Talk:Emtricitabine/tenofovir

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Etinoco2021, Clopez0204, MillyZhao, AlanTranasaurus. Peer reviewers: HwangCP133, Ucsf123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group 25 proposed edits

Alan: The side effects can be incorporated into a table for easier viewing/scanning rather having them in two different places as it currently is. Similarly, precautions and contraindications are useful information that can be added so patients can recognize if they should not be taking this medication.

Elizabeth: It would be a great idea to formalize the inclusion of a “uses” section with the goal of encompassing all the uses for the combination, i.e. its use in PrEP, PEP, and as a backbone in antiretroviral therapy. As of now, the wikipedia page only includes its use as PrEP, but there is a lot of literature supporting the other uses.

Conrad: Update drug name, mechanism of action, reformat introductory paragraph to lay out objectives for article.

Milly: Provide more information on the safety and efficacy of this medication in pregnancy/lactation, as well as try to update cost information for 2016-2019. Make DDI section more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.255.139 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

CP 133 2019 Group 24 Peer Reviews

Part 1:

I think that the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding Framework.” The lead provided a framework for the rest of the article, and I knew what I could expect. The edits also had neutral content. There weren’t any incidences where it seemed like the authors were trying to make the reader think a certain way. The authors just provided facts to inform the reader from reputable sources, such as the package insert (for DDI chart). Lastly, I thought the edits were generally well structured. Specifically, I thought the drug interactions chart was very clear and easy to follow. However, I do think it was a little confusing at first glance when certain subsections such as “pregnancy” and “breastfeeding” were put under “medical uses.” I think it would be clearer if there was a “special population/considerations” section to incorporate this information. I also think it would be an easier read if a similar chart was provided for the side effects.

The group did achieve its overall goals because it reformatted the lead to reflect what the article was going to cover later on, provided more information on the usage of the medication in special populations such as pregnancy and lactation, and added a drug interactions chart that was clear and easy to follow.

Part 2: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. Firstly, like I mentioned previously, the authors gave a neutral point of view for the information they presented, and there weren’t any incidences where the author was trying to influence the reader. Secondly, I couldn’t guess what the author’s point of view was, whether they supported the use of the medication, or if they were against it. Lastly, the authors didn’t make any claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people. Specific organizations, such as the NIH, were specifically stated in the edits. Ucsf123 (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Part 1: I believe that Group 25's contributions have provided more information regarding patients who should be on pre-exposure prophylaxis and linked studies to support their edits as well as manufacturer information. Some studies could be further broken down into simplistic terms to appeal to the general public, but overall, great job also contributing to the grammatical errors even though they were ultimately deleted. Maybe a section on contraindications would be the next step.

Part 2: Their edits are properly referenced and do not have any source of plagiarism. Their sources are from manufacturers themselves or from highly credible sources such as the NIH, so that is not an issue. When it comes to edits regarding costs, side effects, and general information, there are only so many ways to say it without being too verbose, so they quite concise. --HwangCP133 (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Part 1: I agree that Group 25's contributions to this page have substantially improved the article about this medication. These edits are well-supported and were quite substantial, particularly in flushing out the drug-drug interaction table, information about birth defects, and monitoring parameters. I believe that they successfully achieved their goal of improvement.

Part 2: This group added citations that are easily accessible, for example, they added a citation to the xenical-orlistat page on Daily Med in the drug interaction table. When clicked, the link takes you to a freely accessible page that contains a secondary source with explicit information regarding the drug that interacts with Emtricitabine/tenofivir. () — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmmccann (talk • contribs) 23:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Part 1: I also agree with my groupmates that Group 25's contributions to this page have substantially improved the article about this medication. I like Alan's idea of incorporating all DDI information into one organized table; that way people can quickly scan for the ART that they've been prescribed and see which drugs they should be cautious about taking along with their ART if they are ever prescribed them in the future. I also support Conrad's idea to update the introduction section as it is currently choppy in structure with abrupt changes in topic. One area of improvement that Group 25 can look into is to further flesh out the studies that are introduced in the article by providing easy/simplified explanations of the findings so that even a lay-person can easily learn about and understand.

Part 2: Group 25's contributions have proper citations from reputable sources (e.g. manufacturer's written materials, NIH material). Overall I feel that the article presents the drug in a neutral point of view. I don't detect any plagiarism in their edits so I believe they've followed all of Wikipedia's guidelines so far. CTsui (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC) CTsui

References

Source requested

According to this document It seems it was developed (co-developed?) at the ? (Institute of Organic Chemistry and biochemistry) in Prague. Is there some more reliable source for this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirka6 (talk • contribs) March 7, 2007‎

Clarification requested

"62% fewer infections in those taking Truvada and a 73% reduction in those who took a combination of Truvada and the HIV drug tenofovir."

-Truvada is combination of two drugs, emtricitabine and tenofovir. The second half of the sentence says something about taking a combination of Truvada AND "tenofovir," but tenofovir is already a component of Truvada. Are they really talking about taking Truvada and a little extra tenofovir on the side, or could this have been a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arathur (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dangers

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/health/policy/taking-truvada-to-prevent-hiv-also-comes-with-risks.html

Although Truvada alone can prevent an H.I.V. infection, it cannot control one that has already taken hold. If an H.I.V.-positive patient were to take Truvada alone, or if a user were to become infected while taking it, the H.I.V. strains they carry could become drug-resistant. The infection would be hard to treat, and it could spread to other people.

To prevent drug resistance, people who want to use Truvada for prevention first would have to make sure they were H.I.V.-negative and then be retested regularly, every few months, because it is possible, though unlikely, to become infected while taking the drug. But experts testifying before the panel on Thursday acknowledged that there is no way to ensure that people taking the drug receive frequent H.I.V. tests.

Then there is the question of adherence. Skipping doses or using Truvada on occasion, as if it were a party drug, would invite both infection and the emergence of drug-resistant strains. But research shows that people are not good at sticking to the required daily regimen. In one major study, only 10 percent of the participants took Truvada as directed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.219.111 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What helps prevent infection?

Hey, can anyobody tell us how this pill works? What does it do in the body in order to achieve its goal ... ++--84.73.123.149 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)--++

Article talk pages are intended for discussion on how to improve the article, not discussion about the article's topic. I would recommend you look up the constituent drugs, tenofovir and emtricitabine, and see how they work. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Somebody needs to improve this article by telling how this pill works. What does it do in the body in order to achieve its goal? Verdana♥Bold 05:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Successes, controversies & "Truvada whores"

This article should reflect the remarkable success of Truvada in HIV prophylaxis, and the fact that a certain number of gay men (denounced as "Truvada whores") are using Truvada instead of condoms. See this article in the NY Times. "Are We Ready for H.I.V.’s Sexual Revolution?" - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/opinion/sunday/ready-for-hivs-sexual-revolution.html. (If I had time, I'd add something like this to the article - but I don't have time at the moment.) Omc (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Similar more recent stories worth incorporating would be: this and this. These and others are linked in the pre-exposure prophylaxis article. Snori (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes

User:Clopez0204

Complete generic name is in the infobox. Lead is the name of the article / common name. WHO uses the shorter name.

There are other brand names so not sure why "among others" was removed.

We do not write in all caps and prior wording was simpler.

WHO discusses its use alone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)