Talk:Ifosfamide

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

== Amide vs. amine ==

There are (at least) three Wikipedia articles about related substances:
ifosfamide
trofosfamide
cyclophosphamide
The systematic names given in the articles are as follows:
ifosfamide = N-3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1,3,2-oxazaphosphinan-2-AMIDE-2-oxide
trofosfamide = N,N,3-tris(2-chloroethyl)-1,3,2-oxazaphosphinan-2-AMIDE 2-oxide
cyclophosphamide = N,N-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1,3,2-oxazaphosphinan-2-AMINE 2-oxide
(capitalization added for emphasis). The question here is why ifosfamide and trofosfamide are considered "amides" while cyclophosphamide is considered an "amine". None of these substances has the characteristic CONH2 group. Either they are all amines or they are all amides. Which one is correct? Thomas.Hedden (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More on systematic name

The systematic name of ifosfamide is given as:
N-3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1,3,2-oxazaphosphinan-2-amide-2-oxide
Aside from the question of whether this should be considered an amide or an amine, shouldn't this be:
N,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1,3,2-oxazaphosphinan-2-amide-2-oxide
That is, shouldn't there be a COMMA between the initial "N" and the "3" rather than a hyphen? Thomas.Hedden (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"meanwell criteria"?

A Google search of this term yields only mirrors of this article. Can anyone elaborate about this? -- megA (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwell was the researcher who wrote quite extensively in the 1980s about ifosfamide in various diseases; some of his papers discuss neurotoxicity (e.g. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)90054-9 and doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(85)91432-1). I can't currently find the paper where his toxicity criteria are outlined, but I'm pretty sure that this is the reason why the criteria bear his name. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -- megA (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ifosfamide. 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) 15:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ifosfamide MoA is not (directly) supported by reference #2

ifosfamide MoA is not support by reference #2 primarily; i.e., ref #2 cited 160+ references, one of which may support the MoA described. Further, the mechanism described is quite vague.

Thus, since ifosfamide is a prodrug for/of cyclophosphamide, I suggest merging with the cyclophosphamide wikpedia entry or linking to it and using the references cited in the cyclophosphamide entry to support additions to the ifosfamide entry's MoA subsection: Cyclophosphamide, and I suggest, as well, pulling refs from the wiki entry for the drug class itself. Riviello.michael (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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