Talk:Ketotifen

2nd generation?

Is it really second generation? That would imply its non-sedating, but a lot of people report it is sedating. Danski14^(talk) 17:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I addressed this issue, thank you! See the updated article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hanks v. Hubbard

Can you please review the section Ketotifen#Hanks v. Hubbard, whether the case was presented correctly? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ketotifen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BeingObjective (talk · contribs) 19:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

BeingObjective (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Very inconsistent.

1. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

2. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

3. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The article lacks balance and exhibits a perplexing tone. While I acknowledge the necessity of referencing other articles in more technical sections, maintaining a delicate equilibrium is crucial. The article's heavy reliance on internal links for clarification creates a challenging reading experience.

Simplifying the language in these sections with more accessible explanations would alleviate this issue. Rather than consistently redirecting the reader to other articles, a few explanatory sentences could suffice to convey the intended concepts.

A specific instance highlighting broader stylistic concerns is evident in the following passage:

"Some studies classify ketotifen as a first-generation antihistamine,[8][9][10] but others classify it as a second-generation antihistamine.[11][12]"

This discussion could have been articulated more simply, considering it appears twice in the article. This prompts a stylistic query about the necessity of dwelling extensively on this specific point.

BeingObjective (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my article on ketotifen and providing your valuable comments and suggestions. I appreciate your expertise and insights on this topic.

I understand your concerns about the balance and tone of the article, and I agree that some sections could be simplified and clarified for the general audience. However, I also want to ensure that the article does not omit or distort any important information or sources relevant to the topic.

One of the main issues that you raised was the classification of ketotifen as a first- or second-generation antihistamine. You suggested that this discussion could have been articulated more simply and that repeating it twice in the article was unnecessary. However, I would like to explain my rationale for writing the article the way I did and ask for your opinion and guidance on how to improve it.

The classification of ketotifen is not a trivial matter, as it has implications for its pharmacology, efficacy, and side effects. Therefore, I think it is important to provide some background information on the criteria and the differences between the generations of antihistamines and to cite several sources that support the classification of ketotifen as either a first- or second-generation antihistamine, depending on the context and the definition used. I created a separate section on the classification of antihistamines, where I explained these concepts in more detail. I also used internal links to other articles that provide more information on the specific terms and concepts, such as H1 receptor, sedation, and blood-brain barrier. I think these links are helpful for readers who want to learn more about the topic, and they do not interfere with the flow of the article.

The reason why I mentioned the classification of ketotifen in the lead section as well as in the body of the article is because I followed the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which states that the lead section is an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the issue is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Therefore, I briefly mentioned the classification of ketotifen in the lead section, as it is one of the most important and controversial aspects of the topic. There is the "Classification" section of the body of the message, where the classification is discussed in more detail. This way of presenting important and controversial information is consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines for writing a good lead section. The editor should first introduce the reader to a problem discussed in the article and then, in the body, uncover the underlying details of that problem. I hope you understand my rationale for writing the article the way I did. I am open to constructive criticism and willing to make changes to the article if they are justified and supported by evidence. However, I also want to ensure that the article meets the standards of quality and accuracy that Wikipedia expects from its contributors.

I would appreciate it if you could provide some concrete examples of how you would rewrite the sections that you found problematic, such as the "Classification" section, for simplicity but preserving all the background information. How would you present the information in a way that satisfies the GA criteria and the readers' expectations? This example of the section you would provide would help me understand your perspective better and improve the article accordingly.

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to hearing from you and working with you to improve the article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Subject: Reassessment of Article History and Structure

Hey Max,

I hope this message finds you well. We've previously discussed the matter at hand in several conversations.

The page was initially created by Terrace4 on 30th July 2005 at 16:21, so nearly two-decade have past since its creation.

I approached the article objectively, akin to how I would assess work submitted by one of my students.

At the crux of my comments lies the notion that constructing this article entirely from scratch, free from external prior historical influences, might yield a substantially different better toned/balanced document. The comment suggesting that the 'article lacks balance and exhibits a perplexing tone' may stem from the incremental assembly process - perhaps.

I only looked at the document as is, as submitted - I have no clue what content was modified. It would be an interesting side study.

I reviewed this article - as presented and did not look at the origins, but the comment is relevant to how this document came to be.

While the iterative add approach can be effective in certain contexts, it poses a considerable challenge in articles like this one. The inclination to continually build upon inherited sections, headings, and content, which may no longer even be pertinent to the current landscape of medicine and pharmacology, is a noteworthy issue.

These perspectives are solely mine, and I acknowledge that other technical editors may perceive the article differently.

Best regards,

Cheers BeingObjective (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and your suggestions. I appreciate your perspective and your expertise on this topic. I understand that you think the article could be improved by rewriting it from scratch. However, I also believe that the article has some merits and follows the Wikipedia guidelines and policies for writing a good article, with some exceptions on the lead section that I should rewrite and split the body of the article into sections differently. The sections should be arranged in a new way to avoid MOS:OVERSECTION as suggested by AirshipJungleman29.

The article could benefit from some revisions and improvements, especially in simplifying the language and clarifying the concepts for the general audience. I am willing to work on that and make the necessary changes to the article.

One of your initial suggestions was to simplify the discussion on the classification of ketotifen as a first- or second-generation antihistamine. However, I think this discussion is important and relevant to the topic, and I presented it the way I did for a reason. The classification of ketotifen has implications for its pharmacology, efficacy, and side effects. I provided some background information on the criteria and the differences between the generations of antihistamines and cited several sources that support the classification of ketotifen. I also mentioned the classification of ketotifen in the lead section, as it is one of the topic's most essential and controversial aspects. I hope you understand my rationale for writing the article the way I did. I am open to constructive criticism and willing to make changes to the article. I would appreciate it if you could provide examples of how you would rewrite the sections you found problematic. How would you present the information in a way that satisfies the GA criteria and the readers' expectations? Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to hearing from you and working to improve the article.

One last question: do you intend to close the review or not? I would like to know the status of the article and the next steps to take. Do you intend to finish the review as described in Step 4 of the Reviewing process (WP:GAN/I#FAIL)? You wrote that the article failed the criteria, but you didn't update the status of the review. Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This review has been declared invalid, and the nomination returned to queue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Final point of clarity - and to me this is now irrelevant, as I have now a better understanding of such matters, but an broader important point.

I am now far more guarded in offering technical insight.

Targeting and taking older articles written often by - in this editor's humble opinion - folks who were indeed knowledgeable - and then nearly 20 years later refloating them into a GA status pipeline - is interesting, and curious, is it actually problematic - perhaps not, perhap so.

There never what a suggestion for a total from scratch redo. The pattern of taking things out of context is also in play.

I think for the formal record - this is an important consideration and I could go a lot further on this behavior and comment.

I do not think this a good article.

Clearly, I am soured on offering any future assistance on deeply technical content - and I did learn something about the dubious agendas I have seen - at least from a couple of editors - is GA status worth this angst, is it a good GA process, is it worth burning digital relationships - I am not sure.

Is the comment intentionally ambiguous - perhaps.

Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 18:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I improved the article according to your suggestions anyway. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Working on articles by many people is how Wikipedia works. You cannot "take ownership" on an article or rewrite it from scratch here, as it is against the spirit of Wikipedia; you cannot simply "discard" other people's contribution by writing an article from scratch that already existed. If an editor is interested in Ketotifen, that editor will present information regardless of whether such articles existed or not; the editors do not have to specifically search for topics for that the articles do not exist; your idea of creating a "new" article for a topic that does not exist is a no-go for Wikipedia, as described in [1]; please also consider that many people are here for which English is not a native language, so please be clear and use plain simple English, otherwise people may not understand you - this will save you from falsely accusing people in "pattern of taking things out of context". In my specific case I had to ask other people to explain me what you meant. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Review invalidated

This review is invalidated by the reviewer's request due to lack of time to complete the review:

• GA Review Discussion
• Reviewer's request to invalidate the reviews

--Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Missing citations

The lead in medical articles should have citations. Readers should not have to search for relevant text or relevant citations within the article. Please see discussions about citations at WT:MED, WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDCITE. -- Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The current rules do not mandate that the lead in medical articles must have citations, this is a duplicate discussion at Talk:Modafinil#Sources in the lede. You argument "Readers should not have to search for relevant text or relevant citations within the article" equally applies to all Wikipedia articles where the lead may have no reference. Even if the rules mention that medical articles may have higher citation density, they do not mandate it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Metabolized by cytochrome P450 enzymes?

I checked out the DrugBank page cited and the only section of its contents that suggests the involvement of CYP enzymes is the "Predicted ADMET Features" selection. I'm having trouble finding actual literature that corroborates this role for CYP enzymes in ketotifen's metabolism. Moreover, the aforementioned section of the site seems to only suggest, at most, that ketotifen is a CYP3A4 substrate and a CYP2D6 inhibitor rather than both a CYP3A4 and CYP2D6 substrate. Is there something I'm missing? Thank you. Berrrrrd (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I've added a reference to a review that support the claim that ketotifen is mainly metabolized by CYP3A4 and CYP2D6. I also added 3 secondary sources that claim that ketotifen, like other antihistamines, is metabolized is mainly metabolized by CYP3A4 and CYP2D6. Please let me know whether it is OK.

Are you willing to do a Good Article review for Ketotifen? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Please let me know whether this citation, PMID 23902458 makes sense, as well as the other citations that group ketotifen with other histamines in the discussion on how they are metabolized. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

So for sake of full disclosure, I'm not a pharmacologist, just a layman that happens to be on a rather high dose of ketotifen, and, as such, am rather interested in the interaction potential ketotifen could posses--particularly in the event it were a substrate of CYP2D6. It'd probably make sense for a pharmacologist to review this page rather than me. That said, I'm not seeing where PMID 23902458 specifically refers to ketotifen being metabolized by CYP. For citation 34 PMID 11764306, I do notice the selection that specifies ″At this time fexofenadine and ceterizine -- derived from hydroxyzine -- are the two antihistamines that are not metabolized by CYP (Simpson and Jarvis, 2000)″, though, it doesn't specify what ketotifen is metabolized by. For citation 35 PMID 23902458, ketotifen's subheading seems to be alongside various other medications where relevant CYP enzymes are specified, but ketotifen seems to be an exception in this regard. Citation 36 PMID 17357376 *does* specify ″As has also been extensively documented in other articles of this same issue, all the first generation antihistamines, and many of the second generation drugs (ketotifen, loratadine, ebastine, mizolastine, rupatadine), undergo total or partial liver metabolization through isoenzymes of the cytochrome P450 system (CYP3A4, CYP2D6).″ Citation 3 of that same paper PMID 15548781 seems to repeat the same claim (though characterizing ketotifen as a first generation antihistamine, rather than a second generation), but I can't seem to find papers that specifically review pharmacokinetics and make this claim. We seem to, at best, have this claim being made in passing in papers that are broader or have different focuses entirely. Again, a pharmacologist reviewing this article rather than a layman like me might be a good idea. Berrrrrd (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant PMID 17357376, not PMID 23902458. Indeed PMID 23902458 does not explicitly mentions ketotifen apart from the fact that it mentions it as an ophtalmic solution.

The article PMID 17357376 mentions: As has also been extensively documented in other articles of this same issue, all the first generation antihistamines, and many of the second generation drugs (ketotifen, loratadine, ebastine, mizolastine, rupatadine), undergo total or partial liver metabolization through isoenzymes of the cytochrome P450 system (CYP3A4, CYP2D6). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I only kept references to CYP3A4, and removed that to CYP2D6 because they were not explicitly specified for ketotifen. I put additional sources. Thank you again for pointing that out! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

Hello, @Femke, can you please help. My understanding is that citations in the lead are not mandatory if the lead repeats the claims made in the body of the article where such claims are properly sourced. This rule also applies for medical articles. I need your opinion because @Whywhenwhohow in the edit 1212823166|1212703519 mentioned that there are "no medical citations in the lead" and put a warning box, however, I intentionally didn't put medical references to the lead for it to be easier to understand. Don't you think that medical articles are no exception when there can be no references in the lead? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If you look at policy and guidelines, I'm unaware of anything that says we should have citations. Many features articles do not have them: lung cancer, dementia with Lewy bodies. Therefore, articles should not be tagged. That said, the leads of medical articles are often translated, which does make for an argument that lead citations are valuable in these articles. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Femke! I will use these links that you gave to FA as a reference, I will put them into the comments block. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I started a discussion at WT:MED#Citations --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ketotifen/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 15:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. I am not an expert on medical topics, so please bear with me. Fritzmann (message me) 15:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Review

Overall, the article does not seem to be ready for GA in its current state. In particular, there are issues with grammar and readability, verifiability and referencing, broadness and balance. The following list is not exhaustive, but includes some representative examples. For the article to become a GA, these issues would need to be fixed.

• Even from a cursory sweep, there are clear "medical citation needed" tags in several places, especially in the Pharmacology section.
• Many of the medical sources used are older than is desirable. WP:MEDRS states that reviews should be as close to within five years of the present day as possible. I see one from 1990, 2004, 1982 (!), 1992, and many others from the 1990s and 2000s. Most of the more recent sources are still a decade old as well. In general, these need to be updated as they are likely out of date.
• Page numbers for articles are not given. Most of the cited articles are ten or more pages long, with no specific page given for claims made in the wikipedia article. This makes it incredibly difficult for reviewers and readers to verify claims that are made, which is particularly important for medical articles. For the longer cited works especially, page numbers would benefit this article immensely.
• Several sections are woefully incomplete. In particular, the history, economics, and brand names sections leave much to be desired. For this article to be considered broad, those aspects would need to be fully fleshed out.
• There are many issues with commas in the article. Most often, a comma will be included where it is not necessary. This reduces readability.
• There are instances of strange or clunky sentence construction, such as with "There was a litigation related to ketotifen." In general, the article needs heavy copyediting.
• There are weasel words (like "It was hypothesized") in the article. These are not acceptable for medical articles on Wikipedia.
• Several complex subjects are missing wikilinks that would benefit the reader
• In general, the article is highly technical. I know it is a perennial complaint, but I deal with it myself on the biology GAs I write. Technical terms need to be described or reworded as much as possible without reducing accuracy. A pass-through that looks for any way to do that is very much needed

I will leave the review open and on hold to give the nominator time to respond. However, if drastic changes to the article are not forthcoming, it would be better to close this nomination and re-open it when the article is ready. I have watchlisted this page, and will respond to any questions as quick as I can! Please let me know if you need anything. Fritzmann (message me) 15:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ketotifen was patented in 1970 and came into medical use in 1976, it is quite an old medication and there is agreement among medical community on its properties that were extensively researched in its earlier years. Recently, there is little research on ketotifen. That's why some of the sources are dated back to 1980s. Your mention of WP:MEDRS requirement to use later studies suggests that if earlier research should be superseded by later ones only if later research exists (quote):

In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies

For ketotifen, some studies for 1980s, 1990s or 2000s have not been superseded, and it does not mean that they are obsolete or bad. I tried my best to find newer sources, but for certain claims newer sources do not exist, however, they were not falsified by newer studies.

Please let me know how you would have preferred:

1. Remove claims backed up by old sources, or
2. Keep the old sources if newer one do not exist, as they comply to WP:MEDRS.

As for your mentions of "medical citation needed", I immediately fixed them when you notified me of starting the review.

As for the statement that you found some sections "woefully" incomplete, I have to admit that, due to the specifics of ketotifen, which is not as widely used as drugs like aspirin, there might be limitations in the amount of information available, especially in the areas of history, economics, and brand names, therefore, your use of the word "woefully" does not seem to be appropriate unless you give solid reasoning. Could you please provide more specific guidance on what information you believe is missing or should be added to these sections? This would greatly help in improving the article. Also, if you could clarify your objections to these sections, it would be appreciated, as they currently seem to be general in nature, i.e. blanket objections.

Your other objections, on grammar and style, are more than reasonable. I can try to quickly resolve them, but I cannot quickly give page numbers for each of the source, as it is a tedious work and is not required by the rules or GA criteria: source checking for a selection of sources could have validated the claims would have been enough.

If you agree that the article could potentially pass GA with existing sources, considering their publication years, and their referencing without the page numbers, I can set all things aside and resolve the remaining issues in 2 days; otherwise, or if you wish to conclude the review sooner, I am OK if you conclude the review now as "did not pass", anyway, please consider replying to questions I've raised. Thank you for your time. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Maxim Masiutin, thanks for your reply. I am happy to perform a much closer review. However, the general critiques still stand, and it would make it much easier on me if they were addressed beforehand. In particular, it would be great the grammar and style aspects could be looked at. As for the incompleteness, several very clear questions are raised that should be answered:

• Who patented the drug? Who funded its development? Who developed it?
• Is ketotifen approved for medical use outside the United States and Canada? Why or why not, and where?
• "Zaditor" is given as one brand name. Where is it used? Who uses it? What other brand names are there? What do the brand names mean, and why were they chosen? What information is there on the brands themselves (i.e. who sells them)?
• Has anything occurred in the intervening two years since the last reference in the litigation section? This part is what made me question whether all the references in the article are the most recent possible, as something has to have happened with this case since February 2022.

Again, this is not exhaustive. It is illustrative to show that the article needs work before it is GA-eligible. In response to the MEDRS question: if newer sources absolutely do not exist, then keep the old sources. However, please check if newer ones exist wherever possible before I perform a thorough reference verification. Fritzmann (message me) 17:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, let me address the issues that you've mentioned, they are more than reasonable. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am now convinced that this article does not use the most recent reviews. An extremely quick check on google scholar yields a 2023 meta-analysis and review of the drug that is not even included in the article! In claims about using the drug against conjunctivitis, reports from 2014, 2013, and 2003 are used. Those are the kind of things I am talking about when referring to WP:MEDRS. Fritzmann (message me) 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will address these sourcing issues ASAP. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I addressed your observation about the brand name, and now I'm replacing older sources with the newer ones. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I am currently replacing older studies with newer ones. I also expanded the list of brand names. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The oldest sources were related to cases of overdose, I searched and found no newer studies, although I found re-publication of the same old cases, such as a 2014 publication of 1990s cases. I used the newer publications. I will finish with all the remaining sources over the weekend. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I checked each of the old sources, and removed both sources and text where the claims were not essential and there were no newer sources. Where the claims were essentials, I've kept the old sources when there were no newer sources. When there were newer sources, I replaced the older sources with the newer ones. Some of the old sources that are left were related to the overdose; there were no newer sources on overdose. Apart from that, most of the older sources had the same claims in the newer sources, so I was able to update. Therefore, I've finished with the new sources. I hope that I have addressed all your issues. The claim that the drops were effective against allergic conjunctivitis is a minor claim, I used the most recent source that you suggested, however, that source could not help in removing any other sources of the older sources, and that newest meta-analysis was very narrow in scope, it only sduedied whether the drug in the ophtalmic topical form was effective or not against allergic conjunctivitis; it didn't address important issues such as pharmacodymamics, mechanisms of action, etc. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

As for your question on whether something has happened with this case since February 2022, I thought that was obvious that nothing happened because in the United States federal court system, decisions of the United States Court of Appeals are final and nothing can happen since that as the case is considered closed. Theoretically, this decision of United States Court of Appeals can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. However, the Supreme Court has discretion over which cases it chooses to review, and it only agrees to hear a small fraction of the cases that are appealed to it. Unless we here something from the Supreme Court of the United States, we can reliably assume that nothing happened in this case. I thought that the phrase "which affirmed the district court's judgment" was conclusive. However, you wrote that "Has anything occurred in the intervening two years since the last reference in the litigation section? This part is what made me question whether all the references in the article are the most recent possible, as something has to have happened with this case since February 2022". Since you had this question, other readers may have the same question too.

After the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on 7 February 2022 in the case of Edward C. Hanks vs Ned Hubbard, the decision could potentially be contested further. The next step in the appeals process would typically be to petition the Supreme Court of the United States. However, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court has discretion over which cases it chooses to review, and it only agrees to hear a small fraction of the cases that are appealed to it.

Please let me emphasize a few points:

1. A party who loses in a federal court of appeals may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari", which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case, see https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals
2. The Supreme Court has the discretion to decide whether it should review a case under the Certiorari Act of 192534. This means that the Supreme Court is not required to hear a specific case on appeal. See https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about
3. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. This means that the Supreme Court grants about 2 percent of these petitions each year.
4. The Supreme Court of the United States maintains a docket system that contains information about cases, both pending and decided, that have been filed at the Court. Users can search for the docket in a particular case by using a Supreme Court docket number, a case name, or other words or numbers included on a docket report. I searched and didn't find anything related to Edward C. Hanks or Ned Hubbard in the docket search. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Maxim Masiutin, thanks for your diligence! I'm working through a full review now; it should be done sometime this weekend. Fritzmann (message me) 17:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me know how should I proceed with the "Litigation":

1. keep as is
2. delete the subsection
3. add explanation abut the supreme court
4. some other variant

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops, it seems that I overlooked the following of your observations: (1) Who patented the drug? Who funded its development? Who developed it? (2) Is ketotifen approved for medical use outside the United States and Canada? Why or why not, and where?

Let me address them in a couple of days. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I updated the article with this data today. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)