Talk:Metoprolol

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

antianginals

Does { { antianginals } } actually do something or can it be removed from the page? --WS 05:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

The article lumps together metoprolol tartrate with succinate. The general pharmokinetics are similar, but not exactly the same. A distinction should be made. --Tarcieri 19:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It currently says that Toprol XL is "metoprolol succinate, the sustained release formulation". Does this mean that the succinate salt is inherently longer-lasting (like polistirex or something), or is the sustained release mechanical, like most? The tablets are splittable, I believe... --Galaxiaad 03:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding indication in vasovagal syncope, the source points that metoprolol is not effective than conventional treatment in prevention-prophylaxis and no info is given about FDA status. It's more politically correct to remove vasovagal syncope from indications list, until at least some more scientific and legal ground is found for that matter. It may say "found as effective as conventional treatment in one article", but for "indication", isn't it right to wait for more publications and legal assurance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.141.130 (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that source succinate salts are indicated from given FDA status. The general info re: treatment would be conventional, for prevention-prophylaxis (which is similar, but inherantly mechanical.) Publications regarding vasovagal synocope points to sustained tetoprolol tartrate indications (or such synoscopes indicate removal of the status of Toprol XL); therefore, effective pharmokeinetic assurances must be splittable? Please comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.210.75 (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; this is specious. Sustained-release formulations regarding "publications and legal assurance" aren't right to point to metoprolol as an autosigned preceding contribution. It's more likely that the consensus regarding syncope assurance can be deemed legal on the grounds of effective indicative removals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.210.75 (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of generic names

why remove the various generic names of the drug? i think it's useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drues (talk • contribs) 03:45, 21 July 2006

Because they are, except in rare cases, not WP:Notable (they have not developed the drug, undertaken any of teh original research into the underlying condition for which it is used & so treated, pushed & marketed for its use). Generics are presecribed by the INN (or USAN) name, not the generic name (otherwise this would be brand-prescribing) and so it is of little consequence which brand the patient finds their local pharamcy has decided to stock with (specifying brands for antiepileptic medication, slow-release isodorbide mono- or di- nitrates, lithium and a few others are truely not bio-equivalent). David Ruben Talk 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is not relevant to the inclusion vs exclusion of generic names, I would note, this pharma household, with one each on the discovery and clinical sides, regularly checks generic provider information for FDA warning letters, and other indications that the chosen generic provider is not fully trustworthy. That is to say, this informed household disagrees with the statement above, "it is of little consequence which brand the patient finds their local pharamcy has decided to stock". A careful look sometimes clearly indicates otherwise. 2601:240:CD08:7E53:F835:D486:4EB3:C118 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Mr. Ruben. I think including generic producers of the drug are entirely within the confines of wikipedia's goal: information disemination. This file is not complete without the information.

I STRONGLY state that it is part of WP goal to display generic names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PADRAEG (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I STRONGLY disagree with removing or omitting generic names. First the notability guidelines are there to assist editors in deciding if a topic deserves its own article. It's NOT a test for the information contained in a valid article. Secondly, I take multiple prescriptions and physicians use the generic names interchangeably with the brand names. With many of my medications I am totally unfamiliar with the brand name, Lopressor being an example. I have called it Metoprolol Succinate and Metoprolol Tartrate for over 20 years. The name Lopressor has never appeared on any prescription I have been given by the Veteran's Administration.I won't argue that generic names are notable but there is no doubt that they are highly useful and factual.Mensch (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patent expired?

Should this be mentioned?

Patent information is historical and should be reported in my opinion. 192.147.67.12 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TOPROL-XL U.S. patents are due to expire in September of 2007.

external link here: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-30-2005/0004135907&EDATE=


Agreed. should always mension history and when will the drug expire. That is important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.233.254 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source of Side Effect information

Reference 2 is "^ a b Canadian Online Pharmacy website: Metoprolol" and links to http://minitdrugs.com/quick_search.jsp?criteria=metoprolol. Three problems here. (1) Linking to a Canadian Online Pharmacy website sounds like spam. (2) The site minitdrugs.com no longer exists. (3) The text matches verbatim what other pharmacy sites say about this drug, which raises copyright questions.

Ok then on maintaining sinus rhythm

The reference wasn't the best on my initial entry, but here again from a paper by JAAC. Unless somebody believes that's a an unreliable source...(Osterluzei (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Dosages

I once took 50Mg per day and now 25. After reading the side affects I'd like to go lower. It would be good to know what's available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.153.52 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse Effects

I am removing ataxia from the adverse effects section. I take metoprolol and have developed ataxia so I am personally motivated to find a link. After reviewing medical journals and scholarly papers I can't find any indication of a link between the two except very weak anecdotal information. In fact there are papers discussing the use of metoprolol in treating tremors and thereby improving some ataxias. Normally I would place a Citation Needed notice up but I feel the information is so incorrect that it needs immediate editing. I truly hope someone can replace it with a verifiable WP:V citation.Mensch (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Society of Health-System Pharmacists

As a source is perfectly fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dutoprol" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dutoprol has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 11 § Dutoprol until a consensus is reached. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 16:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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