Pharmacology
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology

Archives
WP:DRUGS Archive 1: 2004 – 7/2006 WP:DRUGS Archive 2: 8/2006 - 2/2007 WP:PHARM Archive 2007 2008 2009

Can you review this page I recently created? Jatlas (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kilbad (talk) asked on my talk page whether ATC code categories (like Category:D01AA) could be created via the drugbox. Here are my thoughts:

• I think we'd need a bot for the creation of the categories, but I don't know anything about bot programming.
• Categorising could be a problem since {{drugbox}} splits ATC codes only in two parts (ATC_prefix for levels 1 and 2, ATC_suffix for levels 3, 4, 5), and, as far as I know, Wikipedia's implementation of the Wikimedia software has no proper string handling functions. We'd need to rewrite {{drugbox}} to accept separate parameters for all five levels and then set a bot to change, say,

ATC_prefix = C03
ATC_suffix = CA01

to

ATC_1 = C
ATC_2 = 03
ATC_3 = C
ATC_4 = A
ATC_5 = 01

Then automatic categorising would be easy. I'm still unsure, though, whether this is worth the effort since we already have the ATC lists in ATC code A01 etc. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a number of category names at WP:PHARM:CATTABLE#Dermatologic drugs and added some questions and thoughts to WT:PHARM:CAT#Further experiments on table formatting. Any comments at WT:PHARM:CAT, as well as any further additions and modifications to the tables, would be appreciated. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page there seems like a dead page, so I think your project is the closest thing I can find to someone with a relevant opinion. I'd like to rename that page to either Cream (cosmetic and pharmaceutical) or just Cream (cosmetic). Use as a drug delivery system is a very recent use of creams. Something like cold cream on the other hand has been around for more than 2000 years. (Pharmaceuticals used to be happy with ointments and potions in the interim) Although the title is justified in the article, I find it defeats the purpose of a page title in wikipedia. It should make it easy for users to find information. While pharmacist and pharmacy students would probably be happy with the current heading, I sincerely doubt that many "ordinary" users would find it very useful. Several links that would be logical with a cosmetics page as jump off point make little or no sense from a pharmaceutical page. The cosmetics industry keeps being told they should be careful not labeling their products as pharmaceuticals, I feel this is the reverse effect. The only possible benefit of the current page title is that cosmetics seem to be dealt with under portal fashion, which almost guarantees a lack of expert editors. That is an internal matter, though. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let the community know that there is a move to reorganize pharm article stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2009/June. ---kilbad (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has probably been discussed so I apologize if wasting anyone’s time but is the WHO rINN meant to be used as the title of drug articles? I just noticed that Methamphetamine is not titled Metamfetamine nor Amphetamine/Amfetamine, etc. I believe the official INN is metamfetamine, i.e. when searching the WHO database it brings it back as metamfetamine [1]. Is this because of the overwhelming use of the common names Methamphetamine/Amphetamine? Cheers Mr Bungle | talk 06:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed creation of a WikiProject on tobacco, which would relate to a degree to this project. Anyone interested please feel free to so indicate on the proposal page. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007. The article Psychoactive drug has been re-reviewed and needs improvement. The article will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are SIR-Spheres and TheraSphere the same thing? Should they be merged to a generically named article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know much about this therapy, but this book ought to help clear things up :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are vaccines (e.g., the flu jab) "drugs" for the purpose of this project? Are such articles within the scope of this project? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though arguably they are not "drugs" per se, I'd recommend keeping them in the scope of this project. The WHO classifies them in ATC code J under ATC code J07, giving us a precedent for how to treat them. Of course, they could also be under Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, but that project appears to be less active. --Arcadian (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And arguably are "drugs" per se :-) Drug gives "A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function" and vaccines are inserted into bodies resulting in an alteration, for else the patient is a non-responder. Vaccines are prepared by pharmaceutical companies, needing licensing, sterility & quality control, prescribing & dispensing per other drugs. Doses are set for various (childrens) age groups, and a set number of doses given. Vaccines appear in my book (i.e. British National Formulary). Clearly articles on vaccines will overlap a lot with fields of Medicine (meaning here illnesses and work of physicians vs pharmaceuticals) and possibly public health. David Ruben ^Talk 02:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most vaccines are not drugs by any definition that doesn't also include refined sugar. Properly speaking, they're biologics (and thus in the US, are regulated by CBER instead of CDER). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refined sugar as a glucose injection for a hypoglycaemic comatosed diabetic would be presumed to be a drug by any doctor I know, and taken from our 'drug cabinet' or 'drug bag' and written up in our 'drug administering book', but not so considered when used in their mid-morning cup of coffee (when taken from our kitchen)- it depends on how one is using it, likewise Glyceryl trinitrate is used for angina but as Nitroglycerin clearly the explosive is not a drug/medicine ! Never in my professional experience encountered term "biologics", but perhaps that's my failing and I'm too used to assuming Drug = Medicine :-) David Ruben ^Talk 13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick rule of thumb is that biologics are alive (whole blood, for example) or were recently alive (antivenin, for example). The concept is, however, fairly mushy, and of no particular importance outside of the affected regulatory agencies and their clients. (And now it is time for some health food.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I was looking for an editor who actually knew something about vaccines (rather than just sources read up for WP), this project (and WP:MED) would seem an obvious place to come searching. For that reason, I think it would be helpful for other areas of the encyclopedia if you could take them under your wing (so to speak!). Physchim62 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't knock the utility of "sources read up for WP"! Fortunately or unfortunately, the very nature of Wikipedia's verifiability policies and house style ensure that a good, in-depth review of recent literature by someone with decent reading comprehension skills and no trouble with scientific jargon will often trump decades of personal experience in the field. Just sayin'; not meant as a "defense" of lay contributors (that would be far too self-serving on my part) or sweeping generalization. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has been discussed several times, but I just can't help mentioning it again: Moxifloxacin#Regulatory history (and the following sections) seem to me to give undue weight to the adverse effects. Besides, this section is a mess. Other quinolone articles (ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin) are not quite as bad, but could do with some attention as well. I don't know enough about the FDA's warnings and Bayer's willingness or unwillingness to comply, but perhaps someone here does? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks like there is a WP:Undue issue there.

In response to the concerns raised above:

The wiki guidelines for drug articles requires sections dealing with the drugs history and legal status, which would include its regulatory history. To wit:

History

Indications (available forms, if notable)

Contraindications

Adverse effects (including withdrawal)

Overdose (including toxicity)

Physical and chemical properties

Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)

Pharmacodynamics (mechanism of action)

Interactions

Legal status (including illicit use, off-label usage or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)

Veterinary use

References

As such a timeline referencing the regulatory action would fall within that scope. As the regulatory history contains all significant changes to the package insert, including new indications, I fail to see how this would be considered undue weight as all significant changes are listed by date. Why would you consider it to be a "mess" when all it is is a date specific timeline? Each entry is referenced back to the FDA documents that support the time line.

There are a total of five headings within the guidelines that would make reference to adverse effects, that being:

Contraindications

Adverse Effects

Overdose (including toxicity)

Interactions

As well as legal status.

As such logic would dictate that there would be far more information concerning adverse effects within any drug article due to these five headings. Particularly if the drug is involved in defective product litigation. As such the issue of undue weight should not be an issue in this case. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. There are but four major subjects dealt with within any drug article. It's history, it's use, it's mechanisms of action, and its safety profile.

The two most important issues being risk/benefit, and as such these two sections would be afforded the most weight in the article. The benefits are clearly noted within the approved uses section as well as susceptible bacteria section. The risk factors are duly noted within the Contraindications, Adverse Effects, Overdose (including toxicity), and Interactions section. So both issues have been provided equal weight.

The same is true within the regulatory history section. The additional indications as well as additional warnings are both given equal weight as both are listed in the order that they took place. The reader should also be made aware of any failure of the manufacturer to obey the mandates of the controlling agency. This is not undue weight, but a factual summary of the regulatory history and the manufacturers responses to its legal obligations.

Unfortunately with this class of drugs the adverse rates approach 40%, more than half of these drugs have been removed from clinical use due to severe toxicity issues, a number of class action lawsuits have been filed, not to mention medical malpractice cases when the drugs were use inappropriately, and let us not overlook the current multidistrict litigation involving levaquin, numerous Dear Doctor Letters have been issued, as well as the addition of Black Boxed Warnings. Where as with other drugs you find an adverse rate of about 5% and none of the above.

As such there is a tremendous amount of information concerning these adverse events that you would not find in other drug articles. This is due to the shear number and severity of such reactions, lawsuits, regulatory action and the like, it is not an attempt to afford such reactions undue weight. The facts alone do this, not the person editing the article. It is not the editors fault that the risk far outweigh the percieved benefits in this case. And as such there would be far more text addressing the safety profile than the benefits by comparision. There is simply far more to be said.

Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. The adverse profile of this class is not in dispute. It has been throughly documented since 1982. There is no question or debate regarding whether this class is associated with the adverse effects listed within the article. As such this should not be considered a NPOV issue, as there are no conflicting views involved and there are no oppossing opinions to present. Nor should it be considered an undue weight issue for the reasons stated above. It should also be noted here that the articles in question have been reviewed, or are currently being reviewed, by senior editors and all wiki compliance issues are being addressed, discussed and corrected where needed thus far. The issues being raised here were not even mentioned by these other editors after they had completed their peer review, so this appears to be a minority opinion being expressed by one individual. No question that the articles will be improved over time and minor issues corrected and addressed as needed. But I do not see the concerns being raised here by this person as being valid.Davidtfull (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory history, adverse effects, contraindications, and "risk/benefit" (which I question how a encyclopedia could really address) make up 2/3 of the article; not to mention it is long as it is already. Is it meant to be an encyclopedia article or a crusade...?Fuzbaby (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is meant to be an encyclopedia article incorporating the twelve headings noted above, which includes the drug's history, adverse effects, contraindications, as well as interactions. (which as you note make up 2/3's of the article). Editors are not to be blamed for that. These are required sections within a drug article. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide as well as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)DRUGS

We are working on reducing the overall lenght of the article while trying to find a way to include all the relevant and required information, so please try to be a bit more understanding and patient here while we do this. As far as risk/benefit that is rather straight forward. All that is required is to provide information regarding the known pros and the cons. You state the known and proven benefits, then you state the known and proven risks. It is then up to the reader to decide which outweighs the other in any given situation, or to present this information to their treating physician for addtional guidance. Davidtfull (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Box warning subsection is fine, it is the long list above it which I think is the issue David. It is not uncommon that after clinical trials have been completed that adverse effects are found requests or even orders are made by regulatory bodies for drug companies to update their product information data sheets. Some of these adverse effects are already listed in the adverse effects section so it is not necessary to have them listed twice with the data that the FDA or whoever, asked them to add it. I think that the list at least needs shortening, or at the very least somehow reworded and merged into other parts of the article. I will make a stab at it later on tonight. If anyone is not happy, they can reveert and then we can discuss on the talk page. At present it would be off-putting to a general reader, reading through a long list of sentences like that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example sentences of which data the drug was approved for an indication, is that necessary, or if it is useful to the reader, it would be better moved to history section or else, indications section or something. List needs shortening.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about if we were to simply state that the regulatory history is available on the FDA site and provide a link reference? This would eliminate the list and still provide the regulatory history for those who care to review it. Something of this nature:

The various regulator changes and updates to the package insert for (insert drug name), which would include additional warnings and indications, have been made available by the FDA on their website.(insert reference here).

The only reason I included all the regulatory entries was to avoid some folks claiming I had eliminated certain ones in an effort to slant things. So I figured it would be in my best interest to include all and avoid such issues. Perhaps it is best not to even use that data and just delete it. That would reduce the size of the article and eliminate this as even being an issue. If another editor wishes to move some of the entries to a different location within the article and eliminate the rest that is fine as well. Either of these options works for me and I would have no objections to any of them.

The issue raised here was one of undue weight concerning adverse effects, not one of clutter or excessive length. Clutter or excessive length would indeed be a valid concern, (whereas the claims of undue weight I did not feel to be valid for the reasons I had stated) as such I have no argument against anyone making the changes that would correct excessive lenght or clutter, nor would I revert or object to any such changes. They would be valid edits for the appropriate reasons and they would improve the article. Win win as they say.Davidtfull (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some suggestions on my talk page on how to resolve undue weight. Let me know what you think. I have not had any time for several months to work on the quinolone articles but I am sure that we can get these issues resolved and form a consensus on the way forward.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a reasonable solution to the regulator time line issues on the levaquin talk page (taking note of all the suggestions made thus far) that I believe addresses all issues raised here. Those who have an interest should take a look and see what they think of what I have proposed.Davidtfull (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOV-205
Dear Tim Vickers, is there anyone you know that could test NOV-205 manufactured by Novelos Therapeutics and approved for use in Russia under the tradename Molixan off label for patients that are extremely ill with Swine Flu?
IMHO, NOV-205 might be able to save many lives of people with the Swine Flu Virus.
Study demonstrated Hep "Viral" Load = 0. After one or two months of NOV-205 treatment
AntiViral or AntiVirus medication NOV-205
There are few antiviral, antivirus medications available
please read this link:
http://www.glutoxim.ru/eng/index.php?id=9&issueId=6
Bixbyte (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Bixbyte June 20, 2009[reply]
Thank You, Alex

I am having major issues on the benzodiazepine article and other editors there seem to be wanting to "avoid the conflict". I really would appreciate some eyes on this. Everytime the article is ready to be promoted original research and systematic reviews are deleted and replaced with weak non-systematic reviews of uncontrolled clinical trials. The editor keeps either outright deleting NICE clinical guidelines or minimising them as well as other reviews. Please intervene, even if you agree with systematic review guidelines being deleted. I am at the point where if I lose my argument I don't care, just want the community to simply intervene.Talk:Benzodiazepine#RfC:_Is_is_right_to_keep_deleting_systematic_review_and_clinical_guidelines.3F Thank you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

It might actually be better if someone neutral with understanding of medical and pharmacology knowledge and wiki policies would act as a mediator.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Changed to Talk:Benzodiazepine#Mediation.2C_any_volunteers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is being looked into by admin over next few days.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medications are the primary focus of this project. Are the companies that make these medications also within the scope of this project? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I would certainly think so—seems only logical. I asked myself the following questions:

1. Would we remove drug discovery topics from the scope of this project?
2. Should we not include pharmacologists and medicinal chemists?
3. If we set academia aside, where is drug discovery conducted, and where do these people work?

To me, the answer came pretty quickly :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and certainly more so here than the scope of wikiproject med.Fuzbaby (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the role that medication may have played in Michael Jackson's death, there is apt to be significant interest in related pharmacology articles. I have noticed and reverted, for example, quite a bit of inappropriate (though perhaps good-faith) additions to propofol recently. If other editors could watchlist this article and others that may be the target of renewed interest, that would be helpful. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article, Michael Jackson's health and appearance, which covers a lot of these aspects. Not surprisingly, it has experienced a surge in edits in the past week. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd watch Propofol, Pethidine, and Lidocaine. If anyone cares to put Vicodin, Percocet, and Paracetamol on their watchlists, it's probably a good idea—a lot of publicity from the recent FDA panel meeting will invariably translate to plenty of edits. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is drug discrimination? I see it used in a lot of reports. It would be really nice to have a page on it defining what it is etc. Speedplane (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW... I think this is obvious, but I am not talking about racial discrimination or anything. Basically I would like to decipher a sentence like this: "Drug discrimination between atomoxetine and cocaine in monkeys trained to discriminated 0.4 mg/kg cocaine showed generalization to cocaine at the following atomoxetine doses..."Speedplane (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good description is in page 8 of this monograph. I'm sure we could whip up an article on this. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Pharmacology to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's an excellent tool! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I came across the page for superagonist, and was confused as it gave a completely different definition from what I understood a superagonist to be. So I redirected it to irreversible agonist and set out to write a new page on superagonist. However after reading a few articles I am now thoroughly confused and thought I better ask you guys for your opinion! My understanding was that a "superagonist" refers to a compound that is capable of producing a greater maximal response than the endogenous agonist for the target receptor, and thus has an efficacy of more than 100%. This is the definition used in papers such as PMID 12113824 and PMID 12205290 in which I had come across the term previously. But then when I looked on PubMed I find papers such as PMID 16239397 where the term is used to describe a quite different kind of compound, what I would call a functionally selective agonist - and neither of these definitions matches what it said on the original superagonist page. Neither of my pharmacology textbooks (Goodman & Gilman / Rang, Dale & Ritter) give a definition for superagonist, and given the three possible interpretations I've found I am not sure which one is preferred. What does everyone else think? Meodipt (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with the definition that it produces a greater maximal response than the endogenous agonist (i. e. that the superagonist-receptor-complex has a higher likelihood to be in the activated state than the agonist-receptor-complex), but my textbook does not have a definition either, so I cannot source this. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding has always been that as well—it's the definition commonly used when referring to GnRH agonists, for instance. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your interpretation is pretty much accurate in that it produces agonist effects stronger than endogenous agonists. However, it can also be used and I have seen it used to describe the pharmacological effects of a drug at a specific receptor subtype, ie a drug which locks a receptor into a conformation which produces pharmacodynamic effects stronger than "ordinary" pharmacological agonist or even stronger than the same drug effects at other receptor subtypes. So it doesn't just apply to comparing it endogenous ligands but I think your idea is pretty much accurate.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your first definition is spot on. Superagonist refers to a pharmacodynamic response (> 100% agonism relative to endogenous agonist) whereas an irreversible agonist refers to a mechanism. I am trying to locate a definitive citation, but I cannot seem to find one. In the mean time, I have converted the superagonist into a subject specific page using the definition and citations that you have provided. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In searching pubmed using the "superagonist" query, most of the aricle hits use the term superagonist in the way you have proposed. However as you point out, there are a few that apply it in somewhat different way. I think the reason for the diversity of definitions is that superagonism may refer to either efficacy or to potency. Potency in turn is a function of efficacy, affinity, half-life, mechanism of action, etc. So a narrow definition of superagonism might refer to specifically to a ligand with efficacy > 100% whereas a broad definition might simply refer to a ligand that has higher potency compared to the endogenous ligand. Under this broader definition, an irreversible agonist might also be classified as a superagonist through its longer half-life and greater effective affinity. In any case, I have used the narrow definition as you originally proposed for now since I cannot find any definitive citation that would support the broader definition. Boghog2 (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine to include this broader definition in the article ("Sometimes the term is used in a broader sense to describe compounds with a potency of over 100%. This includes irreversible agonists..."), but the problem, as you say, is finding a citiation. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [2]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to leave your comments (and constructive criticism ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the redesign of FDA's website many external links to documents are broken. For details see Redesign of FDA's website. A list of broken links is given at FDA links. Feel free to jump in! -- Alfie^±Talk 13:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, saw that over at project med; apparently they're not finished reworking the new system, so even new links may not be around permanently, and redirects on the FDA webpage now often point to ghost pdfs. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the broken drug links on the FDA site a lot of them can be fixed by subsituting the following root directory:

www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/

In place of the original text of the old links, that being:

www.fda.gov/cder/foi/

It appears that the FDA changed the root director link for the drug information from:

www.fda.gov/cder/foi/

TO

www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/

Not every broken link can be fixed in this fashion, as the FDA may have deleted the information completely in some cases, or moved it elsewhere, but a significant number of them can be. Much easier and quicker than trying to search the FDA site.

Most important thing here is to make sure that you are cutting and pasting properly. You may find it to be a lot easier to simply cut the old link out of the article and paste it into a word processor and play with it there. Do this ONE section at a time so you don't get confused with what you are doing and can easily undo any screwups by abandoning the edit and trying again. Once you fixed the link, and verified it, you post it back into the article. You can use the return key to add a few blank lines to serve as a temporary place holder within the edit box to seperate the (ref) (/ref) mark up language after you had cut the bad link out of the text. Once you fix the link and paste it back in, delete the extra blank lines.

Hope this helps. (Until the FDA changes things yet again down the road) Davidtfull (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,
that helps a lot! Just a reminder to everybody: after altering links in articles, please leave a note at User:MastCell/FDA_links in order to keep an overview what already has been corrected and what still has to be done. -- Alfie^±Talk 12:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for some computer savvy editors to help me style some tables to make them more readable. Basically, several of us editors are working to categorize pharmacology-related articles, and have created some rough draft conversion tables. However, at this time, they need more stylization for readability sake, but we were unsure how to do a few things, like indenting ATC codes in the first column to illustrate the hierarchy. Basically, anything you can do to make the tables easier to use would be great. Please feel free to edit away if you have ideas. ---kilbad (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page Measles vaccine needs help from an expert on the topic. Dogposter (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its going to be merged into the existing MMR vaccine page, if there is any content not already there. Fuzbaby (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The measles vaccine was developed as a single vaccine at first, I really think it deserves its own article. Dogposter (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The structure given in the article Samarium-153 lexidronam has been doubted (Talk:Samarium-153 lexidronam). I can't find any source saying something else; but could someone check this? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-posted to WT:MED.

More eyes urgently needed at Talk:Propofol, where a discussion on the appropriateness of the terms "abuse", "misuse", et al. is currently underway. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with expertise in the area of pharmacology please take a look at the section titled "Potential behavioral effects" in Allura Red AC? I get the impression that there is an undue reliance on one study/investigator. Also, the cited references are to news articles, rather than to the research reports themselves, which leaves me with some concern because in my experience journalists are quite prone to slant or misinterpret science to fit the story they are trying to tell. ChemNerd (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lithium orotate really marketed as a dietary supplement (see also: Orotic acid)? My first impulse was simply to delete that statement, but perhaps I'd better ask first... In the U.S., they seem to have the weirdest dietary supplements. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, its is confirmed in this reference (cited in the article, a J. Med. Toxicol. on mild lithium poisoning from overdosing on the "supplement"). A quick Google search took me to the home page of the dietary supplement mentioned in the reference, which describes their product as "the Natural Mineral form of Lithium with the Orotate Mineral Transporter and then completed with the patented Micro Vortex Enteric Coating Manufacturing process." We can't be having any of this nasty artificial lithium, can we now… Physchim62 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, pretty much anything you want to sell people (that won't kill them right away) you can do so by labeling it a dietary supplement. An old law that protects the supplement industry keeps the FDA from evaluating it then, and people are free to sell/buy whatever they want that way. There's not even any guarantee that the what they buy even has the substance in it that it claims, or in the amounts claimed. Fuzbaby (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I always thought it was an inside joke to say that a base powder was "guaranteed to be free of sodium and lithium". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors might want to keep an eye on the melatonin article in the next couple of weeks. A new beverage, Drank, is being released. It's advertised as an "extreme relaxation beverage", and contains melatonin, as well as several other herbal-type compounds. This article refers to it as "liquid pot". There hasn't been much activity on the article yet, but as folks discover it, it could pick up. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Frances Oldham Kelsey/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new article Senior care pharmacist is in need of some TLC. So far, it doesn't even say that a senior care pharmacist cares for seniors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure this should be merged into Consultant pharmacist. I don't think there's enough out there for a dedicated article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Pharmacist#Practice_specialization, I thought maybe Clinical pharmacist, but that redirects to Clinical pharmacology, which doesn't mention specialization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article in question was created by Bwolstenholme. The page creation is that user's only contribution in Wikipedia articlespace. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal was made here to add IUPHAR database links to protein info boxes. An example using the {{protein}} template is found to the right. More specifically this proposal is to add a optional link to the {{GNF_Protein_box}} and then include the link on Wikipedia receptor and ion channel pages to the corresponding IUPHAR database entry.

Before implementing these links, I would like to ask the community if there is support for doing so. Any comments or suggestions you might have are welcome. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection, seems an authoritative source for the current nomenclature. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you already know, I support it too. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]