Talk:Ciclosporin

Cyclosporine to Ciclosporin move

This is a good page, is there any objection to moving it to the INN ciclosporin and having cyclosporine redirect there?

Let "ciclosporin" redirect to cyclosporine which is the compounds real name. Cacycle 21:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs naming policy, I propose we move this page to the INN ciclosporin. If you have any concern with this proposal, please discuss it on this page. Matt 23:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, use the INN, but add a prominent note that "cyclosporine" is the name that has been used in most scientific studies. Cacycle 11:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject drugs is badly out of sync with general MoS guidelines, which must take precedence. Cyclosporine is almost universally used both in the scientific literature and in the news/popular accounts. Naming the article anything else is perverse. Fawcett5 22:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Move - many other drugs whose names have changed from UK BAN to INN (eg the cephalosporins) have had their pages moved. Whatever the past pharmaceutical research literature might have been, its current common usage is as a medicinal drug used to treate humans and the INN terminology should surely apply ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As for previous point re using a compound's real name, no one is realistically going to move paracetamol across to 4-(Acetylamino)phenol (I trust)? David Ruben ^Talk 11:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. Researchers (and everyone else) ALMOST NEVER call it anything but Cyclosporine.... Cyclosporine is the name pretty much universally used for this compound even in the current scientific literature. Naming the article anything else is mistaken, and out of sync with MoS guidelines. DO NOT MOVE. Fawcett5 13:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, cyclosporines systematic name is: IUPAC:30-ethyl-33-[(E,1S,2R)-1-hydroxy-2-methyl-hex-4-enyl]-1,4,7,10,12,15,19,25,28-nonamethyl-6,9,18,24-tetrakis(2-methylpropyl)-3,21-dipropan-2-yl-1,4,7,10,13,16,19,22,25,28,31-undecazacyclotritriacontane-2,5,8,11,14,17,20,23,26,29,32-undecone

Not very useful as an article title, is it? 13:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is researchers & drug chemists are a tiny minority of those who universally use this substance. The number of research papers should not, I believe, be the deciding factor; and not at all with that IUPAC name :-). However many research papers there have been, wikipedia is not an indexing system for scientific research (P.S. PubMed hits cyclosporine 28,665 vs cyclosporin 27,604 so not that different). Cyclosporine exists not for the benefit of researchers, but for its medical use, and as such it is the WHO who determined its official International Nonproprietary Name. I am certain there are more prescriptions issued for this drug under that name, than the sum total of all research papers. Similarly the number of researchers is far outnumbered by the number "everyone else" i.e. doctors, pharamacists and patients handling prescriptions and then containers of the drug each day with the name 'Ciclosporin'. Other examples of wikipedia following INN is paracetamol (pubMed/google hits 10,947/2,580,000 vs tylenol 9,561/5,660,000 or acetomorphine 4,108/506). Likewise a drug almost universally originally known in the UK as 'DF118', is now mpore commonly known by the INN Dihydrocodeine. David Ruben ^Talk 15:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Move. See Drug-related articles: "Where a compound has a WHO International Nonproprietary Name (INN), this should be used as the article title.". This has been part of the Naming conventions (chemistry) Wikipedia Guideline since July 2005. Counting Google hits is a poor way of determining policy since US spelling/usage would then be universal. I'm very happy to let the WHO argue over the best name for international usage, rather than for us Wikipedia editors to fall out each time the issue is discussed. Colin°^Talk 16:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The Official Policy on Naming conventions is summarized "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists". Colin°^Talk 16:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I side with Fawcett5 on this issue, favoring "cyclosporine" over "ciclosporin," but perhaps this reflects an American bias. Andrew73 00:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Move My first thought was "what is ciclosporin?" If this is a European spelling thing and we have a policy to name based upon some international guidelines, it sounds like it should move. However, I've honestly never heard of ciclosporin! InvictaHOG 02:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Not European but Worldwide (as in WHO). INNs generally got rid of 'ph' for 'f' (hence cefalexin vs older cephalexin) and 'y' became 'i' (hence amoxicillin vs amoxycillin, aciclovir vs acyclovir). So Ciclosporin vs Cyclosporin should be apparent. (don't worry we too had great fun in UK learning bendroflumethiazide for bendrofluazide and furosemide for frusemide, but have been spared, for now, ephidrine for adrenaline) David Ruben ^Talk 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Move It would be good to standardise on INNs. And, possibly, it hadn't occurred to me until now that "cyclosporine" is the United States Adopted Name (USAN) – which probably explains its observed prevalence in (predominantly North American) journals as noted by Fawcett5 above. I'll also raise a counterpoint that "cyclosporine" is not used at all here in Australia, where "cyclosporin" is the Australian Approved Name and Neoral capsules are alternately labelled "cyclosporin" and "ciclosporin". -Techelf 03:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, in line with most other articles on medicines, standardised to INN names and so moved. Separate section on "Naming" is redundant as clearly now describes USAN and former BAN. David Ruben ^Talk 00:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest deletion from mode of action

Suggest removal of "It has also an effect on mitochondria. Cyclosporine A prevents the mitochondrial PT pore from opening and inhibits thus cytochrome c release, a potent apoptotic stimulation factor. However, this is not the primary mode of action for clinical use but rather an important effect for research on apoptosis." from the "mode of action" section. Reason given in last line of quote. --Username132 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm using this compound for research not directly related to what it is prescribed for as a drug. That paragraph was helpful. As it is, the article for cyclosporin, the chemical compound, is clearly wrapped up in this article for the drug. As such, this article should reflect more than just the mechanism of action of the drug as prescribed. 130.253.176.109 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Olive Oil as a solvent

During the initial investigation of it's possible use, one major issues facing its application was the lack of an effective solvent, that's until the accidental discovery by a Greek medical research student that it'd dissolve in olive oil. I find this most interesting but am uncertain of its encyclopaedic value. Should this be added to the article, and if so, where and how? Oosh (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Restasis

The most popular drug for Ciclosporin in the United States is Restasis.Mdriver1981 (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

/ˌsaɪklɵˈspɔərɨn/

What the hell is /ɵ/? In which dialect of English is it a phoneme, used in this position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.124.45.8 (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

IARC Group I Carcinogen

Somewhere in the main part of this article it should be noted that CYCLOSPORINE IS A KNOWN CARCINOGEN IN HUMANS.

References

98.246.50.76 (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving it back to cyclosporine

This should be cyclosporine of course (46,000 hits in ISI citation index; 153,000 Google books hits) . "Cyclosporin" is name of chemical compound. But drug makers misspell names of chemical compounds to name their drugs. Hence the "ciclosporin" (just like "neoral") (1,300 ISI hits; 20,000 Google books hits). It should be moved back. Biophys (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

May be moved back, not must. Since that 2006 move, Wikipedia has adopted a consensus-based naming guideline, part of the Manual of Style, according to which drug articles must be located at their INNs. According to WP:COMMON, this guideline outweighs the usual provision of "common names".

The INN—and, thus, the correct article title—is "ciclosporin". This has nothing to do with drug makers; INNs are meant for widespread adoption throughout the world and, therefore, usually do not contain letters not present in certain alphabets, such as "Y", "K", or the "PH" digraph. See the discussion above for other valid reasons why the article should remain at Ciclosporin. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide any links proving that it should be "ciclosporin" and not "cyclosporine" per INN? Google search shows it is actually "cyclosporine" per INN [1]. If you look at links in drugbox, it is "cyclosporine" everywhere: PubChem, DrugBank, CAS number, ChEMBL, etc. Besides, this is actually a natural product, not anything invented by man. Hence WP:Common name should prevail.Biophys (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I just checked again WP:Common name. It does not make any exceptions for naming of drugs. It tells: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Please note: in reliable sources. This is scientific literature. Please realize: INN is only one of such reliable sources. BTW, one could reasonably argue that DrugBank is just as good as INN, or even better as an easily and publicly available resource. Why do not we follow DrugBank nomenclature? I would not mind. Biophys (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Common_name#Explicit_conventions. WP:MEDMOS is one such explicit convention, where using names other than the most common name for some article titles has been discussed and determined, by consensus, to be the most helpful method.

INNs are determined, published and maintained by the World Health Organization (which makes them inherently "better" than DrugBank) and are specifically meant to avoid ambiguity and make things simpler. As their name implies, they are an international standard for drug naming (as the ICD-10 is for naming diseases, for instance).

There is no "DrugBank nomenclature" per se; DrugBank simply uses the names of drugs as provided by their manufacturers (probably the United States Adopted Names, which are used by the FDA, in most cases), as the "About" section of the website states.

Proof that "ciclosporin" is the INN can be found in any major pharmacotherapy textbook or dictionary of chemical compounds, such as Martindale: The complete drug reference and the British National Formulary. (I have my copies beside me: page 1822 of Martindale, 36th edition, and page xiii of BNF 57.) If you want an online-accessible resource, see this document from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency: [2].

By the way, "ciclosporin" is now the British Approved Name as well as the INN.

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We do not name articles per any organizations, British or international. We name articles per the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This is official policy. This particular organization took the most common and scientifically correct name (cyclosporine A), distorted it by replacing a couple of letters, and we suppose to use their name? "Ciclosporin synthetase"? That's ridiculous. Such name is never used in scientific literature (zero ISI hits). Biophys (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should stick with the INN nomenclature per Fv.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that we should stick with the INN nomenclature. The INN for this medicament is ciclosporin (see for example PMID 8369366 or PMID 15289793). Furthermore since ciclosporin is approved and prescribed as a drug in a large number of countries around the world, the INN per WP:MEDMOS takes precedence over how the compound is named in the scientific literature. In contrast, cyclosporin synthetase at the U.S. National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) is an enzyme that is rarely mentioned outside of scientific circles, therefore if we had an article about cyclosporin synthetase, it would be appropriate per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA to name the article as it is used in the scientific literature. Boghog (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that we should use ciclosporin. I live in Europe, and from my viewpoint this is definitely the WP:COMMONNAME. I only know the spelling with y from American sources on the internet. And these cross-continental differences are precisely the reason why WP:PHARM agreed on the International Nonproprietary Name. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We stick with the INN for the same reasons I gave in the last discussion (above), five years ago (gosh!) Colin°^Talk 08:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with all of you (WP:COMMONNAME is not about England or US; it is about all English-language RS), but consensus is clear. However, this particular name depends on the context (there is no such thing as "ciclosporin synthetase" in biological literature). Amazingly, DrugBank authors have no problem with selecting the most common name for every drug, but wikipedia has a problem. Biophys (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DrugBank says that they post the "Standard name of drug as provided by drug manufacturer", not the most common name. Since DrugBank is a Canadian outfit, the manufacturer will very likely provide the Canadian database with whatever name is accepted by the Canadian Therapeutic Products Directorate. In this case, a brief search shows that TPD chose the USAN name over the rINN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is what they claim. But I am not sure if they do it. In all cases I checked they are using the most common name, for example cyclosporine [3]. DS Wishart is actually an NMR person, so he is probably on the same side as me. Biophys (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor quality

I was about to translate this article into Chinese, but later I found out that it's written terribly...lol. Azathioprine, being also immunosuppressant, consisting of more than half "side effects", yet I only saw a few lines here (without even mentioning it's a IARC Group I Carcinogen). However, in fact cyclosporine has not much less adverse reactions than Azathioprine. Moreover, I don't think cyclosporine is THAT important on treating heart disease. It's only used experimentally so far, isn't it?--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

More information located at this link on cyclosporin A

Hey everyone,

There's a lot of information about Cyclosporin A located here, if anyone is interested - http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/roc12.pdf - I don't have much time so I only included the bit about prevention and rejection of bone marrow, liver etc... But if anyone wants to add more info, there's a lot here. --Activism1234 22:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

History

I have a correction and a reference for one of the needed citations in the beginning of the article but I am not firm with Wikipedia editing, so I will post it here:

"The cyclosporins were originally discovered in 1970 by workers at Sandoz Ltd. in Switzerland who were attempting to identify new antifungal agents."

Borel, J.F. 1982. The history of cyclo­sporin A and its significance. In Cyclosporin A: Proceedings of an International Conference on Cyclosporin A, ed. D.J.G. White, p. 5. New York: Elsevier Biomedical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.179.107 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Use With Hashimoto's Thyroiditis

I want to know why this hasn't considered for use with Hashimoto's Thyroiditis where one's own immune system gradually destroys one's thyroid making one dependent upon hormone replacement. Any replies to this question would be greatly appreciated.Godofredo29 (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Interactions? For example, Pycnogenol?

Anyone can find how much Pycnogenol is probably safe (mg)?

All I know pycnogenol does not do much Acutely. Build-up effect is needed for best benefits. http://examine.com/supplements/Pycnogenol/ http://examine.com/discussion/Pycnogenol/

---

http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-1019-pycnogenol.aspx?activeingredientid=1019&activeingredientname=pycnogenol Copy paste: Medications that decrease the immune system (Immunosuppressants) interacts with PYCNOGENOL

Pycnogenol seems to increase the immune system. By increasing the immune system pycnogenol might decrease the effectiveness of medications that decrease the immune system.

Some medications that decrease the immune system include azathioprine (Imuran), basiliximab (Simulect), cyclosporine (Neoral, Sandimmune), daclizumab (Zenapax), muromonab-CD3 (OKT3, Orthoclone OKT3), mycophenolate (CellCept), tacrolimus (FK506, Prograf), sirolimus (Rapamune), prednisone (Deltasone, Orasone), corticosteroids (glucocorticoids), and others.

ee1518 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Only two of our references use the spelling 'ciclosporin' ? ? ?

Of our 43 references, only two use the spelling 'ciclosporin.' And one of these is a multi-source reference which include three other references with the spelling cyclosporin.

In fact, our entire reference list is filled with spellings of both cyclosporin and Cyclosporine, and it's not always entirely consistent on the matter of capitalization. Do a control F for find and type in cyclo- and see what ends up highlighted.

I know we had this discussion before -- like ten years ago! -- but it sure seems like it's an affectation and we're trying to make some purist political point. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep this has been discussed pretty much to death. If you want to start a new move discussion please do so but please don't add further editorializing comments in the article. Reviewing the discussions above, I don't think there is much likelihood that a move discussion will succeed. I suggest you review the discussions as well. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup we go with INN. Similar to how just because the USA uses miles and has the largest publishing houses in the world does not mean the rest of the world cannot agree to go with metric. We are global and therefore use global standards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And of course, if we had an article about cyclosporin synthetase, per WP:COMMONAME, we would use the spelling cyclosporin and not ciclosporine. Boghog (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If ciclo- is the global standard, I'm all in favor of having it be the title of our article. I can only say that what was common in our references and what was not, really jumped out at me. And everyone, thank you and you're very welcome. Thank you for the nice compliments. Yes, I did make a good contribution by adding the alternate spelling cyclospirin. Again, I did this simply by paying attention to our references. And I'm glad we're all in favor of using common names. I just hope we're not making it analogous to the Royal Spanish Academy where we might pay lip service to common usage, but then at the end of the day elevate some kind of purist ideal standards. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"cyclosporin" versus "ciclosporin"

Ciclosporin is the official spelling. Thus while mention that it is also spelled "cyclosporin" in the lead sentence, after that IMO we should be using "ciclosporin". User:Boghog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

When discussing the natural product, it should be spelled cyclosporin. Boghog (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

What reference do you have for this? The ref uses "ciclosporin" for the natural product.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Try the first reference provided in Ciclosporin#Name. I can provide tons more. Boghog (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. But the four spellings are all used interchangeably (ciclosporin, cyclosporine, cyclosporin, and ciclosporine). There is nothing special about one over the over. It is not like you spell it one way and you mean the medication and you spell it another and you mean the natural product. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Common usage says otherwise. Boghog (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that says "ciclosporin" does not also mean the natural product? I have provided one above using it in the sense that it does. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The reference you cited above is a medical reference. Can you find a single example where "cyclosporin synthetase" is spelled "ciclosporin synthetase"? Cyclosporin synthetase is what produces the natural product. Boghog (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That is a name of something else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

That enzyme was named after the natural product. It is the same thing. Boghog (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay so this was spelled "cyclosporin". The enzyme is then named after the old spelling. The spelling for the substance is then officially changed to "ciclosporin" to fit with global nomenclature and no one bothers renaming the enzyme. Our policy is still to use the INN. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are ~some~ refs that "ciclosprin synthetase" - here. Many fewer than with the "y". It makes sense that biologists would have generally stuck with the original spelling in the the name for the protein; they never had to deal with INN/USAN etc. Interestingly the MESH term (for both natural product and drug) is "Cyclosporin" per MeSH 68016572. I don't know people in the field are super anal about it. Heck people sometimes still call the drug "cyclosporine A" like PMID 26759584. Not worth anybody getting tangled too fierce about either way i think. it is not like they are different things - then it would be. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is a guideline, not a policy and that guideline only applies to drugs, not natural products. The enzyme is named after the current spelling of the natural product. The natural product was originally spelled cyclosporin by German speaking scientists to denote that it contains a cyclic structure. This spelling is still used today. Boghog (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC) The official spelling only applies to the drug, not the substance. Why should biochemists be bound by the INN? Boghog (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

References

yah they are both used today. i grant you that ~generally~ people talking about the drug use the "i" and generally people talking about what-came-from-fungus with "y" but it isn't a high wall and again what is the point? I will grant you there is a big point if you are talking about the family - the cyclosporines. but if we are talking about cyclosporine A/ciclosporin i don't see why it matters, and you have given no reason why.... so please say -- why does it matter? Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I was objecting to the removal of mentioning that cyclosporine is a natural product from the lead. There are really two issues. The more important whether it should be mentioned that it is a natural product (obviously it should). The second issue is how it is spelled. Boghog (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Drugs.com uses Cyclosporine[5] but they are Americans and as we all know America still uses Miles.

The US gov and publishes however are prolific and such is why we see USAN often more popular than INNs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Ciclosporine is confusing to our English language readers because they are far more likely to see cyclosporine in other English languages sources. The analogy to the metric system is flawed. Many English speaking countries use the metric system, but the letter "y" has not been dropped from the English alphabet. Boghog (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not care if we have "Cyclosporin, also known as ciclosporin" and then use cyclosporin for the rest. As long as we are not implying that the two spellings mean different things.

We do use "paracetamol" even though "acetaminophen" is more common. This is a British / American spelling thing. As long as we are consistent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As the lead sentence, synonym section of the infobox, and the Ciclosporin#Name section make clear, there is little chance that readers will think that the two different spellings mean different things. Boghog (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As it stands currently I agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This entire discussion is depressing, and the same one took place on the French page. Ciclosporin is a spelling mistake that appeared in 1980, and got somehow propagated since. The name comes from the cyclic structure. We do not use bicicles as far as I know? The people deciding the "official" name did not know how to spell in English, and picked this form, which is really an absolute nonsense. However, despite the fact that one spelling is 1) correct, 2) the original one, 3) largely more used, WP decides to use another one. Not worse a fight, but a few tears of frustration perhaps. Nicolas Gambardella (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

References in 'History' are skimpy

We currently end our 'History' section:

"Ciclosporin was subsequently approved for use as a drug in 1983."

That is, with no references at all. I'm planning to include a Los Angeles Times article and an in-house source from Columbia University. This is not ideal. Admittedly, this is not a peer-reviewed source, but it's better than nothing. Work remains to be done. Although actually, I like having a range of different types of references.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Milestones in Cardiac Care, Los Angeles Times, Jill Gottesman, March 20, 1988.

' . . 1979: Experimental use of cyclosporine begins in the United States. It dramatically increases a recipient's ability to overcome rejection. (In 1983, it is accepted for use by the FDA.) . . '

Columbia University Medical Center, Dept. of Surgery, Cardiac Transplant Program, June 9, 1984 First Successful Pediatric Heart Transplant.

' . . . Columbia was one of only a few centers in the United States to begin trials of cyclosporine, the revolutionary immunosuppressant drug that was the first to successfully tamp down a body’s immune response to prevent organ rejection. It gained FDA approval at the end of 1983, . . . '

Completed, and another member has added a third source. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Kolata G (September 1983). "FDA speeds approval of cyclosporin". Science (New York, N.Y.). 221 (4617): 1273. doi:10.1126/science.221.4617.1273-a. PMID 17776314. On 2 September (1983), the Food and Drug Administration approved cyclosporin, a new drug that suppresses the immune system.

Drugs@FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products [Click on "Approval Date(s) and History . . . "], Drug Name(s): Sandimmune (Cyclosporine), Company: Novartis, Action Date: 11/14/1983, Action Type: Approval, Submission Classification: Type 1 - New Molecular Entity, Review Priority: Priority.

Notice the conflict in dates.

Corollary: There's no perfect source!

There's more work to be done, and we welcome your help. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can get your hands on it, the book The Billion Dollar Molecule by Barry Werth has a really great history of cicloporin in it. I have it and will try to dig that up. But if you never read it, it is a great read. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I like good stories well-told! And I'm assuming this book has a ton of endnotes, which is a good thing. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

---

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1875-9114.1991.tb02654.x/epdf?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=www.google.com&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED_NO_CUSTOMER

this source from Wiley is saying Nov. '83. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There may be a slight delay between announcement and official implementation of the approval. We are talking a difference of one month of an event that happened 34 years ago. Boghog (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually think the disagreement among references is a good thing. In a roundabout kind of way of course! It reminds us that we have to really work the references and strive to include a variety of references.

We Wikipedians probably spent too much time worrying about typesetting and the formality of the writing. I know I can fall into this. We probably spend two-thirds of our overall time on this part. And it probably should be reversed, two-thirds of the time on the references, and only one-third on the writing itself. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ciclosporin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308085834/http://www.world-of-fungi.org/Mostly_Medical/Harriet_Upton/Harriet_Upton.htm to http://www.world-of-fungi.org/Mostly_Medical/Harriet_Upton/Harriet_Upton.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Patent Attack and protection through Indian reservation.

"Restasis’s patents are under attack on two fronts, and moving the rights may shield them on one side. Last year, the drug -- which treats chronic dry eye -- brought in $1.49 billion in sales.

“I would expect it creates a playbook for other cases down the road both for us and for others,” Bob Bailey, Allergan’s chief legal officer, said of the agreement with the tribe."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-09/casinos-aren-t-enough-as-native-tribe-makes-deal-on-drug-patents

--Wikipietime (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal: from Optimmune

I propose that Optimmune be merged into Ciclosporin. There is not much information in the Optimmune, and it would be better explained in the context of the ciclosporin article in the "history" and other "veterinary use" sections. DferDaisy (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Veterinary use of ciclosporin

Also used for dogs with immune modulated hemolytic anemia 2600:1700:4E34:29A0:FD0E:5FE1:7982:98C8 (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)