Talk:Etanercept

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alzheimer Cure

This article in Science Daily is making the way around Digg and the like this mornining, saying that Alzheimer patients showed marked improvments within minutes of being administered Etanercept Elohim (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some references: Tobinick E. "Perispinal etanercept for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease." Curr Alzheimer Res 2007 Dec; 4(5):550-2.

Tobinick EL, Gross H. "Rapid cognitive improvement in Alzheimer’s disease following perispinal etanercept administration." J Neuroinflammation 2008 Jan 9; 5(1):2.

Tobinick E, Gross H, Weinberger A, et al. "TNF-alpha Modulation for Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease: A 6-Month Pilot Study." MedGenMed 2006; 8(2):25.

Wang, Yue (NIH/NIA). presentation P4-266 at ICAD 2008, "Modification of synaptic plasticity by TNF and sphingomyelinase: Implications for cognitive impairment in AD" Contact e-mail: wangyu@grc.nia.nih.gov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.94 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drug cost

how much is this drug cost? (please sign next time)

The current price, considered by many insurances in almost every country as an Rx drug, is about $3000 per month. Maybe less, and insurance may apply. As any other TNF-alpha receptor is expensive. Sensei 09:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My insurance is billed $300 per syringe, which brings it to $1200 per month.--JungleAnn (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mine costs approx £80 a dose, and I have two a week, so that would be £640 a month ($1200 or so). 138.251.230.65 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etanercept updates

Etanercept is available in 50 mg pre-mixed syringes and a pen-type delivery system called SureClick. The normal dosage (50 mg/week) costs about $1500 per month and is covered by major insurers for rheumatoid arthritis after a patient has failed methotrexate (not hard to do).

The side-effects are about commensurate with methotrexate which is very widely prescribed. The lymphoma data hasn't borne out - people with RA get lymphoma more anyway.

This is a very safe, very effective medicine that is being withheld from a lot of people because of cost. Sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LydiaHawk (talk • contribs)

You are very, very mistaken. It is very dangerous as it suppresses the immune system and if you start to experience problems, ceasing to take it won't revive the immune system as it is in your system and takes substantial time (several weeks) to return. This assumes that you don't have an infection...if you do, you are in big trouble. The side-effects are nothing like methotrexate.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I Used Enbrel together with Methotrexate for a while. This drug should not be taken lightly. It works wonderfully,don't get me wrong, but I am a living example of how dangerous it can be. Aside from getting more than a dozen different side effects, my immune system got broken down to a point where I nearly died from infections and necrosis in my stomach that my body wasn't able to fight off. I might be one of the unlucky ones, sure, but you still shouldn't feed people idea that it's being "kept" from them without a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.97.91 (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Weight(?)

The text lists the M.W. as 150 kD, like most antibodies, but lists it as ca. 51kD on the stats below the chemical structure. Either changes or explanation are needed.

Dehughes (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too think the molecular weight listed in the summary box is incorrect. There are several scientific publications which indicate the molecular weight to be ~150 Kd. Cbr 600 (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side effect

What are the possible common side effects for short term use and long term use? Is there a study indicating percentage of patients getting various side effects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prmody (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behcet's syndrom

My wife is being treated with Etanercept for off-lable use to treat inflammation related to Behcet's syndrom. I'd highly appreciate if anyone can write their own experience in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prmody (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I deleted a big chunk of the "Safety" section. To start, it is inaccurate to say all TNF inhibitors are immunosupressant. Bupropion, for example, is a TNF inhibitor but not immunosupressant. All the current TNF alpha inhibitors may be immunosupressant, but because TNF alpha has other roles besides inducing IL synthesis, it seems misleading to characterize all of them as immunosupressants. Perhaps more significantly, I can't find any corroboration of the notion in the citation. As for the rest of it, again, couldn't find it in the citation. It appeared to be talking about TNF alpha inhibitors currently on the market. If someone wants to do a compare/contrast of Etanercept to other similar drugs on the market, set up another section to do it; it didn't make sense to have it in the safety section. I copy pasted some key safety information from the source provided. Cgill1138 (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of Stroke using Etanercept

My husband had a stroke 3 years ago. He was left with left sided paralysis of his left arm and weakness in his left leg. While searching the web, he found information on treatment of stroke using Etanercept at the Institution for Neurological Recovery. Their testimonials are impressive, but I am skeptical of the results. Has anyone heard of this treatment ? Baysidenj (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extension of the patent until 2028 and the existence of these testimonials, I would expect one or more of these 150 additioanl clinical trials would surely address possible application to stroke patients if the idea had any possible merit. I would ask this institute what clinical trials are on-going.

You may also want to check the status of any complaints and/or state disciplinary actions against any doctors associated with this institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.113.252 (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Trial for Treatment of Stroke Symptoms

I'm aware of the controversy surrounding use of this drug for stroke treatment. However, a clinical trial was performed in Australia from 2019-2020 and I think it's worth mentioning in the article. I don't have a better source than the Griffith University announcement from February 2020. If I can find time, I'll see what else I can dig up. I'd like to know how other Wikipedians feel about updating the article on this topic. The article's information seems a bit stale.Michael Martinez (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's not "controversial", it's acknowledged quackery. And we mention it already. on the other hand, anything about actual medical application here would need good WP:MEDRS, not more Tobinick stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
University clinical trials don't normally fall into the category of "quackery" and I believe they're worth noting if completed. Also, I don't see any mention of the clinical trial in the article.Michael Martinez (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the study paper here. I can't do anything about the fact that Tobinick is mentioned as a consultant, but this study post-dates other information in the Wikipedia article and should be considered on its own merits, not on the basis whatever criticisms were directed at Dr. Tobinick's solo use of the drug 7-8 years prior. Taylor and Francis have a pretty good reputation in the scientific world.Michael Martinez (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not any "trials" that are quackery necessarily, it's the selling of unevidenced treatments. There is no reason to mention some poor-quality trial, particularly if it lends credence to quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Poor-quality trial"? I think your personal view of Tobinick's prior work may be unduly influencing your judgment of the trial. Taylor and Francis don't exactly publish "poor-quality trial" papers. However, I'll leave it here until such time as someone else with better background in these matters than you or I cares to comment. Thank you for looking into it nonetheless.Michael Martinez (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no personal view, but Tobinick's history is well documented. A 26 person clinical trial falls way below the WP:MEDRS standard; we need much better sources for any claims in this space. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about Tobinick's work. But the research is notable in that it happened and was accepted in a notable peer-reviewed journal. I'm not proposing the article be amended to promote Tobinick's claims; just that the history of the research be mentioned. Honestly, there's other recent research around this drug that has nothing to do with stroke treatment. It's apparently being investigated for many potential therapeutic uses. The entire article seems to be clouded by one episode of unverified claims. I hope someone can update the article with more recent information.Michael Martinez (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Research "happening" is routine, not notable: there are dozens of etanercept trials underway right now across a variety of potential applications.[1] I don't know how you can see the "entire article is clouded" when Tobinick gets but a tiny mention. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rather short article. The summary is the longest portion. And most of the information is quite old. It's obvious the article hasn't received much attention beyond people doing minor edits for several years. So, perhaps because I was thinking about the clinical study the stroke-based research is foremost in my mind. But we can leave it here. Again, thank you for taking the time to look into it and discuss with me. There is no consensus here. No need for any immediate changes.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Etanercept. 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:

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) 01:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Etanercept"