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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

WP:DRUGS Archive 1: 6/2004 – 7/2006 WP:DRUGS Archive 2: 8/2006 – 2/2007 WP:PHARM Archive: 1/2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

I have not been able to find an entry or subsection here on Hybrid Drug or Hybrid Molecule, a novel compound created in the simplest case by linking two drugs. I think there is substantial overlap with Polypharmacology but that may be only one aspect. I did find some other analogous topics, e.g., Combination Drug. I hope someone with some knowledge of medicinal chemistry or pharmacology can clarify this suggestion. BillR5 (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hybrid Molecules with a Dual Mode of Action: Dream or Reality?
• Hybrid molecules: The privileged scaffolds for various pharmaceuticals
• Design of Hybrid Molecules for Drug Development

Sorry, I've no access to any of these. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there's probably enough for a page on hybrid drugs. There is a quite a long history of attempt to find these in the cardiovascular field,^[1] although without much success. Having a book dedicated to their design (the Design of Hybrid Molecules for Drug Development listed about) is also supportive of notability. The topic is quite distinct from Combination drug and polypharmacology. Klbrain (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Article submitted, then declined. I submitted Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome on 13 January. It was declined by DGG on 14 January, and recommended to merge the material into the Finasteride entry.

2. Help desk post. On 15 January I posted a comment to the AfC help desk. You might want to read the whole comment, but the key point is three examples of articles about substance-related disorders, which are separate from articles about the substances themselves.

From a common sense point of view, and based on these examples, I believe it makes sense for the Post-finasteride syndrome article to be separate from the Finasteride article.

3. Classification into WikiProjects. After I posted to AfC help desk, Worldbruce placed a heading box on the article talk page designating the article in the scope of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology.

I'm not sure what the next step is. Can someone look at this article and let me know? Mariedegournay (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One way forward would be to merge it to Finasteride, as suggested following the review. Would you be happy with this? So, the this could be done be creating a separate section on the Finasteride page, perhaps under Finasteride#Adverse effects, where the ideas of sexual dysfunction and depression are already mentioned. It's better to integrate material rather than create parallel pages which discuss the same topic.

Alternatively, I note that in the defense of your draft you've alluded to Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome, Opioid use disorder; and I might add Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome. All of these are syndromes that relate to drug classes. So, if this is a class issue, then perhaps merging to 5α-Reductase inhibitor#Side effects (which also mentions the symptoms mentioned in your draft) might be better.

Regarding the structure of the draft, the other issues I see is that you're largely listing research, rather than creating an integrated text regarding our current state of knowledge; the latter is preferable. Klbrain (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariedegournay: As far as I know, there is not yet a scientific consensus regarding the existence of "post-finasteride syndrome". It is likely too early to give the subject its own article. There is already a section titled, Controversy, in the finasteride article; perhaps some information can be integrated there, as well as under Adverse effects as Klbrain noted above. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain:@Biochemistry&Love: I gave some thought to this and opted to incorporate more details on adverse effects into a revised Finasteride article (not published). When I turned to that article I found it needed restructuring, updating of the text and references. Some references were broken while others didn't reflect recent research. The revision has a lot of changes, so before making the updates I wanted to get your input on how to proceed. Here's the revision: Finasteride-major revision (DRAFT). Note that I didn't go over all sections in detail. I focused on the Overview, Adverse effects and Research, with a few edits in other sections. Mariedegournay (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is concern that our ATC lists lack verifiability because they only have a primary source (the WHO ATC lists on https://www.whocc.no/) – see this diff and User talk:Widefox. (The same seems to apply to the ICD-10 lists and others.) Rather than starting a discussion about the relevant policies I'd prefer adding a secondary source; only I can't find one. Any ideas? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The discussion is now at Talk:ATC code V10. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A review is requested. Does this draft satisfy the guidelines on medically reliable sources and should it otherwise be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable; I've softened some of the claims in the article (regarding uniqueness) and added two WP:MEDRS-compliant reviews, which use the code name for this compound: TG02. I've added that code name as a synonym. Klbrain (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices, which is about improving our coverage of prices in articles about WHO Essential Medicines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not know where else to ask: Does anyone still produce Chlorpropamide?

It is needed for a Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus case, for which no other effective medicine is known.

Any producer/seller name, anywhere in the world, would be immensely appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.96.36 (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mylan stopped producing it last year, does anyone know of any other producer, anywhere in the world? 129.177.96.36 (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 2019 review^[1] recommends diuretics (presumably thiazides) and NSAIDs, based on Bockenhauer et al. (2015).^[2] That counterintuitive use of thiazides has been around for a long time, so its interesting to see that there isn't anything better. Klbrain (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Klbrain, for the articles. As for Central diabetes insipidus (=lack of vasopressin), it is no longer a problem, as they can now be treated with "artificial vasopressin" (Minirin, Desmopressin).

For Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus adding more vasopressin (or vasopressin like) medicine is zero help: it is not the lack of vasopressin that is the problem, but that the kidneys cannot absorb it.

In this case, Chlorpropamide was used for decades, with 100% success (= "normal" water intake; no dietary modifications needed). After Mylan stopped producing it, Hydrochlorothiazide was tried, with some, (but nearly not enough), effect. Modamide (ie Amiloride), was then added, but the two together have still only 50-75% effect. (Practically, this means not sleeping, ever, for more than 4 hours consecutively.)

The causes for this case of Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus-case is idiopathic (no lithium treatment, and probably not congenital: it appeared suddenly in the early 20s)

It seems extremely brutal that the world goes "backward" this way, basically only because Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus is such a rare condition, that no pharmacological company find it economic to care one bit for them (That is at least my take on it, at the moment), 129.177.96.37 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In German, the term "Cholagogum" is unspecific and can refer to choleretics as well as cholekinetics, and has been more or less dropped from usage. Is this true in English too? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My answer could be wrong and need your help. Thank you! --Reciprocater (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to do but I really need to go to bed. Thank you. --Reciprocater (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the lede of adenosine. Someone biochemical should look it over. Perhaps adenosine is used as a drug, but the article gives the mistaken impression that its pharma application is greater than its biochemical role. Which strikes me as laughable and misleading. Perhaps the article should be split into the (niche?) medicinal aspects and the gigantic role in biochemistry. I am unfamiliar with the med chem. One more thing: if we could converge on the lede for adenosine, we could "replicate" that format for the related nucleoside. And then the nucleotides, etc.

There is the opportunity for some deft wordsmitthing should anyone want to try. For example, the article says things like adenine is attached to ribose. Chemists and biochemists talk like that but we know not to take these words literally because adenosine does not contain adenine, but the adenyl radical. Ditto for ribose. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A RfC on how we are allowed to summarize medication prices. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]