Talk:Buprenorphine/naloxone

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Doc4Man. Peer reviewers: DOtter.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dschaefer5326.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse effects

This section is very short. We should use some info from Suboxone Side Effects withdrawal info Withdrawal of suboxone] --77.243.183.85 (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edits

1) Supplement current sections with more detailed information from sources such as Lexicomp and UpToDate 2) Add another paragraph in the "Dependence and Withdrawal" section summarizing current issues regarding Suboxone insurance coverage 3) Summarize current policies that may affect patient access to Suboxone 4) Summarize potential impact of current policies on the population affected by opioid dependence Jenih (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Peer Review: Question 1: Most of the edits were mainly on buprenorphine/naloxone mode of action, contraindication, common side effects, and dependence. The edits seems to be from common medical knowledge regarding the drug. Also, the sections edited do not leave room for a non-neural point of view. So overall, The edits made be the group reflect a neutral point of view. Georgerommel (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2: The mechanism of action detailed in the second paragraph has no source. Sources 6 and 7 is from Lexicomp, a secondary source that requires a login and is not freely accessible. I believe the same goes for Micromedex (Source 8). All other edits are verifiable with cited secondary sources. --CLee1025 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Thank you for your suggestion, the sources and citations have been fixed. Llzhao (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3: The edits are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles. A good example of this is listing side effects from most to least common. The explanations are clear with limited jargon to make the information accessible. Mmt523 (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uptodate and Lexicomp are not very good as there is not a static version that can be easily linked to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question 4: I do not really see major plagiarism or copy right violation. However, the introduction paragraph where it talks about mechanism action of buprenorphine binding to mu-opioid receptor need to site the source. Jungykye (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Thank you for the feedback, that will be revised to add the citation. Jenih (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Peer Review: Approval for this drug in the European Union is discussed in the lead section, but nowhere else in the article is the European Union mentioned. The mention in the lead section should be deleted, or more information regarding buprenorphine/naloxone in the EU should be added within the article.--Buttsl3 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Edits

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I'm a medical student at the University of California at San Francisco who will be editing this page over the next few weeks! I hope to take this Start-level article and make it as great as possible, as I feel this is an important page in the current medical climate. Briefly, I plan to carry out the following changes:

1. Restructure the overall article according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines for medicine and pharma related pages (as seen at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Content_sections), including:

  • Medical uses*
  • Contraindications
  • Side effects
  • Overdose*
  • Interactions
  • Pharmacology - Mechanism of action or Pharmacodynamics/Pharmacokinetics*
  • Chemistry*
  • Manufacturing
  • History*
  • Society and culture
  • Research*
  • Veterinary use

With particular focus on the starred sections (small or missing), as I feel it currently has a bit of unbalance focused on adverse effects.

2. Expand the lead section to include important info that is missing, i.e. to summarize the key points of the whole article while maintaining a simple readability. This will likely progress over the weeks along with the article. I also hope to simplify/move some of the more technical details currently in the lead to a more appropriate section in the article.

3. Add pictures and graphics that may help explain or add some life to the article!

4. Appreciate and incorporate any feedback that comes along.

Happy editing! Doc4Man (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UCSF PEER REVIEW FEEDBACK

Another UCSF 4th year medical student here who peer-reviewed the work of Doc4Man

Highlights: It's great! I like the comparison to Methadone in the first paragraph. Both the medical use and mechanism of action sections are very good! Clear and thorough language used but so very understandable. I love the paragraph about when Buprenorphine should be used over methadone and the explanation of how the combo works as a deterrent. Very helpful.

Constructive Thoughts: The first paragraph of the MOA section is heavy on science terms. Obviously, this is hard to change but you could include a sentence or two explaining the receptors. Not sure if that is necessary though. The buprenorphine page has a good chart about the pharmacodynamics that you could use as well. In some of the other pharm pages, they have two separate sections pharmacokinetics and dynamics. Something you could consider.

  • Great, thanks! I tried to add a quick simpler intro to that MOA section, as well as incorporate many of your stylistic changes recommended. And added a methadone comparison into the lead. Thanks for the feedback! Doc4Man (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Withdrawal

This section seems to be missing entirely. Has this been a casualty of a previous edit war? Any help appreciated thanks. Luke Kindred (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this! I added a link to Opioid withdrawal. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prices

If high quality sources discuss prices that is noting "significance of the pricing" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you are missing my point/ Who are we including this information for and why? I have already cited, at length, the unreliability of the data. There are many volumes filled with medical sources which by general WP policy are considered reliable and high-quality, and yet are explicitly avoided in medical-topic articles. In fact, i'm pretty sure you are the one who drafted such policies sir. Luke Kindred (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See User_talk:Doc_James#Prices_for_medications
This looks like hand-waving at best. We've been over this, and repetition just makes walls of text. You don't overturn policy and your own RfC this way. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Prices "Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
let me repeat......Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products, put another way, its simply more information given to our readers...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, hand-waving. This is not productive. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The drastic price differences is extremely important. QuackGuru (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A citation is necessary that meets WP:NOT#Sales criteria. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Access in the United States

RE: access of suboxone "The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) allows qualified doctors to prescribe opioid medications to treat addiction. Suboxone...was approved as an opioid addiction treatment drug to be prescribed by qualified doctors, but only after meeting certain restrictions put in place by the Act. As a result, Suboxone can only be prescribed by a Suboxone doctor, a physician who has completed training and met the certification requirements for this privilege, and the Act caps the number of patients that doctor can treat with buprenorphine to 30 for the first year after completing certification. Thereafter, they can prescribe buprenorphine to 100 patients, unless they have applied to increase that limit to 275 under the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006, a modification to DATA 2000." <ref</ref>drugabuse.com A serious problem with prescribing Suboxone is the lack of authorized doctors. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).SAMSA.gov/Apply for a Practitioner Waiver Befofsf (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)befofsf[reply]

Answer

How many do it take to get off pain pills 2603:6010:C000:D083:C43D:BF74:2C4F:553E (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combo Psychiatric Drug - I am not sure???

Noted this change - I get the tone - but I prescribe it a lot for pain general management when folks (many) end up misusing the trad. stuff - MS/Oxy/Vic-hydro-acetaminophen and the like - I also move to transderm delivery - just my IMHO.


But - I'm not totally reg. by FDA directives - well officially though.


Cheers Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Buprenorphine/naloxone"