Talk:Omalizumab

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Miedemacou.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

says

says it binds to receptors then it says it binds to the IgE itself. i doubt it's both, since they are completely different molecules. Eupedia 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure how this drug works, but antibodies are perfectly capable of binding two substrates at once. I slapped an {{expert}} tag on the page. If we can't find anyone, I'll read the reserach paper and fix it (might have to bug me and remind me though). Isopropyl 05:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it binds to the Fc receptor portion of the IgE antibody molecule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omalizumab

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the monoclonal antibody is specifically binds to IgE not the Fc episilon R1 receptor. Sorry ;p

Patent status

Can we give a citation to one or more patents? If so, when will they expire? -- Beland 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

External links to patient support groups (especially online chat boards) and blogs are normally not accepted on Wikipedia. Please read the external links policy and the specific rules for medical articles before adding more external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In relationship to the increased risk of cancer with omalizumab i presume the author is refering to the figure presented by the manufacturer (Novartis) in their summary of product characteristics (SPC, which can be accessed at emc.medicines.org.uk). The reported figures are; 25 cancers in 5,015 patients treated with Xolair (0.5%) and 5 cancers in 2,854 patients in the control group (0.18%) Novartis also state that the diversity in the type of cancers observed, the relatively short duration of exposure and the clinical features of the individual cases render a causal relationship unlikely. The overall observed incidence rate of malignancy in the Xolair clinical trial programme was comparable to that reported in the general population. As a point of statistical interest, based on the available figures, the number needed to harm (NNH, i.e. the number of patients you would need to treat to observe one additional adverse outcome, in this case cancer) is 309, for those of you interested in statistics the 95%CI is 175 to 1,329 which basically means theres a 95% chance that in the worse case scenario (based on these figures) that for every 175 patients treated one extra will develop a cancer, whilst in the best case scenario (again based on these figures) one extra patient will develop a cancer for every 1,329 patints treated with Xolair. From a critical analysis point of view it is also worth considering that these figures are based on a relativley short trial. Wheather the risk increases with duration of treatment is still unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.125.149 (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cost excuses

The article claims that Automation and filtration techniques are considered complicated and bring up the cost of the drug. This may have been true in 1993, but now these techniques are standard practice and rather well understood. Moreover, the actual technique is not very different than the way Budweiser is brewed, but Bud only goes for about $1 a bottle. Further, the development of such process techniques (even then) generally pales in comparison to drug discovery.

It seems much more likely that the current price structure is almost entirely a result of self made Monopoly the joint venture has given all companies involved and should have been disallowed due to anti-trust reasons. If the venture had not formed, I'd imagine there's be a price-fixing law suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.16.254 (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--The cost comes from the repeated chromatography. Maybe this should be clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.198 (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Not significant" side effect of omalizumab is cancer

This needs clearing up: was there a statistically significant difference in the rate of cancer in placebo vs omalizumab or is the author trying to say that the increased risk is not clinically important? If it is the first, I would argue that it is then not a side effect because there was no certainty that the increase in cancer to the treatment group was not due to random chance. If it is the latter, this statement is misleading as a patient's risk for cancer nearly doubles. Sure it is still only a 0.5% overall, but this is not the right of the author to assert his/her opinion. This is wikipedia. This is not wikiopinia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.132.129 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the paper, it's not statically significant so I removed the paragraph. 80.194.32.126 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified the wording. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to History section regarding patents

This addition appears speculative, based on an interpretation of events that is not supported by reliable sources. The editor making this addition is new, and might think that linking to the patents represents reliable sourcing; however, it is the interpretation of events that needs sourcing. I've reverted once but it was immediately restored and I will not edit war over this. -- Scray (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is within scope of WP:WPMED, I have placed a notice there inviting further input. -- Scray (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like first to comment that this has turned into quite a good article on the whole, due almost entirely to the work of PeaceRock. But that being said, I agree that the passage in question needs a better source than a couple of patent applications, and have returned the article to Scray's version. I think it would be a shame to get into a serious dispute about such a minor issue, though. Looie496 (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what has been said and with Loooie's recent edit. Thanks to PeaceRock for your work. Biosthmors (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What source is the basis for the statement, "The choosing of omalizumab for the joint program turns out to be a logical one judging from the in-force periods of the patents covering the anti-IgE products.", which is the first sentence of this edit? -- Scray (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In only looking at this addition which Scray questioned, and not considering any other work that Peacerock did, that added content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It cites a source and gives a narrative based on primary data. On Wikipedia this is called original research because it is stating information which is beyond what is presented by the cited source. It is irrelevant whether the added information is correct or not - since it does not pass WP:V, it must be removed if anyone questions it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More on the History section

Perusing the History section again, it mentions Tanox a dozen times in this article about a product made by a different company. The section contains multiple claims that are poorly sourced. Is tagging enough, or should we remove the section's content to allow time for proper sourcing and balance? -- Scray (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-IgE approach stated in Tanox many years before the omalizumab program. The evolution of the anti-IgE program and omalizumab has an interesting history. It also involved a long partnership between Tanox and Novartis and Genentech. References and citations have been provided for most of the statements in History and in other sections. I think that the article is much improved and more complete as a reference for readers on the topic of omalizumab, which many people refer to as anti-IgE therapy. Please examine the editing and remove the warning sign at the top of the article.PeaceRock (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About half of this article does not seem specific to Omalizumab and perhaps could be [re]moved to an anti-IgE therapy article or similar ? Sadly at the moment anti-IgE therapy just redirects to this omalizumab. - Rod57 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Price

Removed estimated pricing from article. Citation for price was from a sponsored link. Actual cost for the drug depends on individual insurance, dosages, and other variables thus we shouldn't speculate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eacon (talk • contribs) 02:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional

The introduction reads like an advertisement and makes me wonder about the source of the intro and its biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.86.194‎ (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 August 2018‎(UTC)

I've done some trimming. needs a lot more work. thanks for pointing it out. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread PLAGIARISM found | copypaste, POV, and Tone tags applied

Multiple sentences/paragraphs have been plagiarized VERBATIM from other sources (WP:V). After finding the 4th instance of copypaste, I stopped and flagged the article. The first offenders I found were:
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3826611/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5123831/
• https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(12)00069-3/pdf
• https://newdrugapprovals.org/category/nice/

There are clearly many more instances of verbatim plagiarism thus the entire page needs a close examination and fixing. But there are multiple issues. Before removing the tags applied, please address them comprehensively, rather than simply deleting offending portions, otherwise there would be no article and actually useful information would be lost.

The first clue that something was amiss was in the History section, previously a source of contention among editors (see above). Paragraphs of it appeared like a personal account that violates WP:Story. Furthermore its tone was non-encyclopedic (WP:Tone) and used words like "brave" to describe routine interactions of scientists, it described company actions in glowing terms, and it celebrated/mentioned individuals that typical WP technical articles would not even name — thus earning the (WP:NPOV) tag. It seemed like a monograph so I did a simple Google text search and turned up verbatim copying from a review article by JY Wang in the biomedical journal Asia Pac Allergy (1st link in the list above). A previous comment above by Rod57 noted that some material seemed irrelevant. That's correct and understandable if one realizes previous contributions were copypasting from review articles and tangential text related to the copied article got mindlessly pasted into this WP article. Nevertheless, the tone and NPOV problems appear elsewhere. For example in the "Adverse Reaction" sections some reactions are listed, but they are followed by text that appears to excuse or explain away the reaction. Again, it's everywhere so community help is requested.

If one does a quick & easy Google text search of each sentence in the more dense and less focused parts of this article, it's striking how many verbatim hits turn up here. So, it might also be helpful for a fellow editor to track down the contributor and inform that person(s) to desist. Lapabc (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lapabc
This "This approval of IND for an anti-IgE antibody for the first time was regarded a brave demonstration of professionalism for both the FDA officials and the Tanox/Ciba-Geigy team."
In https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3826611/ which was published Oct 2012
User:User:PeaceRock added the content around July 2012.[1]
With this as a ref https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC507895/pdf/990879.pdf
So basically the journal above is involved in plagarism.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please list other bits of text you find concerning and provide the exact diff of it being added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Omalizumab"