Pharmacology Low‑importance

This article 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the first time I've looked for Lovaza here, though I know this is not the normal way for Wikipedia to list medication or suppliments, it is what's here. I'll take a picture and work on adding some basic information here. It might be better as Omega-3-acid ethyl esters (LOVAZA) as it's noted in the GlaxoSmithKline information on it and is more normal for Wikipedia. --Bcw142 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 38% + 47% + 17% = 102% (>100% due to rounding)

Question: Is rest all fish oil?

"Each 1-gram capsule of LOVAZA contains at least 900 mg of the ethyl esters of omega-3 fatty acids sourced from fish oils. These are predominantly a combination of ethyl esters of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA - approximately 465 mg) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA - approximately 375 mg)." Source: http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_lovaza.pdf (Section 11 Description)

Hence: ~37.5% DHA ethyl esters, ~46.5% EPA ethyl esters, >=~6% other Omega-3 (which equals >=90%) Hence: ~10% other fish oils (an assumption?)

Can someone explain the signicance of ethyl esters versus "natural forms"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.3.227 (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible contextual discussion needed: The third sentence of this article (as of 22 OCT 2010) describes the process by which GlaxoSmithKline "transformed" a dietary supplement into a "pharmaceutical." Was there any controversy about this? That is to say, it seems to me that what GlaxoSmithKline appears to have achieved is to convince the FDA to approve an excluse right to market (purified) fish oil as a pharmaceutical (with all attendant potential financial gain) while others must market it as a dietary supplement. Does this fit within standard practice of the FDA? Could another company, for example, apply to the FDA to market St. John's Wort capsules as a "pharmaceutical" with exclusive rights? Eenwikilekter (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept the edits to this page (February 14, 2013). My name is Scott Stoffel, and I work at Abbott in Corporate Public Affairs, and the edits I am providing are all factual, based upon review of the page with Abbott Laboratories scientists who have expertise in this area. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to access my contact information, found here: http://abbott.com/news-media/contacts.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottStoffelAbbott (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) ScottStoffelAbbott (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because many popular fish oil supplements use ethyl esterification to avoid contaminates as well[1], I changed:
in these respects it is considered a pharmaceutical: unlike unregulated extracts, there is no risk of contamination by methyl mercury, arsenic, or other pollutants that are often seen in the world's oceans.
to:
Due to the esterification process during manufacturing there is no risk of contamination by methyl mercury, arsenic, or other pollutants that are often seen in the world's oceans.
--Dejitarob (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]