Talk:Aspirin/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Resolvins

I think there should be some mention made of Resolvins on this page. 134.197.100.184 (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

PPI

Co-prescription of a proton pump inhibitor can cost-effectively reduce the risk of gastric complications of low-dose aspirin therapy, provided the PPIs are cheap enough: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/15/1684 JFW | T@lk 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Aspirin the trademark

In the USA, Aspirin is a generic word so it can be identified in that country as "aspirin", but in several countries, including Canada,[1] Aspirin is still a registered trademark owned by Bayer. So should Aspirin be capitalised which trademarks usually are? Or should the article name be the scientific name "Acetylsalicylic acid" better known by the initials A.S.A.? Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP need concern itself with trademark law in countries other than the US. Colin°Talk 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I almost think that we should rename it "acetylsalicylic acid," just for conformity to international standards, although I think there is sometimes a bias toward the shorter name, all other things being equal. Is it pretty much around the English-speaking world that people call it "aspirin"? Simultaneous movement (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea -- of course "Aspirin" would redirect there and would be mentioned in the first sentence. Facts707 (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It is arrogant to suggest that WP should only be concerned with US trademarks. In many parts of the world "Aspirin" remains, as it originally was in the USA, a trademark of Bayer (in over 80 coutries). If WP is genuinely a global resource, it should put the primary article under the heading "acetylsalicylic acid (ASA)" with notation at the start to indicate that it is ALSO known generically as "aspirin" in France, Russia, the UK, and the USA. Enquire (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I created a subsection of History called "Trademark in some countries" that addresses the trademark and name capitalization issue with a couple of references. Facts707 (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Added ref to relevant portion of Treaty of Versailles. Facts707 (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not split article

By splitting the overdose section into a new article on salicylate intoxication, as some suggest, I would never have found the information I needed simply about 'aspirin overdose'. Thank you. 71.106.103.10 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Josef S. Klus, medical content writer, 9/8/08

Since there's no real plan to split this article, I'll remove the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation

The IPA in the article lead is pretty dialect-specific. Certainly, it's not how I'd pronounce acetyl-salicylic acid in British English. Rather than ending up with several different IPAs, is that piece of information actually all that useful? Would it not make more sense to link to acetyl and salicylic acid, which should prolly have their own pronunciations in their lead sections? — OwenBlacker 11:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, every reference I can find lists the pronunciation as "a-SEE-tyl", rather than "a-SET-yl" ([2], [3]). Could someone change it, and maybe add something as a reference? – Acdx (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
FWIW my standard guide to pronunciation, the English Pronouncing Dictionary by David Jones, rev AC Gimson, pub. Dent, 14th edition 1977, gives 'æsɪtɪl. No comment from me, but at least you have a reference. Haven't edited article. Pol098 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Aspirin as marketed in the UK

I noticed that in the United Kingdom, aspirin is sold as a pain reliever but not by Bayer. Is there a reason why Bayer is not selling aspirin in the UK? The reason should be in the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See: Aspirin#Trademark_in_some_countries also see Talk:Aspirin#Aspirin_the_trademark Enquire (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


The reason Bayer Aspirin isnt on the mrket in the UK is likely a commercial one - Other products, such as Aspro, Disprin and Anadin have held the bulk of the analgesic market in the UK, along with a very high market penetration by generic supermarket and pharmacy brands. Bayer Aspirin was on the market in Australia until recently, but it was never a big seller, however, Bayer do sell Aspirin in Australia and the UK under the Aspro label. 121.209.52.159 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Jonathan

Straw poll

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a straw poll to determine if the Aspirin article should be renamed acetylsalicylic acid with Aspirin redirected to the new name. The reason is because Aspirin is a registered trademark owned by Bayer in most of the world. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

For--because of the reason stated above. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
For -- for all the reasons I expressed under Talk:Aspirin#Aspirin_the_trademark. I also suggest including " (ASA)" as a suffix to page name. Enquire (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Opposed, per WP:COMMONNAME. Did anyone ever walk into a pharmacy and ask for "acetylsalicylic acid"? 128.232.1.193 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I copied the above comment here from WP:Requested moves.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
They ask for "A.S.A." which is also the generic term used in Canada. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It depends on where you live. Unless you live in the UK or USA, Asprin™ (Bayer) will be more expensive. So you will commonly hear requests for "ASA" or "acetylsalicylic acid" because they are the generic names and are therefore cheaper than asking for Asprin™ (Bayer), which is more expensive. Enquire (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
For--WP:COMMONNAME explicitly begins: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication..." The naming convention we should be following here is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Drug-related articles, which simply states: "Where a compound has a WHO International Nonproprietary Name (INN), this should be used as the article title." The INN is certainly not aspirin, I'll tell you that! I couldn't find official confirmation that the INN is acetylsalicylic acid, though. Could someone please find that?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I would oppose adding (ASA) after the name, though. A parenthetical is only necessary for disambiguation, which is not called for here.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There is already a disambiguation page for ASA which links to the acetylsalicylic acid article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
For There are many different drugs sold under the "Aspirin" name [4], and all of them including the "classic" aspirin contain more than just acetylsalicylic acid. Mieciu K (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a good idea. The rule at WP:NAME is
"Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
Less than 50 wikipedia pages Acetylsalicylic acid, compared to over a thousand to aspirin. The greatest number of English speakers would use the word aspirin, as does scientific and medical literature. Colin°Talk 18:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
In more than 80 coutries, Aspirin™ is a trademark drug supplied exclusively by Bayer. In those countries, people would understand "Aspirin" as being a specific brand name of ASA (acetylsalicylic acid) Enquire (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "Be precise when necessary; don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings." (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)). Aspirin is a brand name of a drug which has many substances in it, the most important being acetylsalicylic acid but aspirin is not the same as acetylsalicylic acid. Mieciu K (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Over 2 billion people world-wide claim English as their first or primary language. For the great majority of them, Asprin is a trademark drug supplied exclusively by Bayer. Very few of this majority would request "Asprin™" but would ask for the generic version, ASA or acetylsalicylic acid. Enquire (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Aspirin has no other medically active ingredients other than acetylsalicylic acid. All drugs contain other inactive substances (starch, etc). There is no ambiguity. BTW, Heroin is another example of a (former) Bayer trademark. Colin°Talk 18:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It is true that many different drugs contain ASA (Aspirin), but that is not the same as saying that many different drugs are sold under the name "aspirin" Enquire (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, be precise when necessary. Aspirin is clear, concise and unambiguous. It has no other meanings (that it is a trademark in some countries is not another meaning - that aspect of it is covered in this article as well). No additional precision is necessary. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No -- you contradict yourself, the title "Aspirin" IS ambiguous. In over 80 countries, "Aspirin" IS trademarked and so bottles labled "Aspirin" exclusively refer to the version of the drug manufactured by Bayer. In these countries, if you visit a pharmacy, the vast majority sold will be the generic version, these drugs will clearly be labled "ASA" (acetylsalicylic acid) and will not show the word "aspirin" anywhere on the label. Enquire (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. For medicines that are not commonly known by the public at large I can see using the INN rather than whatever name might be used most commonly by the relatively few who do know about it (if they're different), but aspirin is clearly the name most often used by virtually everyone in the English speaking world to refer to the subject of this article, whether a trademark applies or not, there are no ambiguity issues, and more precision is not necessary (and therefore not appropriate). According to the article, even in countries where Aspirin is trademarked the generic/common name is not acetylsalicylic acid, but is ASA. So even if we were to ignore American usage and common usage, the title should be ASA (or ASA (acetylsalicylic acid) to disambiguate from other uses of ASA), but ignoring those other usages is not appropriate. In any case, renaming this article from the common name aspirin to the precise formal name acetylsalicylic acid would contradict the most fundamental of Wikipedia naming conventions, and would be a travesty of the spirit and culture of Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Your arguments appear in part to be contradictory. For those countries outside the UK and USA, this drug is popularly known as ASA. So I agree with you that acetylsalicylic acid is not the most popular name, but (outside of the USA and the UK), people DO know what ASA is, for the simple reason that the (generic) drugs are all clearly labled ASA. You can still of course, buy Aspirin™, but most know that this will be the more expensive version of ASA. Enquire (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose Aspirin is the common English word for the substance; use of acetylsalicylic acid, except in the most technical of contexts, is a notorious instance of pedantic humour. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I presume you live in either the US or the UK? Elsewhere, Asprin is the trademarked (more expensive) version of the generic ASA or acetylsalicylic acid. In those countries the drug will be labled ASA, 'not' Aspirin (unless it is made by Bayer). Enquire (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
In short, this is an effort to impose the alleged Canadian (or Australian?) usage on an article already written in a different national variety of English. We have strong consensus against that particular style of disruptive provincialism; leave it alone and learn to appreciate that there are many Englishes. In addition, this search on the Globe and Mail suggests strongly that, however much Bayer might like to have aspirin used only for its own brand, this is not what Canadian actually does; Bayer have only succeeded in making the Globe and Mail capitalize as a house style. If I thought this nuisance deserved anything but reprobation, I would ask for evidence that either captialization or use as a brand name is actually prevalent even in Commonwealth dialects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added these citation to the passage you disputed in the article [5] and [6]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The first source here provides a quote: Aspirin is the general name for acetylsalicylic acid (ASA); it is also the trademark of the drug produced by Bayer in Germany. which destroys the case for the move. These also fail to substantiate the claim made in the article, which is both that the name aspirin is trademarked (which I see no reason to doubt) and that the name is in practice used only for the brand which holds the trademark, while ASA is used instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The first citation which you quoted is from a web site from Australia where Aspirin lost its status as a registered trademark. According to [7], Aspirin lost its trademark status in Australia, Argentina, Britain, France, India, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa and the United States. Aspirin is still a protected trademark in all other countries. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Then can we follow the suggestion of Born2cycle and make the new name ASA (acetylsalicylic acid)? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Please, no. I only brought up ASA to illustrate why acetylsalicylic acid is not an appropriate title. I did not suggest we make the new name ASA (acetylsalicylic acid). I said IF we were to IGNORE American usage and common usage then ASA rather than acetylsalicylic acid would be the right choice, but ignoring American usage and common usage is not a reasonable thing to do! ASA is virtually unheard of in America - to use it as the title of this article (disambiguated or not) instead of the universally recognized aspirin would be preposterous. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Popular name is aspirin, not the INN moniker (whatever it is). Also, the "it's a trademark" reasoning falls flat in large parts of the English-speaking world. Madcynic (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Right. Just because a given title might not be absolutely perfect does not mean it must be changed, especially if all the alternative choices are far more blatantly out of step with naming policy, conventions and guidelines. In this case Aspirin has some minor issues because it is trademarked in some countries and so cannot be officially used to refer to the topic of this article. But it's still used informally in those countries with this meaning, and all of the alternative names are blatantly in violation of WP:UCN. Aspirin may not be ideal, but it is by far the best choice for the title of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't believe aspirin/acetylsalicylic acid has an INN. The closest to "confirmation" I can think of is the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System, which uses acetylsalicylic acid. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • From the minutes of a Medicines Commission meeting: "Retention of the use of the name “aspirin” (acetylsalicylic acid) had been raisedand, in discussion, the Commission agreed that this was not an issue. The name “aspirin”,which had been around since 1896 was a brand name in some countries and was a generic name in the UK. Acetylsalicylic acid was one of a number of compounds that does not require a rINN as this was its full chemical name" (emphasis mine). If there really is no assigned INN, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide#Drug pages to use INN does not apply. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I oppose moving the article—as Steelbeard mentions, aspirin is no longer a trademark in "Australia, Argentina, Britain, France, India, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa and the United States", that is, practically the entire English-speaking world. This is the English Wikipedia, and if aspirin does not have an International Nonproprietary Name, than WP:COMMONNAME is the only relevant guideline; it unquestionably favors aspirin. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    If you look at the article List of countries where English is an official language, you will see that English is the official language of 48 countries. I've counted nine English-speaking countries listed above where "aspirin" is a generic word. This means there are 39 English-speaking countries where Aspirin is still a registered trademark. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Official language ≠ widely-spoken. Anyway, the trademark issue is a red-herring. Colin°Talk 17:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to anything other than Aspirin, unless someone can come up with some valid reason for not considering it the common name. And having waded through the above, I don't see any yet. This may well be an exception to the detailed naming conventions, but it's an exceptional drug. Andrewa (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Aspirin is the common name. older ≠ wiser 04:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Asprin is the most common name. Even if it was a trademark in most English speaking countries (which it isn't), I would say Oppose. Take Tater Tots for example, that is a trademarked name but is so common that most people call similar products tater tots. TJ Spyke 17:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming "aspirin" to "Aspirin"

Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs) has been renaming "aspirin" to "Aspirin" both here and on related articles and article titles. Is he going to edit all the 2,000 other pages on Wikipedia that mention the word? The name is not a trademark in the US, which is the law governing Wikipedia. I recommend this action be undone. Colin°Talk 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And he's just undone my edit to remove the capital letter and his POV from the lead of the history of aspirin article. Anyone like to have another go? I have a personal one revert rule. Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the above straw poll, there is no consensus on the trademark issue so can we just mention in the appropriate portions of the Aspirin and History of aspirin articles as well as their introductions that Aspirin is a trademark in most of the world? Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Steelbeard1, there was no consensus for the proposed move, which is required before change can occur. Do not interpret the lack of unanimity as an indication that changing the capitalisation of the word is allowed. Per WP:ENGVAR, please leave the capitalisation/spelling in a consistent state and avoid changes towards your preferred style. Colin°Talk 13:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree that the trademark status needs to be mentioned in appropriate places. But stating in the first line of the article that it is a trademark, with no qualification that this is untrue in much of the English-speaking world, was quite frankly misinformation. Better to say nothing. To revert the removal of this misinformation as you did was not good. Best of all to make it clear of course. The current article is the best yet, always room for improvement but please, no more misinformation. Andrewa (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mention of the Bayer Felix Hoffman vs Arthur Eichengrün dispute crediting development of the medicinal form.

From another Wikipedia Article on Felix Hoffman:

Felix Hoffmann first synthesized medically useful forms of heroin and aspirin. He is best known for having synthesized acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) on August 10, 1897, supposedly for the first time in a stable form usable for medical applications. Bayer marketed this substance as Aspirin. However, this has been disputed. In 1949, Arthur Eichengrün published a paper in which he claimed to have planned and directed the synthesis of Aspirin along with the synthesis of several related compounds. He also claimed to be responsible for Aspirin's initial surreptitious clinical testing. Finally, he claimed that Hoffmann's role was restricted to the initial lab synthesis using his (Eichengrün's) process and nothing more.[1]

The Eichengrün version was ignored by historians and chemists until 1999, when Walter Sneader of the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow re-examined the case and came to the conclusion that indeed Eichengrün's account was convincing and correct and that Eichengrün deserved credit for the invention of Aspirin.[2] Bayer promptly denied this theory in a press release, claiming that the invention of Aspirin was due to Hoffmann.

As of 2004[update], the controversy is still open: while Sneader's version has been widely reported, there are no independent second sources supporting either version.

Both substances had been synthesized earlier, but not in forms that could be used for medication. ASA had first been synthesized by Frenchman Charles Frédéric Gerhardt in 1853, and diacetylmorphine (that is, heroin) by C.R. Alder Wright, a British chemist in 1873.

130.114.210.66 (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Derivation of the name "Aspirin"

The source of the name Aspirin is reported in other articles and published material to be different to that shown here. It has been suggested that it was derived from the old scientific name for Eurasian Meadowsweet previously known as Spiraea ulmaria, as this is the plant that Hoffman is reported to have used to extract his ingredients for synthesising Aspirin. See the wikipedia article Filipendula ulmaria. This derivation was also given by James Burke (science historian) in his "Connections" Television series later publised in book form. The importance of the derivation is that it links us clearly to the fact that archaeology and early writings show clear evidence for the use of salicylates in Bronze age Britain see Filipendula ulmaria. This suggests, particularly as there are many other plant sources of salicylates such as Salix alba, that our early ancestors were familiar with the use of these plants as anti-pyretics,anti-inflammatories and analgesic agents. They would also have developed some knowledge of contraindications and side effects. While the synthesised drug and the plants are clearly different things our history has a lot to tell us if we just look.Celsius100 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Why does aspirin not direct here, but instead redirect to robert aspirin? The mediciation is much more notable, especially when you consider all the phenominally large group of people who take it. I've never even heard of Robert Aspirin, but that said, maybe it's an American thing. Can we please redirect here? 128.250.5.245 (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually aspirin is the title of this article and does not rediret to that article. What does redirect there is Asprin which is speelled differently and is the person's last name of Robert Asprin. --76.66.190.190 (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
To add another point is that the issue here is not whether the drug or the man is more notiable. It is wherether there is evidence that more people typing Asprin are mispelling Aspirin that looking for Robert Asprin. If there is not it would probabally be best to leave the redirect where it due to spelling issues and the fact that this page can easily be found with the hatlink on the other page.--76.66.190.190 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article

This is really a very nice article, is there anyone with experience in such things who would be willing to check it for major flaws that I can't see that would keep it from reaching featured article status? --Pstanton (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding its technical or medical correctness, the spelling in the Mind Map is deplorable and should be corrected. I do not know if this is possible, but it really should be undertaken if it is. Hamilcar21 (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Aspirin and other Salicylates(2).gif

I propose this image be removed. First of all, I feel it gives undue weight to the effects it mentions, and, besides that, it is barely readable even when enlarged (the letters are etchy and blurred). Opinions?--Metalhead94 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue about Thrombocytopenic purpura and asprin...

has not been addressed http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Thrombocytopenic+purpura+aspirin&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en --222.67.219.24 (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+Thrombocytopenic+purpura+acetylsalicylic+acid&btnG=Search --222.67.219.24 (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

and blood platelets with aspirin
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+blood+platelets+acetylsalicylic+acid&btnG=Search --222.67.219.24 (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+blood+platelets+aspirin&btnG=Search --222.67.219.24 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Another issue about the drug and pregnancy....

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=pregnancy+aspirin&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en --222.67.219.24 (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+pregnancy+acetylsalicylic+acid&btnG=Search --222.67.219.24 (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ASA poisoning

Will split off ASA poisoning into it´s own article.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

IUPAC name?

Shouldn't the IUPAC name be 2-ethanoyloxybenzenecarboxylic acid? DuggersCup (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that might be one systematic name, but it is not recommeded by IUPAC, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Nomenclature. Cacycle (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not 'one systematic name'. By definition a systematic name should be largely clear and unambiguous, and conform to a set of agreed upon rules. The name used by DuggersCup here is systematic, the name (apparently) recommended by the IUPAC is not. The term 'acetoxy' and other related terms such as 'acetyl', 'acetic (acid)' and 'acetate' are archaic and not systematic - they are not part of the set of agreed upon systematic terms, having been replaced with terms 'ethanoyloxy', ethanoyl, ethanoic (acid), and ethanoate - but are retained because they are so widely used. Similarly, 'benzenecarboxylic' is systematic, 'benzoic' is not, but the former is a bit of a mouthful and is not widely used. The problem here is that this (and many other pages I have seen) have incorrectly assumed that the IUPAC name is a systematic name. The name that has been stated in this article here ('2-acetoxybenzoic acid') is categorically NOT systematic, even if it has been recommended by the IUPAC. Johnpretty010 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that the phrase `IUPAC names' means systematic names, following the naming conventions laid out by IUPAC. Although this is apparently not what much of wikipedia follows (see the methanoic acid article). IUPAC also defines preferred names, which state a preference of one, normally systematic, name over another name. I wonder, is this what people are taking IUPAC name to mean? I believe the IUPAC name should be stated as 2-ethanoyloxybenzene carboxylic acid. Although no one would ever say this, most preferring to use 2-ethanoyloxybenzoic acid; just as no one says methane carboxylic acid, ethanoic carboxylic acid or propanoic carboxylic acid. bcbccouk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.47.246 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Structure

Hi, I believe that the structure drawn is wrong. The ring drawn is not a benzene ring but a cyclohexa-1,2,5-triene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.17.91 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The diagram is correct. That is a standard way of depicting a benzene ring (and similarly for other aromatic compounds as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.211 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible dispute regarding cardiac benefits

I ran across this article:
http://dtb.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/47/11/122 - Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?, Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin 2009;47:122-125
However it appears these findings are not addressed in the Wikipedia article. I don't know much about this particular subject but it appears the idea of aspirin being beneficial for prevention of heart disease is in dispute and probably the writeup needs to be balanced. I have marked it as disputed for now. -Rolypolyman (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite so. The efficacy of aspirin for secondary prevention is undisputed. It is for primary prevention where the benefits appear to be negligibly small. I am planning to write about that when I get time.
In any case, the disputed tag is not applicable here (see [8]). The best is to add the relevant reference instead of adding a tag (again see the same page [9]). The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


FIRST NSAID?

"Aspirin was the first discovered member of the class of drugs known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)"

Surely sodium salicylate would take this honor, even is slaicyn/willow bark extract doesnt?

I havent made a change, but I suspect that it should atleast be mentioned that other effective though less useful drugs predated aspirin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.48.46 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

US Nurses' Health Study

This study from the Journal of Clinical Oncology should be added to the experimental section. Abstract: http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/JCO.2009.22.7918v1 Study: http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/reprint/JCO.2009.22.7918v1 72.152.141.245 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Aspirin from a tree?

I recently went on a jungle trip, on which my guide showed me a tree the sap of which was supposedly good for stomach-aches. He let me try a bit and it tasted very much like aspirin. So are there natural sources for aspirin or something similar? DirkvdM (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Salicylic acid is similar to the acetylsalicylic acid in aspirin, and is found naturally in some plants, such as the willow tree. Before the production of synthetic aspirin, extracts of willow bark were used to treat some of the conditions that aspirin is used for today (see History of aspirin). I'm no expert, though - I just noticed your question on my watchlist - the Science reference desk could probably give you more detailed information. --Kateshortforbob talk 17:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I thought about the ref desk too. So I'll post the question there now. DirkvdM (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For centuries before aspirin was invented, people used willow-bark extract. It's just like aspirin, except you need to take ten times as much of the active ingredient, as a result of which you get ten times the side effects. The invention of aspirin began with the study of willow-bark extract. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Which jungle do willow trees grow in ?Eregli bob (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Can more detail be added to dosage, overdose,--?

The dosages of aspirin for

Pain, Fever 0.3 to 1 gram repeated up to a maximum of 4 grams per day

Acute Rheumatism 4 to 8 grams per day divided doses. Chronis Rheumatism 300 to 900 mg every 4 hours. Ie a maximum of 5.4 grams per day.

Also Overdose The Lethal dose for an adult is thought to be 25 to 30 grams but treated overdoses of 60 - 90 grams have recovered. Fawns & McAllen Pty Ltd

The maximum recommended dose of 8 grams is a little under 1/3 of a fatal dose.

Combined with the pharmokinetics in the article --- When small doses (less than 250 mg in an adult) are ingested, all pathways proceed by first-order kinetics, with an elimination half-life of about 2 to 4.5 hours.[112][113] When higher doses of salicylate are ingested (more than 4 g), the half-life becomes much longer (15–30 hours)

is there a risk of chronic poisioning at 8 grams per day if the half life is 30 hours.??

Central Effects? Salicism: Mild salicylate intoxication Nausea, vomiting, tinnitus, hyperventilation, occasionally diarrhoea. These are not symptoms of hypersensitivity, but indications that the toxic dose is being approached.Aspro Clear Nicholas Australia.

--Nnoddy (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pharmacokinetics - absorption

"Salicylic acid is a weak acid, and very little of it is ionized in the stomach after oral administration. Acetylsalicylic acid is poorly soluble in the acidic conditions of the stomach, which can delay absorption of high doses for 8 to 24 hours. In addition to the increased pH of the small intestine, aspirin is rapidly absorbed there owing to the increased surface area, which in turn allows more of the salicylate to dissolve. Owing to the issue of solubility, however, aspirin is absorbed much more slowly during overdose, and plasma concentrations can continue to rise for up to 24 hours after ingestion."

This doesn't make sense, being a weak acid should lead to increased absorption in the stomach. If the reason for the delayed absorption is that its precipitates coalesce, as the following source (I'm guessing this is where the second sentence came from originally) suggests then that should be mentioned to clarify it.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/pharm/aspirin.htm

Xkjq (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis Image

Seeing how this image is SVG, would it be okay to replace the current image in the Synthesis section with it?Yzmo talk 14:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reaction mechanism details of this image would be too distracting. That level of detail isn't necessary. Though the current image isn't SVG, it is high resolution so quality shouldn't be an issue. 15:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Coke + aspirin = ?

Please see discussion here. Thanks. 122.25.250.221 (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

is aspirin is blood thinner agent

--24.228.81.143 (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)--24.228.81.143 (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The article says so, with references. Pol098 (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A photograph of (modern) German Bayer Aspirin

As an example for the trademarked product. Would that be of any interest? I could provide one. -- megA (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


Photographs are always welcome. You can put them up at Commons. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is currently down

I will continue to edit / organize this content when it is up again... We are discussing changing the section ordering of article under WP:PHARM please join in.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 review in Circulation

Fuster, V (2011 Feb 22). "Aspirin: a historical and contemporary therapeutic overview". Circulation. 123 (7): 768–78. PMID 21343593. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Salicyluric Acid

Salicyluric Acid is not described in Wikipedia. What is it? Acetic Acid is known to cause chemical burns on the skin. Would Salicyluric Acid in high concentrations have the same effect? Could this be a factor in scarring of the foreskin in phimosis? Pharmacokinetics discussion has a gap in dosage effects. For example, what is the effect at 1 gram? Are the effects cited for a one-time dosage? What happens with prolonged dosage at 250 mg or 1 gram/day? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Other ingredients

Typical inactive ingredients of aspirin tablets include corn starch, cellulose, triacetin, hypromellose, and carnauba wax.[10]

Someone removed this info from the article. Makes no sense to me. Now the choice is yours.-96.237.13.111 (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Effect of salicylic acid

If the anti-inflammatory, anti-pyretic, and analgesic effects of aspirin are due to its ability to attach an acetyl group to COX, then how does salicylic acid produce those same effects? It does not have an acetyl group. Wouldn't aspirin have this mode of action as well? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Name change?

Should we change the name of this page to Acetylsalicylic Acid? That's the proper scientific name for Aspirin."Nova Scotia's biggest train person" (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The general rule to follow is to use the common name (see WP:COMMONNAME), so "aspirin" is best. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions about the trademark status

According to the article "aspirin ... lost its status as a registered trademark in France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States" and "today, "aspirin" is a generic word in Australia, France, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Jamaica, Colombia, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States." The article mentions that the term "aspirin" is protected in "over 80 countries" and lists these 13 as not protected but that still leaves about half the countries of the world unaccounted for. I'm assuming that it did not reacquire trademark status in Russia, but I do wonder about the status of the term in other countries. I am most interested in knowing the status of the word in the post-Soviet states, do they "inherit" the genericization from Russia or not? What about former British and French colonies that have become independent in the ensuing years? --Khajidha (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent findings

Recent findings, broadcast on the news on March 21 2012, say that aspirin may help to prevent the spread of cancer - if any one is clued up on this story, it would be good if s/he could update the page by adding reference to these recent findings. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22231610 This article could use a good updating and improving of references.Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 14:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Pain Section wording

In the section called "Pain" the first sentence of the 2nd para is "Nevertheless, as a postsurgery painkiller, aspirin is inferior to ibuprofen and has higher gastrointestinal toxicity.". However I dont think the suggestion is that there is higher gastrointestinal toxicity specifically when used as a postsurgery painkiller and this connection of that side effect to the postsurgery usage seems unnecessary. It isn;t referenced and the gastrointestinal toxicity is discussed elsewhere.

Would it be cleaner to remove those words and change the paragraph to :

"Nevertheless, as a postsurgery painkiller, aspirin is inferior to ibuprofen. The maximum dose of aspirin (1 g) provides weaker pain relief than an intermediate dose of ibuprofen (400 mg), and this relief does not last as long.[17] "

Sandra.anderson.brighton (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

logic lost in transcription?

You say that part of a group differs from the group. THEN IT IS NOT PART OF THE GROUP.

"Aspirin is part of a group of medications called nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), but differs from them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.26.245 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

logic lost in transcription?

You say that part of a group differs from the group. THEN IT IS NOT PART OF THE GROUP.

"Aspirin is part of a group of medications called nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), but differs from them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.26.245 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this to "differs from most other NSAIDs". Remember that NSAIDs are defined not by what they are, but by what they aren't. All NSAIDs are by definition NOT STEROIDS, it is therefore possible to have two different non-steroidal compounds (or groups of compounds) that achieve the same result (reduction of inflammation) via different mechanisms. --Khajidha (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mildly confused wording; possible edits

"Link of decreased risk is attributed to NSAIDs affect on inflammation and disrupting cyclooxygenase(COX)and COX-2 pathways and signaling, which effect cancers ability to progress and survive."

I don't know that "Link" is the word intended here. At the moment I don't know what the writer might have had in mind.

Are possessives not used with NSAIDs ("...to NSAIDs' effect on....")?

I believe the word should be "...effect on inflammation...."

I believe the word should be "...which affect cancers' ability...." The possessive is another possible edit.

173.69.211.28 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Method of hydrolysis/oxidation?

Over and over, in the "salicin", "salicilic acid", "acetylsalicilic acid", and "Rafaelle Piria" entries, we learn that Piria hydrolized and oxidized salicin to salicilic acid. But no mention of how this was done in any of the entries. Googling offers early 20th century references to (unnamed) acid and alkali hydrolyses, as well as many references to emulsin. There are a plethora of o-chem worksheets on turning salicilic acid into ASA, but none dealing with the production of SA from salicin (or populin)

Riventree (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

the Hypothesized uses section is problematic

This section is composed almost exclusively of primary sources, sometimes quite speculative. I question the utility of providing such information in an encyclopedia, when much of the work needed to confirm or deny the clinical (or other) utility has yet to occur, or at the very least is currently in progress. Thus far I have spent a good deal of time attempting to edit the Medical Uses section for conciseness, strong preference for secondary sources, and in particular those secondary sources that are Open Access, so that a lay reader in search of a more technical explanation may find one easily. While certainly, one could argue that some of these edits themselves are inappropriate, (a bit of "writing for the wrong audience", a suggestion of medical advice in the headache section, etc) but as a whole, I feel like the hypothesized uses section is basically a jargon-laden list of studies that are, at best, useful mainly to a professional audience, to the extent that they are useful to anyone.

The upshot is, I feel like perhaps 3-4 sentences could be extracted, placed elsewhere in a more succinct form, and the remainder of the section including the section heading, should be deleted. This is my intent at the moment, but I am hoping to invite some additional discussion before following through (or not). UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think most of it is interesting for this article though I did not check all sources. In particular it is useful to mention that protective effect on many cancers has been evaluated and the results. Could be certainly simplified and sorted better, however as most (all?) evidence is population studies we need to report them with extra caution. I would remove the liver damage section unless there are sources suggesting use in humans for that purpose. I do not think the Australian nps warning should be weighed against the JCO article here and do not even want to read the FOXnews article to see if it is relevant. Richiez (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The first issue to tackle is the referencing. UseTheCommandLine, you mentioned that you are new to the project. Are you aware of WP:MEDRS? It is our guideline on the suitability of sources.
The first reference from the "Hypothesized uses" section is "Aspirin effects on the development of cataracts in patients with diabetes mellitus. Early treatment diabetic retinopathy study report 16". This source has a couple of problems. It is a randomized controlled trial, and therefore a primary source. It is also 22 years old. Thus it is not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia's medical articles.
The article went through the GA assessment process in 2008. The proposer was CrazyChemGuy and the main reviewer was Dr. Cash. I don't recognize either name from WikiProject Medicine; I am unsure how familiar they are with the WikiProject's guidelines.
In fairness to them, the WP:MEDRS guidelines have become more strict since the article passed GA assessment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is symptomatic of the underlying issue I'm talking about. In order for something to be a hypothesized use, it almost by definition has not been well studied; since secondary sources are summations and syntheses of primary sources, their presence in a search of a topic is an indicator that the topic has been studied reasonably well. If the topic has been reasonably well studied, the use is no longer hypothetical, but either accepted to some degree or not. The overwhelming majority of the hypothesized uses listed, as far as i have been able to tell, are either highly speculative and based on few primary sources, or as with e.g. the USPSTF recommendations against the use of aspirin for colon cancer prevention, studied well enough to know that they are probably not useful based on the current state of research.UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
In which case, most of it should be deleted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the cataracts, it seems there has never been followup to the 1992 study and it appears as of sufficient quality as proof of no effect. However as it is unlikely to pop up again it could be certainly dropped. I agree the effect on cancer is studied well enough and belongs into a different section. Although I am not aware of any recommendation to use aspirin for the puropse of cancer prevention or treatment half a billion people take low dose aspirin for CVD protection and as those tend to be the elderly they might be very interested to know what is know about possible effect on cancer mortality. Compare it with similar sections in the statins article. Richiez (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw the note at WT:MED. I support keeping a very condensed version of it, something like "Aspirin has been suggested as a way to prevent cataracts,[1][2] improve liver function,[3] and..."
My reasoning is this: it will interest some readers, providing information about research areas can be encyclopedic, and it will contain all the spam in one place, which can then be monitored. On that last point, if we don't have a section like this, then well-meaning, enthusiastic patients are likely to add rather inflated versions, but if we mention (however briefly) their particular area of interest, they'll be less likely to spam the article. On average, therefore, I believe that a brief mention will benefit the article. (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
After reviewing this section it appears that my late-night removal of the section (after checking all the refs and finding only primary sources) was perhaps ill-advised, and almost certainly not consensus-based. At the same time, I feel like "other uses" might be a big enough target for this kind of spammy edit, that it could serve the same purpose? It doesn't appear as though there is a lot of edit traffic in that section, either, and many of the studies were dated. Would certainly be open to reverting my removal of the section, just not sure how to cut it down enough to be consistent with the rest of the increasingly-succinct-and-MEDRS-compliant medical uses section -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Did you happen to notice that all but one of those sources were primary, and thus non-MEDRS? I made a note of a few of the mentioned topics in that section and will work on inserting references to those which have review papers or meta-analyses. This will mostly be about different cancers, so I don't know that resurrecting the section would be particularly useful either -- seems like they would be more appropriate in the colorectal cancer section, and make that about cancer more broadly.
I am wary of trying to chase down every review paper or meta-analysis on every use anyone has suggested aspirin would be useful for. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
this edit - just for the record. I would like to have a list of things that have ever been investigated at some point. Richiez (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
One could put a condensed section as recommended by WAID in a section called "Research" at the end. People do publish reviews on what research is taking place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Reference 142 (Jeffreys, Diarmuid. Aspirin: The Remarkable Story of a Wonder Drug) is referenced several times with different page ranges. The later references do not include the full reference data. It would be better to place the full textbook information in a "Bibliography" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "It has also been established that low doses of aspirin may be given immediately after a heart attack to reduce the risk of another heart attack or of the death of cardiac tissue." Use of the word "may" here is too vague. The use of aspirin in this context has very strong evidence, with correspondingly strong professional guidelines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In the lead section, paragraph 5, the names "NSAIDs" and "salicylates" seem to be conflated. Is "salicylates" a synonym for "NSAIDs"? The "NSAID" article gives us the answer. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, this paragraph could be probably reduced to a half sentence that would be merged further up - something of the kind "Aspirin belongs to the group of NSAIDs but has several unique properties within this group". Overall it looks like the overview has too much detail and too little of an overview. Richiez (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

macular degeneration

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2265982/OLDER-people-taking-aspirin-double-risk-eye-disease-cause-blindness-say-researchers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.95.229 (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Aspirin/Archive_2"