Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Pharmacology and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:PHARM

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17: 90 days

WikiProject Pharmacology was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 January 2009.

WikiProject
Pharmacology

General information

Departments
→ Assessment (Log)	talk
→ Research	talk
→ Editor outreach	talk

How to help

Requested articles (1) / (2)

Cleanup list

Hello

Howdy folks, I’ve been invited by

WhatamIdoing to contribute here and at the Medicine project. I’m a subject matter expert in these fields with >15 yrs experience across various fields of medicine, including product development, patient care, and basic science. I welcome you to reach out for support with existing articles or to contribute to new topics. See you around! Gobucks821 (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobucks821: A (rather belated!) welcome over here. There don't seem to be many of us watching WikiProject Pharmacology! Regardless, let's push on. It will be great to have you working on this project too! Klbrain (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx much! Here if needed. I realized just today that I never joined the Medicine project, so I just did that today. Cheers! Gobucks821 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Integrate definitive new findings

Much of the staggering mortality rates and health care costs associated with drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is clearly linked to 11 drugs not well-known for their hepatotoxic risk, per the editorial accompanying https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2820267, which just came out.^[1] Lets get this added to the 11 to 17 relevant articles, liver failure, etc.RememberOrwell (talk)

References

^ Torgersen, Jessie; Mezochow, Alyssa K.; Newcomb, Craig W.; Carbonari, Dena M.; Hennessy, Sean; Rentsch, Christopher T.; Park, Lesley S.; Tate, Janet P.; Bräu, Norbert; Bhattacharya, Debika; Lim, Joseph K.; Mezzacappa, Catherine; Njei, Basile; Roy, Jason A.; Taddei, Tamar H.; Justice, Amy C.; Lo Re, Vincent (24 June 2024). "Severe Acute Liver Injury After Hepatotoxic Medication Initiation in Real-World Data". JAMA Internal Medicine. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.1836. ISSN 2168-6106.

This is a cohort study, which is classified as primary. Per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (review articles) are needed to support medical claims. Furthermore the accompanying editorial describes this cohort study as an "innovative methodologic approach". We need to wait for this study to be evaluated in reliable secondary sources before citing those secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and help. I see that per the verifiability policy, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science." Given the size of the study, risk of bias, and the source (JAMA), it seems solid enough, but if reliable sources differ, that matters. I don't want to jump the gun, but I'm not convinced we need to wait. Also, the editorial IS a secondary source. LOL, you've made ~leetk (1337k) edits, Boghog. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seven (stavudine (86.4 eptkpy), erlotinib, lenalidomide ?"or"? thalidomide, chlorpromazine, metronidazole, prochlorperazine, isoniazid) had 10+ events per 10 000 person-years (eptkpy), while ten (moxifloxacin, azathioprine, levofloxacin, clarithromycin, ketoconazole, fluconazole, captopril, amoxicillin-clavulanate, sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim, ciprofloxacin) had 5-10 eptkpy. Eleven of these (64%) were not included in the highest hepatotoxicity category of LiverTox. RememberOrwell (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy#Requested move 15 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy#Requested move 15 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for excerpt of text, from Archiv der Pharmazie (1987)

In furtherance of editing an article, we would ask that any individual having access to a chemistry, pharmacology, or medical library that could give access to the following article,

Rücker G, Neugebauer M, Neugebauer M, Heiden PG (December 1987). "Zur chemischen Stabilität des Fenetyllins" [The chemical stability of fenethylline]. Archiv der Pharmazie (in German). 320 (12): 1272–1275. doi:10.1002/ardp.198700045. PMID 3439867. S2CID 84235752.

that they copy and paste the relevant synthetic text into a Talk entry at the Fenethylline article. That article presents a scheme in the Synthesis section, and the aim of consulting this source is to verify that the Scheme reflects the content of this source (per WP:VERIFY). Specifically, the scheme shows conversion of theophylline into a 7-(β-chloroethyl)-analog by treatment of the parent compound with a 1,2-dihaloethane, and then conversion of that analog, by treatment with the free base of amphetamine, to the fenethylline product (a codrug composed of theophylline and amphetamine linked by a two carbon bridge).

Our presumption is that in performing the chemical stability studies reported in the Archiv der Pharmazie abstract, Rücker et al first had to prepare the chemical sample they studied, hence this paper might contain a proscribed, quotable (copyable) synthetic method, and perhaps a scheme corresponding to the one at the Fenethylline article. Any of the relevant quoted German text, pasted at Talk for that article, and any further comment you would wish to make, would be greatly appreciated, and would likely allow us to verify the information attributed to this source. Thank you. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aclarubicin

See my comment at Talk:Aclarubicin. Opinions welcome. Thanks, MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actioned. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picropodophyllin

There is a promising draft Draft:Picropodophyllin that I do not have the expertise to approve or decline right now. As it is within the scope of this project - is the language used appropriate for a substance that is currently used only in clinical trials? Recon rabbit 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the draft page. It's well-written, and reliably sourced, with the caveat that the sources are mostly minor scientific journals (but WP:MEDRS-compliant). Personally, I'd delete the bibliography section, which includes some not-yet-peer-reviewed preprints. I think the question for notability is what you noted: that the molecule is only in trials, not in actual use. Given that we have the heavily populated Category:Experimental cancer drugs, I think there is consensus that the topic can be accepted into mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted it through AfC after commenting out the bibliography and altering some wording here and there. One possible concern is the use of Oncotarget in places. Recon rabbit 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finding "undocumented" compounds

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this.

I've seen a lot of pharmacology navboxes (such as muscarinic receptor modulators, for an example), lots of them contain a lot of drugs that are not really known (a lot of them are redlinks), which is what I mean by "undocumented compounds"

I was just curious if anyone knew how to find names of these compounds (like specific keywords in a search engine)

Because so far I've been creating a lot of articles that were redlinks on the navboxes, but I'd love to add new compounds to said templates.

So if anyone knew how to find lists (or something similar) with names of investigational drugs (names like "ADX-71441") that would be really great Themonkey942 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Importance ratings need review

An editor first labeled Legality of cannabis as top-importance for this group, and after I removed the rating, has changed it to high-importance. Please decide for yourselves how you'd like to have it assessed.

I've seen a couple of editors "upgrade" their favorite subjects, perhaps in the mistaken belief that this will result in more editors working on the articles. I specifically suggest taking a look at what's in Category:Top-importance pharmacology articles and Category:High-importance pharmacology articles in particular, to see whether any spammers have been at work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dose and dosage

Is there a good, well-sourced page that describes the technical difference between dose and dosage? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we did not have such an article, but I created dosage (pharmacology) which hopefully is a start. Boghog (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps dosage (pharmacology) should be merged into Medical prescription. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined not to make a hasty decision (either way). Part of this is because I generally prefer merging, but other people tell me that a short, focused article is better for mobile users (which is most of our page views).

I did some copyediting on Dose (biochemistry). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a dosage and a prescription are two different (albeit related, of course) things. I'd be inclined not to merge, for that reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that they are synonyms, and, with respect ot Boghog for work done, I don't think that we need that new page. Indeed, my reading of the key source in that new article is not consistent with the definition in the lede. Rowbotham et al (2019) actually say we found dose and dosage to be used interchangeably. We recommend a distinction between these terms, with ‘dosage’ having the advantage of capturing change to amount ‘dispensed’ over time (in response to effects achieved). Dosage therefore acknowledges the inevitable dynamic and complexity of implementation. So, the current state is that they are synonyms; their recommended use is a very subtle one that doesn't reflect the lede of the current article. My own UK-centric view is that dosage is an abomination that should be eliminated wherever it rears its ugly head, and that the term dose suffices for all civilized discussion. Given that bias, I suggest merging Dosage (pharmacology) to Dose (biochemistry), describing any differences in use on that page. Klbrain (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dorland's (2007) gives these definitions:

dosage: the determination and regulation of the size, frequency, and number of doses.
dose: quantity to be administered at one time, such as a specified amount of medication.

The latter continues for three-quarters of a page to cover all the sub-definitions (e.g., total dose, daily dose, median effective dose...), but they don't use them as synonyms. That said, even though there is a verifiable technical distinction between the two, I think we could still merge the articles. It is not unusual for an article to have a note about the technical distinction between two words, especially when that distinction is more often ignored outside of technical documents. And to go even further than Klbrain, we might want to consider using the plain old English word amount when appropriate, for even greater clarity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Collins: dosage and Collins: dose. My understanding of the two terms matches what has been written in the Wikipedia articles. I suggest changing "given at one time" to "given at any one time" in case anyone thinks dose only refers to a one-off consumption. And that definition seems to match what Collins says is the British English use, as far as medicine is concerned. However, the US English use (citing Websters and their own definition in two sections) suggests some ambiguity with "the amount used in a dose" and "the amount of medicine to be given". At first this seems to indicate Americans are sometimes using "dosage" where they should say "dose" but then I considered what "amount" means, and it is cumulative.

WAID mentions both "total dose" and "daily dose" which are different from an individual dose. A medicine of 100mg taken three times a day for two days has an individual dose of 100mg, daily dose of 300mg and total dose of 600mg. In each case the word dose is used, not dosage, though we might qualify use of the word that isn't referring to the individual dose if that isn't clear. Sometimes the word on its own can refer to the quantity consumed daily or in total. For example, if someone suffered ill effects from being on "too high a dose" of a medicine, this could be because they are taking it four times a day rather than two. If someone died from being given a "huge dose" of a medicine, this could be because the dose consumed over three days was ultimately fatal, whereas one individual dose might not. This all says to me that dose can be used to refer to an accumulation. The worse "dosage" couldn't be used for that at all.

So perhaps in addition to "at any one time" (the individual dose) we could say "or in total over a period" (the daily dose or total dose). The American English usages in Collins would permit that definition. Have we got a source that say so more explicitly? -- Colin°^Talk 08:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in Dose (biochemistry)#Vaccines it says "Vaccinations are typically administered as liquids and dosed in milliliters" Clearly this isn't millilitres of vaccine. For example this Covid vaccine is a 0.3ml dose containing 30 micrograms of the vaccine. A liquid medicine such as Epilim liquid is 200mg/5ml. The dose in that case might refer to 400mg twice a day or 10ml twice a day or most precisely as 400mg as 10ml twice a day. One doesn't care about the size of a pill, though one might need to take two pills if the dose requires it.

As the lead of of Dose (biochemistry) says, it can refer to the taking of some unit of medicine without anyone giving a size in mg or ml. For example this government report says "Up to 23 August 2022, 53 million people received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine, 50 million received a second dose and 40 million received a third or booster dose."

I wonder if the dose article could say more about how sometimes dose references the quantity of the containing liquid or pills rather than the amount of medicinal compound. "Take two paracetamol". "Draw up 0.3ml of covid vaccine from the vial". "Take 30ml of cough medicine". -- Colin°^Talk 08:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Dose (biochemistry), though not even close to our worst articles, is sufficiently weak that any editor who's looked in a dictionary/has a basic grasp of the concept could improve it through a quick copyedit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Mephedrone

Mephedrone has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Torgersen, Jessie; Mezochow, Alyssa K.; Newcomb, Craig W.; Carbonari, Dena M.; Hennessy, Sean; Rentsch, Christopher T.; Park, Lesley S.; Tate, Janet P.; Bräu, Norbert; Bhattacharya, Debika; Lim, Joseph K.; Mezzacappa, Catherine; Njei, Basile; Roy, Jason A.; Taddei, Tamar H.; Justice, Amy C.; Lo Re, Vincent (24 June 2024). "Severe Acute Liver Injury After Hepatotoxic Medication Initiation in Real-World Data". JAMA Internal Medicine. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.1836. ISSN 2168-6106.

[1]