greater ease.
 * Why this has changed

We expanded all the abbreviations. We tried very hard to get the right balance between readability for lay audiences, who are not familiar with medical terminology, and technical accuracy. We have tried to use standard terms for all the templates. Further explanation can be found by reading the discussions on Template_talk:Medicine_navs
 * What we have changed

Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Feedback
Please leave feedback here: Template_talk:Medicine_navs

Automatic archiving
I've had occasion to post to this page a few times in the past year. Because of its size it takes quite a long time to load (meaning multiple minutes on some connections I have used) and because there are so many threads it is a little hard to keep track of. Would there be any objections to making this page automatically archived, say after 28 days? I would be bold and do this myself, but seeing as this is now 2015 and it hasn't already been done, I feel I should be certain and ask first Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah...we probably should do that. I'm okay with 28 days for the limit.   Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 07:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Substance dependence
This is a WP:PHARM High-importance & level-4 vital article article split.

Insert your 2¢ if you have any. If anyone objects, propose an alternative; I'm going to follow through with some action to address the problem within a month since I won't let that travesty of an article remain as is.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 13:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Estrogenics, Glucocorticoidics, Progestogenics, Mineralocorticoidics?
The name of Glucocorticoids was recently changed to Glucocorticoidics in this edit The the usual term for glucocorticoids is glucocorticoids: This includes: There appears little to no precedent for the term "glucocorticoidics":
 * Glucocorticoid Google search About 3,770,000 results
 * Glucocorticoid Google search About 3,770,000 results
 * non steroidal glucocorticoid Google search About 9,770 results
 * Glucocorticoidics Google search About 79 results
 * Glucocorticoidics PubMed search No results (Showing results for glucocorticoids)

Also I noticed that we have related navboxes that are named Estrogenics, Mineralocorticoidics and Progestogenics whose names also strikes me odd, especially given the following MeSH terms: Based on the results of Google searches, there is a bit more support for the terms estrogenics, glucocorticoidics, mineralocorticoidics, and progestogenics but these terms are still not widely used. Wikipedia is meant for a wide audience. Hence I propose that the templates adopt the MeSH names that are shorter, simpler, more widely used, and are still fully accurate. Is there support for the renaming of these navboxes? Boghog (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * vs. Estrogenics Google search About 6,640 results
 * vs. Mineralocorticoidics Google search About 2,570 results
 * vs. Progestogenics Google search About 6,390 results
 * Estrogenics → Estrogens (hmm, two different navboxes that probably should be merged.)
 * Glucocorticoidics → Glucocorticoids
 * Mineralocorticoidics → Mineralocorticoids
 * Progestogenics → Progestins
 * Probably not and they should be moved back. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I strongly support the name "...-ics" for these navboxes in their current condition. It covers a broarder spectrum of items (modulators, enzyme inhibitors, etc.), which otherwise would be quite narrow. I treat it as a matter of logic derivation. For me it's inaccurate to subsume enzyme inhibitors under the title progestogencis, estrogenics, etc. --Hm20 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Glucocorticoidics is not a word (Glucocorticoidics PubMed search No results). Using it for the name of a navbox amounts to original research. Furthermore the scope of these navboxes is far too broad and the size has become unwieldy.  They should be split up into ligands, enzyme inhibitors, etc. Boghog (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Insert "glucocorticoidic" into google scholar. You will find peer reviewed papers that use this term. There is nothing wrong with it. I just don't care about pubmed hits. In the present case there is no basis for regarding pubmed as a acceptance criterion. It's not the job of pubmed to represent a full comprehensive glossery. As a single example: Noppe et al use this word/non-word on page nine in Analytica Chimica Acta, 2008, . To point it out once, Medgirl, you made a good job.


 * Concerning the appearance, would it be the style of the dopaminergics navbox that you have in mind?


 * A recurring issue is addressing. Shall the navbox serve the professional and well experienced reader/user or the average layman? In my opinion it should serve both. I think of two boxes in one with a double show/hide function for each subbox. One essential version (like the current template:Progestogens and antiprogestogens) containing prescription drugs and the like, and a comprehensive version, containing also research agents, etc. --Hm20 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Google Scholar "glucocorticoidic" search returned 18 hits. A large majority of those hits are false positives (e.g., "Glucocorticoid; IC50").  There are only two or three true positives and these are no doubt typos. Compare that with the 599,000 results returned by Google Scholar "glucocorticoid". "Glucocorticoidic" is not a word and has no place in Wikipedia. Furthermore, a sprawling navbox that is difficult to read because of its enormous size serves neither the general reader nor the specialist. Boghog (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Supported. All these “*ics” are bizarre and never used in the scientific community. Just my 2 cents. Alfie  ↑↓ © 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Tons of search engine hits can't have the power to impress me. Glucocorticoidic is without any doubt a valid word and used in at least a few scientific papers as an adjective – no typo. I admit, there is apparently no reference that use it as a noun. Since I am not a nit-picker I won't instist any longer on this issue. I have no special interest in steroids, but I appreciate well organized navboxes. The pairwise contrapositioned terms are not synonymous, so one can't simply change the corresponding box title, it's mistaking apples for oranges.
 * @ Alfie: Do dopaminergics, serotoninergics and opioidergics belong to "all these bizzare *ics"? --Hm20 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Glucocorticoidic is without any doubt a valid word Right. 599,000 to ~3 search results and I would still argue that these few sporadic examples are probably typos.  I also note that the authors of number of these highly atypical examples are non-native English speakers.  At best, "glucocorticoidic" represent a tiny, tiny minority view and therefore is WP:UNDUE and not permitted in Wikipedia.   Furthermore, terminology that is used in one field ("dopaminergic" in neurotransmitters) may not be transferable to another field ("glucocorticoid" in nuclear receptors).  Employing this analogy amounts to original research. Boghog (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , Below are listed the 5 sources that mention "glucocorticoidic".  The remainder of the 13 Google Scholar "glucocorticoidic" search are all false positives (results of adjacency, "glucocorticoid" + "ic"). Of the 5 true hits, sources #1-#3 are reliable English language sources, but are written by authors whose first language is not English.  Source #4 is originally written in Hungarian.  I cannot find any translation other than what has been supplied by Google Scholar so perhaps the translation was done by Google Translate.  Source #5 is a reliable English language source whose Australian authors first language is clearly English.  However these particular authors are geneticists, not endocrinologists.  In summary there is not one single reliable source that uses "glucocorticoidic" that is authored by a native English speaking author who is an authority in the relevant field (i.e., endocrinology). Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. Also per WP:COMMONNAME, search engine results are a valid way of establishing the most common usage. "Glucocorticoidic" is almost never used (essentially zero Google Scholar hits) whereas "Glucocorticoid" is highly used (greater than half a million Google Scholar hits). In short, "glucocorticoidic" is not a word. Boghog (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Translation from Romanian to English:
 * 1) Translation from Romanian to English:
 * 1) Translation from Romanian to English:
 * 1) Translation from Romanian to English:


 * Simply put, Wikipedia should not coin new terminology. Wikipedia is descriptive, not inventive.  Even if you can make a coherent argument that the invented words are better than the ones scientists currently use, using those words does not fall within the scope of Wikipedia's purpose.  I support Boghog's suggested moves.  ChemNerd (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi from a new editor
Hi All. I'm a pharmacist and pharmacy prof from the University of Waterloo. I'm learning how to edit Wikipedia (steep learning curve!). My plan is to start by working on antibiotics and to see where it goes from there. My biggest interests are in patient health literacy and antibiotic stewardship. I'm wide open to suggestions and feedback as I learn.(first lesson: sign in before doing an edit :) Kagpharm (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Warm welcome Kagpharm! Antibiotics could certainly use some improvement.  When editing medical related articles, please be aware of WP:MEDRS.  It is important to support any medical claims with reliable secondary sources (i.e., review articles).  On the Talk:Antibiotics page, you will find a box called "Ideal sources" with links to antibiotic specific links to MEDRS compliant sources.  If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page.  Happy editing! Boghog (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with Wikipedia?  It's written in Simple English, which has a very restricted vocabulary.  If you're interested in patient health literacy, then learning how to write to their standards—while still providing full information—might be a valuable exercise.  WPMED leverages it for their translation task force (WP:MEDTTF), because it's easier to translate from Simple English into other languages than to start with complex English.  Good work done on critical articles can really go world-wide if you're working on something that interests that group.  (Also, the Simple English Wikipedia is generally friendly to classes of student editors, if that's an eventual goal for you.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Biosimilars
Should biosimilars get their own page? I just noticed the new article Remsima, the brand name of a biosimilar to infliximab. For small molecule pharmaceuticals, it makes sense to have only one article titled at the INN and then redirect all brand names/generic products to that article, since they all contain the same API. However, biosimilars do not necessarily have an identical API (that's why they are biosimilars). So should Remsima be merged with infliximab, or left as a standalone article? And if it remains standalone, would it be acceptable to have a separate article for Remicade? -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

New editors with a few questions
Hello Everyone,

My colleagues, user:J. A. Leavitt and user:C.G.Pharmacy, and I are pharmacy students at the University of Waterloo completing independent research projects on editing Wikipedia. Our goal is to improve the readability of antibiotic articles that are backed by reputable sources. We are working alongside pharmacy professor user:Kagpharm (Pharm D), a pharmacy school librarian (PHD candidate) and user:Doc James. As a team, we would like to revise the Cefalexin page so that it can be used as a standard for updating other Wikipedia pages. We hope to continue to edit other Wikipedia pages as well and welcome any feedback regarding our edits. We want to contribute to making Wikipedia accessible, understandable, and accurate for all Wikipedia readers.

We are currently editing sections of the article and were wondering what Wikipedia’s trusted resources are for pregnancy and lactation information, as well as, for drug interactions? Any feedback or suggestions are most welcome.

Thank you, Carly-pharm (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello . When someone has good sources of information, the usual practice is to include them immediately into a relevant Wikipedia article. Consider checking the references already cited in any article which interests you.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Digestives
Template:Digestives has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Amphetamine at WP:TFA
I've nominated the amphetamine article with this blurb for TFA; I'd appreciate any input for/against the nomination or comments about the blurb at the nomination page.

Thanks  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 20:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Seppi :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 22:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Bromelain (pharmacology) for DYK
See Template:Did you know nominations/Bromelain (pharmacology). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear WikiProject Pharmacology
I am posting here to request the development of a new Wikipedia page for the COPD treatment tiotropium + olodaterol fixed-dose combination (FDC).

Tiotropium + olodaterol FDC is a new treatment developed by Boehringer Ingelheim. Phase III data has shown that tiotropium + olodaterol FDC provides even further lung function, symptom and quality of life benefits to patients than tiotropium or olodaterol alone.1

Tiotropium + olodaterol FDC has been submitted for Marketing Authorisation in Europe and the US and if approved, could offer an important additional treatment option for the estimated 65 million patients worldwide who live with COPD.2 _

Please note, all information submitted for this page would be factually-based and relate largely to the significant amount of trial data available for this treatment.

Would the Wikipedia Pharmacology community consider the creation of this new Page for this new FDC treatment option of COPD? If so, please let us know if you would need additional, unbiased and scholarly material for the creation of this new article.

We look forward to your reply.

Kind regards Christoph_Hallmann

1.    Buhl R, Derom E, Ferguson G et al. Once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination via the Respimat® improves outcomes vs mono-components in COPD in two 1-year studies. ERS 2014 abstract No. OP1895. 2.    World Health Organization. Chronic Respiratory Diseases. Burden of COPD. Christoph Hallmann (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Any high quality secondary sources? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Tetramethylhexadecenyl succinyl cysteine


I make it a point to stay away from anything related to MEDRS, but you guys might want to take a look at this article. Apparently developed by an account called "Mesports" which has a matching website that seems to sell or otherwise market this stuff. It looks like there's some refspam promotion and/or use of non-reliable sources also. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Drugbox legal status options
In Drugbox, we can add the legal status for some countries (AU, UK, US, ...). There are pre-set options, which nicely link to for example:. Documentation is completed now, and changes are a bit more easy. If you're interested, please take a look and drop improvements (better links? better texts? sources OK?).

Documentation is at Infobox drug/legal status, talk is at Infobox drug, legal status. -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can these changes be made for the Pharmacology section of the Chembox as well? Sizeofint (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I plan to use the very same option set (same subtemplate) in Chembox. Needs a stable subtemplate (currently there are some 380 Pharmaco's in {Chembox}). btw, pregnancy category is to follow. -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Same for pregnancy category. Documentation (proposal demo's) at Infobox drug/pregnancy category, talk is at Talk:Infobox drug, preg cat. Also, intended to be used in when stable. -DePiep (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. See up to date documentation at Infobox drug/legal status and Infobox drug/pregnancy category. -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Rx by template
I have created this template Rx:
 * &rarr; ℞

-DePiep (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Triple antibiotic ointment
Your attention is called to the discussion at Talk:Polysporin, in which one view is to merge with Neosporin, another is to leave the two articles separate, and a third is to merge the two under the generic name in the header above, which now redirects to Polysporin. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

US: PLLR per 30 June 2015
June 30, pregnancy category labeling in the US changes (no more letter codes A-B-C). New rules PLLR could be an article.

As I am working with Drugbox (esp. pregnancy category documentation), I'd like to learn what will happen. I have not seen a single example (medicine label). What to expect? How to handle? -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Was mentioned here earlier by Doc James. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology -DePiep (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Radium
Should Radium-223-Chloride be an article about Radium-223 or Radium-223-Chloride ? Should this be an isotope article, or a pharmacological chemical article? See talk:Radium-223-Chloride for the discussion -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Afatinib Wikipedia Article
I have suggested the following post to the Talk:Afatinib Page but have not received a response. Therefore, I will post it here. Thank you for your attention.

I would like to propose a further update to the current article for afatinib. Information on recently published scientific data (Yang et. al. Lancet Oncology 2015) ), relevant to the approved indication for afatinib as a treatment for non-small cell lung cancer is missing from the “Medical uses” section of the current article. Below I have drafted some suggested wording about this data for inclusion in the article, for your consideration. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this suggestion and, as always, am grateful for any feedback and advice. In addition we propose an update to ongoing clinical research, which investigates afatinib in head and neck squamous carcinoma as well as other ErbB driven tumors.

Suggest wording: Afatinib was investigated as first-line therapy in two pivotal, Phase III trials, LUX-Lung 3 and 6. Both studies were large, randomized trials comparing afatinib to standard of care chemotherapy, LUX-Lung 3 in a Caucasian and Asian population, LUX-Lung 6 in a solely Asian population. Both trials met their respective primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS). Data presented at the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting 2014 from the LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6 trials, and now published in Lancet Oncology demonstrated for both studies independently a significant overall survival benefit (secondary endpoint) for NSCLC patients with the most common type of EGFR mutation, Del19, compared to standard chemotherapy. A combined exploratory analysis of the LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6 trials demonstrated a prolongation of overall survival (secondary endpoint) in lung cancer patients whose tumours harbour common EGFR mutations (Del19/L858R), compared with standard chemotherapy.

Sagschneider (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (i.e., review or meta-analyses) are required to backup medical claims. is a primary source. I suggest that you rely on these instead. Boghog (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Wiki Project Pharmacology,


 * Thank you for your valuable insight and commentary about the sourcing for this suggested edit to the afatinib Wikipedia article. Although we appreciate the WP:MEDRS guidelines recommend secondary sources as back up to medical claims, we would also like to provide the newest evidence at the highest level (primary peer-reviewed journal). Would it be possible to update based on the peer-reviewed article in addition to the secondary sources below?

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Feb;16(2):141-51. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71173-8. Epub 2015 Jan 12.

Targeted therapies: LUX-Lung trials-not all mutations are created equal. Hutchinson L. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar;12(3):127. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.9. Epub 2015 Jan 27. No abstract available.

Common EGFR-mutated subgroups (Del19/L858R) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: chasing better outcomes with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Reguart N, Remon J. Future Oncol. 2015 Jan 28:1-13. [Epub ahead of print] Sagschneider (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is a bit of a stub and could definitely use updating. I'll put it on my list, but if someone else gets to it first they shouldn't hesitate to do so.  Formerly 98 talk  15:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dabigatran Article
Dear Wikipedia Community,

I posted the following suggestion on the Dabigatran Talk Page, but it has unfortunately not received any attention. Please see below. Thank you for your assistance.

In order to supplement the completeness of this Wikipedia article, I was wondering whether readers would appreciate a more complete list of regulatory approvals for dabigatran to be added in the “History” section. Currently, the “History” section does not reflect the approvals listed in the “Medical Uses” section. I could imagine that the article would benefit if the two sections were aligned. If you would like further information or dates, I would be happy to provide them here.

Tvrdonova (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Nintedanib edit reflecting IPF indication
I posted this edit on the Nintedanib article Talk page, but have not received any response. Please see included suggestion below. Thank you.

I would like to propose the following updates to the Nintedanib Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintedanib) to ensure the content is up-to-date and reflects the current regulatory status of nintedanib. As currently noted, nintedanib is approved by the FDA and the European Commission (EC) for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis under the trade name Ofev®. (www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm418994.htm; http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/003821/smops/Positive/human_smop_000760.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d127 ). Regulations dictate that the Ofev® brand name – which also relates to the particular dosage of nintedanib for use in IPF – only be linked with this disease. In November Vargatef® received approval from the European Commission for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002569/smops/Positive/human_smop_000727.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d127). The brand name Vargatef® is only associated with NSCLC. I have provided some suggested wording amendments to the entry for nintedanib to make this important distinction clear to readers. As noted, the recent FDA and EC approvals of nintedanib (Ofev®) for the treatment IPF would suggest the need for further details on the disease and relevant clinical trials. I have provided suggested wording to provide a brief overview of these points following a similar format to the existing content. I would be grateful for any further guidance you may be able to offer to bring the nintedanib entry up-to-date and to clarify any perceived inaccuracies.

Nintedanib From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nintedanib (trade name, Vargatef® in NSCLC, Ofev® in IPF) is a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) developed by Boehringer Ingelheim for the treatment of lung cancer patients with advanced adenocarcinoma and patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Nintedanib inhibits the receptors for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and platelet derived growth factor (PDGF) which are involved in the formation and maintenance of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) and signalling pathways of fibrotic processes.[18][19][20] Nintedanib is approved in the EU under the brand name Vargatef® for use in combination with docetaxel in adult patients with locally advanced, metastatic or locally recurrent NSCLC of adenocarcinoma tumour histology after first-line chemotherapy. It is also approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in the USA and in the EU under the trade name Ofev®.

Nintedanib is also under investigation in a number of other solid cancers including hepatic cell carcinoma, mesothelioma and colorectal cancer.

Contents 1.	Nintedanib in oncology 1.1 Mechanism of action 1.2 Clinical studies 1.3 Adverse events

2.	Nintedanib in IPF 2.1 Mechanism of action 2.2 Clinical studies 2.3 Adverse events

3. References

1.	Nintedanib in IPF 2.1 Mechanism of action

Nintedanib targets growth factor receptors, which have been shown to be involved in the mechanisms by which pulmonary fibrosis occurs. Most importantly, nintedanib inhibits receptors for platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).[18] [19] [20] By blocking these signaling pathways involved in fibrotic processes, it is believed that nintedanib reduces disease progression in IPF by slowing the decline of lung function. [18] [19] [20]

1.3 Clinical studies The clinical efficacy and safety of nintedanib in IPF has been established in 1,231 patients with IPF in one Phase II clinical trial (TOMORROW) and two replicate Phase III clinical trials, INPULSIS®-1 and -2.[18][21] These were double blind, randomised and placebo-controlled trialscomparing treatment with nintedanib 150 mg twice daily to placebo for 52 weeks. The INPULSIS® trials were identical in design and patients were randomised with a 3:2 ratio to nintedanib and placebo, the TOMORROW trial was similar in design but also included other treatment arms (dose finding study) in addition to treatment with 150 mg twice daily.[18][21][22] Results from INPULSIS®-1 –and -2 show nintedanib slows disease progression by reducing the annual rate of decline in lung function by approximately 50%. The treatment effect on FVC was consistent across all 3 studies.[23] The TOMORROW and INPULSIS®-2 trials also met both secondary endpoints – results demonstrate there was significantly less deterioration in quality of life (measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire - SGRQ), and a reduced risk of a first acute exacerbation in patients taking nintedanib versus placebo. In the INPULSIS®-1 trial there was no difference between the treatment groups for these key secondary endpoints. [18][22]. 2.2 Adverse events In INPULSIS®, the most common adverse events with nintedanib* were gastrointestinal, generally manageable and of mild to moderate intensity, rarely leading to treatment discontinuation.[22] •	Diarrhoea was the most common adverse event experienced in 62% of patients treated with nintedanib versus 18% in patients in the placebo groups[22] •	Less than 5% of patients discontinued treatment due to diarrhoea events[22] •	In those patients who experienced diarrhoea, 95% of events were mild to moderate in intensity[22] The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was similar in both treatment groups. [22] More than 90% of eligible patients who participated in the INPULSIS® trials opted to continue with nintedanib treatment as part of an open-label extension trial.[24]

3. References

11.^ "Boehringer Ingelheim - AGO-OVAR 12 / LUME-Ovar 1 Trial Information". 2011. 12.^ "Boehringer Ingelheim - LUME-Lung 2 Trial Information". 2011. 13.^ "Boehringer Ingelheim - LUME-Lung 1 Trial Information". 2011. 14.^ http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=++%09+BIBF+1120&phase=1 18. L. Richeldi, U. Costabel, M. Selman, D.S. Kim, D.M. Hansell, A.G. Nicholson, K.K. Brown, K.R. Flaherty, P.W. Noble, G. Raghu, M. Brun, A. Gupta, N. Juhel, M. Klüglich, R.M. du Bois (2011). “Efficacy of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis”. N Engl J Med. 365:1079-1087; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103690 19. M. Selman, T.E. King, A. Pardo (2001) “Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: prevailing and evolving hypotheses about its pathogenesis and implications for therapy”. Ann Intern Med 134(2):136-51; doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-2-200101160-00015 20. L. Wollin, I. Maillet, V. Quesniaux, A. Holweg, B. Ryffel (2014) “Antifibrotic and Anti-inflammatory Activity of the Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Nintedanib in Experimental Models of Lung Fibrosis”. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 349(2):209–220; doi: 10.1124/jpet.113.208223 21. L. Richeldi, V. Cottin, K.R. Flaherty, M. Kolb, Y. Inoue, G. Raghu, H. Taniguchi, D.M. Hansell, A.G. Nicholson, F. Le Maulf, S. Stowasser, H.R. Collard (2014). “Design of the INPULSIS trials: Two phase 3 trials of nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis”. Respir Med 108(7); 1023-1030; doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2014.04.011. Epub 2014 Apr 29 22. L. Richeldi, R.M. du Bois, G. Raghu, A. Azuma, K.K. Brown, U. Costabel, V. Cottin, K.R. Flaherty, D.M. Hansell, Y. Inoue, D.S. Kim, M. Kolb, A.G. Nicholson, P.W. Noble, M. Selman, H. Taniguchi, H. Brun, F. Le Maulf, M. Girard, S. Stowasser, R. Schlenker-Herceg, B. Disse, H.R. Collard (2014). “Efficacy and Safety of Nintedanib in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis”. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2071-2082;doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1402584. 23. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/205832s000lbl.pdf Ovef® highlights of prescribing information. Boehringer Ingelheim. Revised 2014. 24. Boehringer Ingelheim. Data on file.

Lismmq (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes looks like a pharma rep. Loves to emphase brand names and little registration trade mark signs. Have made a few updates to the article in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Wikipedia Pharmacology Community,
 * As the two brand names and indications for nintedanib are now included in the entry; I wonder if some further clarification is needed so the difference is clear to the broader readership. Vargatef® is the approved brand name for non-small cell lung cancer while Ofev® is the approved brand name for IPF. The dosage regimen and the way Vargatef® and Ofev® are prescribed differ, particularly with regard to use alongside other active treatments. To ensure there is no confusion in the way nintedanib is prescribed for NSCLC compared to IPF, I suggest the entry be split by indication as is already the case in the Medical uses section. In addition, it may be of interest to add that Vargatef® received marketing authorisation from the European Commission in November 2014 and Ofev® in January 2015. Thank you for your help. Lismmq (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Wikipedia Pharmacology Community, just a quick reminder to the post/comment above. Please let me know if any additional material is needed. Thank you for your attention. Lismmq (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a reasonable distinction to make and the clarification on the brand names has been added to the article in the medical uses section, so that readers don't have to read to the end to discover this distinction. Thanks. Looks like the mechanism of action section needs an update. For future reference, we don't use the trademark symbols in articles and try to avoid over-emphasis on brand names. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Rx-only" worldwide
Drugbox has the option to enter Rx only. Then the infobox drug says:
 * "Legal status: ℞ (Prescription only)".

(See full documentation and 500 articles doing so). There are also country specific options like Rx only. These are OK.

But. I think the there can not be a worldwide regulation "Rx only". So I propose to declare this input invalid, do not show in article, and make the maintenance task to edit the article into being more specific or sourced. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the legal status are very English-speaking country specific.
 * Some drugs are regulated by UN (worldwide)
 * Christian75 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. For this question, I do not mind these "legal UK" data (it's not wrong). And UN, EU are there too, OK. But an infobox simply saying "℞ only" worldwide to me seems wrong and can not be sourced. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with DePiep worldwide cant be sourced for this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It has a parameter for UN - good. But it skips a lot of countrys with hugh population like China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Germany, France (just to name a few which have a population greater than UK). It also have legal parameters for (other) small countrys (compared to e.g. Germany) alike New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Christian75 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Christian, country-specific input is not the issue here. -07:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a comment to "here are also country specific options like |legal_CA=Rx only. These are OK." Christian75 (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My first thought on this is, who wants to make sure that this info is up to date for 206 countries and 500 articles? That's 103k news searches and a Herculian task. Samsara 10:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * yep, it is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... I've got some sympathy for this. On the other hand, can anyone name any country in which, say, oxycodone or vancomycin or thalidomide is legally available over the counter to anyone who wants it?  If—using our best judgment and all available sources—the statement is accurate, then it's not WP:LIKELY to be challenged and therefore requires no citation.  I'd be sad to see drugbox crammed full of lists of individual countries when the actual answer is "prescription-only everywhere with no (known) exceptions".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, just enter that text and it'll be fine (the parameter accepts any text). Your "everywhere" is a good specifier. My problem is that the boilerplate text, as shown in my opening post, is not that clear. -DePiep (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could show for this input only (and categorize for maintenance):
 * "Legal status: ℞ (Prescription only)"
 * -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the past a drug company came to WikiProject Medicine and the Wikimedia Foundation asking about investing in importing a database about unwarranted variation in standards of care. Among the data which they wished to import was information about the availability of different drugs in different places. Ultimately, their investment was not negotiated to any end because Wikipedia has trouble with commercial partnerships, but I think that health care organizations still would like to support the integration of this information into Wikipedia., you say it is a massive task, plus multiply it for 200 languages, but if we had this information in Wikidata databases then it could be propagated out.
 * I would favor keeping some form of this entry in, even if only as a placeholder indicating that information is incomplete and that in some cases, it mattered enough that someone wished to include the information.
 * I have the idea that if Wikidata were a viable way to propagate database entries into Wikipedias, this is an area where discussion with health information organizations would get support in return.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind someone or wikidata adding the legal status for 200 countries, provided that the country name is specified. That text (any text of any length) can be added through legal_status and will show unedited. My beef is: as quoted, the default option has no such country specification. That is unacceptable. -DePiep (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (Keep from archiving edit). -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that it will be very, very difficult to make and keep this accurate. In which case my proclivity would be to leave it out. The average person in Zambia, Ukraine, or Vietnam is going to have a much better idea where to get good information on the local regulations for drugs than the average English Wikipedia editor. Why claim to know more than we do? Formerly 98 talk 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding PLLR (US, pregnancy) to Drugbox
I am proposing to add PLLR to. PLLR is the new US FDA drug labeling rule regarding pregnancy and more. Discussed at Infobox drug talk. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

New preg and lactation risks coming soon
It appears the FDA are getting rid of ABCDX and instead using prose. This might be good content to copy and paste into all our articles. I guess we will see. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is "replace 'X' with fixed prose 'Abcde'" it can be automated in the drugbox (no article edits needed). -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good change. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Or we can write like "Abcde (formerly X)" for a period of time. You can ping me if things are decided. -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. I already write "Abcde" which means X. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a formal table of changes available? Informal? -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , I've clicked some links but I still don't get the setup (except that there are a few description classes, and mostly prose or desriptive text (ie no classes). Are there any examples? As it is now, I think we better add PLLR free text parameter to next to old ABC classes, not interacting. -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See proposal Template_talk:Infobox_drug. -DePiep (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Cafinitrina
Probably needs to be deleted since it has no sources, but would otherwise need to be renamed Nitroglycerin/caffeine or vice versa. Anyone think this kind of niche combination drug article is worth keeping?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 05:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have redirected to Medical use of nitroglycerin Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Route of administration articles + template
See WT:MED.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

generic drug names
A discussion of interest to this project is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine - please do weigh in there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Steroidergic AfD
The above article has been nominated for deletion. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

List of benzodiazepines
Could use some eyes. It seems to have taken on an unusual character, comparing dosages between individual entries, etc. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 02:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Broadening scope of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants
I have proposed generalizing WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants to cover all recreational and entheogenic drugs at WT:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants. Please offer your input. Sizeofint (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Brand names in the infobox
Wondering what people think of putting lots of brand names in the infobox such as here ? IMO we should limit to 3 to 5. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. For some generic medicines, the list is potentially endless. JFW &#124; T@lk  13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. I think it is appropriate to only list major brand names that are most common in English speaking markets and/or brands names that are closely associated with the drug (Lipitor, Viagra, etc).  I doubt there are situations where a max of 3-5 wouldn't work.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Crosscheck
So what is the list of articles having a disjoint re and ? -DePiep (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Added the lists: -DePiep (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Drugbox and WP:PHARM crosscheck.
 * Having Drugbox, but not in WP:PHARM: 406 P (out of ~5800 Drugbox articles)
 * In WP:PHARM but no Drugbox: 3861 P (out of ~9200 WP:PHARM articles).
 * I have no cleanup plan for these. Interested editors can make checks. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a problem. There are many experimental drugs where a chembox might be more appropiate than drugbox. Boghog (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not a "problem list" at all. More like a let me take a look for my favorite articles. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Improving infobox drug
I have made two proposals to improve infobox drug here. One is to move the identifying info lower in the article. The other is to add pricing info. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Modify identifiers section of drugbox
A proposal to move the identifiers section of infobox drug (that contains CAS numbers and links to chemical/drug databases, etc.) from the infobox to the bottom of the article has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. (Restatement of section above, but neutrally worded and more descriptive). Boghog (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Images
Not sure if anyone has comments on these image changes Special:Contributions/Gotgot44 by User:Gotgot44 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Essential medicines
A discussion on the organization of a med article Talk:Dioctyl_sodium_sulfosuccinate Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Trademarks?
Please see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Do we need an article for CBD oil?

 * crossposting at WP:Cannabis

I'm not an Medical Marijuana expert, but it seems weird that we don't have an article on it since it's the only form legal in an increasing number of the more conservative U.S. states. We have Cannabidiol about the base chemical compound, but not about the common medication that's increasing in use. Any medical folks want to help get this one rolling? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Naming article Norplant versus Levonorgestrel implant
Discussion here Best  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion regarding data pages
Available at Articles for deletion/Water (data page). This is applicable to drugs in the scope of this project that have data pages. Sizeofint (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Vosoritide nominated for DYK
See Template:Did you know nominations/Vosoritide. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Tetrachlorodecaoxide
Could somebody please have a look at tetrachlorodecaoxide? There are enough papers on it for me to believe that it exists but the structure shown must be wrong. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - from the description in the article the structure looks fine - its not one chemical compounds, but a mixture of O2, chlorite (ClO2-) and water - and some postive ions which are not described in the articles. Christian75 (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a peak. Ideally we should say what those counter ions are, but my real concern was the presence of O2 in the mix. It's listed for either topical or intravenous use but I'm pretty sure you'd never inject O2 into someone. This lead me to wonder if it were a more complicated chlorine-oxygen cluster but that maybe the structure shown was derived from someone trying a 'get structure from SMILES' command through a chemical editing program. SMILES was never designed for inorganic compounds and it really struggles; you often see things depicted as fragments. Things is, I can't find the structure for Tetrachlorodecaoxide anywhere. Scifinder says it cannot be resolved (not promising) and my access to pharmacology is limited. It would be nice if somebody could check. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to track this down without much luck; I think that you're right that there must be some complex being formed, although you'd think that there would have to be cation(s) involved in it. Several articles refer to Fe2+/Fe3+ binding of the complex (presumably replacing whatever cation was in the solution injected). On the point about O2, there is always dissolved O2 in the blood plasma, and haemoglobin binds to O2 and carries it around the body. So, injecting dissolved O2 isn't a problem.Klbrain (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Codeine – opiate or opioid?
Some confusion here, editors changing things back and forth: -- -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hydrocodone/paracetamol
 * Codeine
 * Ref says opiate  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An opiate is a compound found in opium; as codeine is found opium (see Codeine), it can be called an opiate.Klbrain (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Opioid is fine; look here..
 * The real issue is whether opiates are opioids. Today, opioid refers to the entire class. The same site Doc cites also says codeine is an opioid. Inconsistent definitions of opioid/opiate exist on Wikipedia, even within the opioid article itself! It would be safe but antiquated to call it an opiate while calling it an opioid would be correct and current. Besides, think about it: If we speak of narcotic abuse, would we say "opioid and opiate abuse" or simply "opioid abuse". What does the exclusivity of the terms serve? — Box73 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The literature does not use the terms consistently. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

3-Indolepropionic acid structure drawing
Anyone here willing to draw/upload one?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 06:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ty!  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 14:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Alan Brash (pharmacologist)
Could someone please review this article. I fear it is being ignored because it covers a specialist subject.Gomach (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks very appropriate to me. I've patrolled it and do a little editing.Klbrain (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to change, develop, or complement Template:Infobox drug
Please see Template_talk:Infobox_drug.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Designer drugs policy?
This has grown out of a page deletion request I started... Do we need, or want, some sort of policy for pages about designer drugs? We currently list over 400 of them, which is about the size of the Antibiotics, Antidepressants and NSAIDs categories combined. So, like it or not, we appear to be becoming the de facto public source of information on these things. The most obvious problem is that these compounds are intended for human consumption but almost all the pages fail WP:MEDRS. Thing is, I'm not sure if MEDRS is suitable in this instance; I don't think it was written with these sorts of compounds in mind as it assumes that high-level tertiary sources will always be available. I don't want to see huge numbers of pages deleted but at the same time we need to maintain some standards.

So I suppose what I'm hoping to finds out here is
 * What are our agreed minimum standards?
 * Do we want a wiki-policy document for this - or would editors prefer the freedom to interpret this complicated area on an individual basis?

Cheers. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Example 2-A1MP has five sources. No RS in there? -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How does WikiProject Chemicals approach novel/lesser known chemicals? Sizeofint (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This has been an issue for a long time. It is not uncommon these days for a compound to be used by hundreds of people in a dozen different countries before there are any acceptable RS at all, and often the first RS that appears is when the compound is banned by a particular jurisdiction, or someone dies from it and this gets reported in the medical literature. Even so, these sources are still not MEDRS compliant, and suitable MEDRS compliant reviews mentioning such compounds are often not published for many years after they first appear. I do not think that MEDRS is the appropriate guideline to use for these compounds. They are not intended for medical treatment, or to treat or alleviate the symptoms of any medical condition, and the unanimous opinion of all reputable medical sources is that no one should ever take them. Nevertheless, thousands of people around the world do take these drugs, and as stated above, Wikipedia is often the de facto source of information on them, as it is the only information source subject to at least some degree of critical evaluation and review. I think we would be doing our readers a great disservice by saying such pages should be deleted due to lack of MEDRS compatible sources. On the other hand however, Wikipedia should certainly not be repeating unverifiable rumour and speculation and presenting it as fact. I think that where the structure of a compound is definitively established, and the fact that it is being sold as a designer drug is reported by at least some RS, then this is sufficient for a stub article, and I think that such stubs are certainly useful and encyclopedic. Any further information beyond the basic details of what the compound is and what better known compounds it is related to, should be careful to avoid speculation and stick to the facts that are known from RS. Meodipt (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. The existence of the article should require only RS about the subject. Medical claims within the article should require MEDRS. Sizeofint (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate
I have started a discussion about this new article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. Since it is relevant to WikiProject Pharmacology as well, members of this project may wish to have a look. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Should articles be about salts or acids?
I was confused by the naproxen article. It describes only the acid, but says "Naproxen _and_ naproxen sodium are marketed under various brand names,...". The are two different pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/... pages, for the acid and the sodium salt. PDR seems to confuse them, implying that enteric-coated tablets are not the sodium salt, but then describing them elsewhere as the sodium salt. The suspension form seems to be clearly be the acid, so both are used.

What is the Project's position on such compounds? Can an article have two Chemboxes? Should the article be about the common drug, with a stub article for the acid?73.81.150.65 (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that salt and its conjugate acid can be discussed on the same page, particularly given that when in solution in the body there will be an equilibrium between the two depending on the pH. If there are significant differences in the absorption of the two forms then this can be identified and discussed in a section. Klbrain (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, we use the active moiety (in this case, the acid) as the page title and discuss salts, if applicable, in the same article. For example, diclofenac potassium, diclofenac sodium and diclofenac diethylamine all redirect to diclofenac. (See MOS:PHARM) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree good to discuss them together. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Both PubChem and Wikidata define them as two different chemicals . That's good: logically correct, and easier to merge that to split in an article. If these two are comparable or highly related for pharmacological reasons, as seems to be the case, they rightly be described in the same drug article. Today, en:naproxen sodium is just a Redirect.
 * allows for two identifiers to be listed (e.g., use PubChem2, see /doc; this option will be enhanced this week). If this is not complete enough, it is perfectly OK to add a second . There also could be created content article like naproxen sodium (chemical), when the chemical aspects are worth it. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

FDA license link changed/broken
links to the FDA site for 'licence data', eg warfarin. Recently, the link was changed at their site just leading into the general search page. Can we cure this? Discussion is at Talk:Infobox drug. -DePiep (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about safety warning boxes in drug articles
Input at Talk:Triptan would be welcome. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)