Talk:Nevirapine

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adonia.eskandari, Stella.lee, Sh2018, Maradona 10. Peer reviewers: MCpollack, Sorooshaidun, Leslielai31, Devinerbay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing/adding plans from group 17 - student editors

1.Mechanism of action 2.Clinical use 3.DDIs 4.Toxicity (can go along with DDIs) 5.Adverse Reactions (can go along with DDIs) 6.Prevalence in clinical setting (possibly).

Possible sources: PubMed, Embase, package insert(s) and primary literature cited from drug-info websites such as Micromedex and Lexicomp. Sh2018 (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Comments

I'm deleting point (2), and its corresponding sentence. The pdf relates to NELFINAVIR, not NEVIRAPINE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.187.75 (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, who wrote this piece of trash, Martin Delaney?? 64.185.1.177 06:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been extensively rewritten--largely to add defensive posturing about the risks of all AIDS drugs, the ungroundedness of criticisms, etc., etc--by an IP address from Cornell's med school (User:140.251.12.9). This happened very shortly after a widely discussed article was published in Harper's Magazine documenting extensive controversy and claims of dishonest behaviour from within the medical community itself regarding the testing and use of Nevirapine. It's hard not to believe that it was in response to that. As it stands, it's not suited to an encyclopedia article. I'm going to cut out as much POV as I can and hope someone with more background can make it otherwise more objective. 136.142.21.210 06:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at the article's efficacy & safety data from as neutral a standpoint as I can manage. Espresso Addict 03:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Can this article be referenced with medical sources and not claims by non-specialists? As long as none of the claims can be attributed to medical journals I tend to call it gossip! Not even the FDA is used as source.Holland Nomen Nescio 03:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted some references to primary papers, as well as up-to-date treatment guidelines and package insert. I haven't found a direct reference for rejection in Canada. My inserted statement on salvage regimens is hard to reference, though I think it's broadly in accordance with the latest tx guidelines. Espresso Addict 03:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the verify tag as I feel the article is now reasonably fully referenced. Espresso Addict 03:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments 18 May 2006

I've rewritten large chunks of this page and provided a lot more information and academic references. The final section (Controversy in Africa) could do with some more work; I'd suggest deleting or relocating the final paragraph, which doesn't relate to NVP, as well as its refs. Any objections?

"During this period, President Mbeki refused international offers of help for South Africa's AIDS epidemic, insisting instead on "African solutions...for African problems." [21] This inaction has itself been blamed the deaths of tens of thousands of people. [22] Mbeki has since backed down from his position that it is poverty, not HIV, that is the primary cause of AIDS, and has opened country to aid from the international community. [23]"

Espresso Addict 10:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The below now removed from article till a more relevant home can be found...

During this period, President Mbeki refused international offers of help for South Africa's AIDS epidemic, insisting instead on "African solutions...for African problems." [1] This inaction has itself been blamed the deaths of tens of thousands of people. [2] Mbeki has since backed down from his position that it is poverty, not HIV, that is the primary cause of AIDS, and has opened country to aid from the international community. [3]

  1. ^ "P.O.V. - State of Denial . "The AIDS Rebel"". PBS. Retrieved 2006-04-12.
  2. ^ "SOUTH AFRICA: Mbeki's AIDS stance slammed". Retrieved 2006-04-12.
  3. ^ "Mbeki's Aids pledge". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |acceddate= ignored (help)

Espresso Addict 03:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments 29 July 2007

"The U.S. Public Health Service Task Force, however, advocates caution in the use of nevirapine in pregnancy due to toxicity issues, which may be exacerbated during pregnancy.[1]"

I removed this text, not because it is technically incorrect, but because it was out of place in the section on use of single-dose nevirapine. This recommendation by the USPHS applies to women (and also men) with higher CD4 counts who are receiving chronic nevirapine therapy, not single-dose prophylaxis.

Jeffreystringer 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel it ought to be included, but perhaps the safety section is the best place. Espresso Addict 15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Recommendations for Use of Antiretroviral Drugs in Pregnant HIV-1-Infected Women for Maternal Health and Interventions to Reduce Perinatal HIV-1 Transmission in the United States. Public Health Service Task Force. (November 17, 2005) (Available for download from [http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/Guidelines/GuidelineDetail.aspx?MenuItem=Guidelines&Search=Off&GuidelineID=9&ClassID=2 AIDSInfo)

Review

1. Student 1 - Draft has lots of great detailed information about adverse effects, but is not necessarily neutral since it contains a lot of information specific to U.S. prescribing protocol which would not be relevant on a global scale. Leslielai31 (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Student 2 - The data can be verified with secondary sources that are freely accessible. The citations that I followed led me to to have access, therefore there were no problems with their sources. MCpollack (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Student 3 - Based on what I've read the edits are consistent with the Wikipedia style manual. They did a good job using appropriate language on a potentially sensitive topic. The only suggestion I can make is to avoid use of primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devinerbay (talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nevirapine. 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) 19:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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