Talk:Epinephrine (medication)

Pharmacology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Epinephrine (medication).

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Page was split - talk page and archives not yet copied/moved

This

Epinephrine (~Dec 2016) and the voluminous talk (in archives) about the medication is still at the original Talk:Epinephrine. - Rod57 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lithium (medication) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BAN instead of INN?

The page currently uses a regional name for the medication instead of the internationally accepted one. Since this page is about the medication, and not the hormone, it should use the INN so as to avoid UK POV. 2601:2C3:4380:29D0:F84C:E69F:1220:5176 (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title

@

Epinephrine previously redirect to Adrenaline or Epinephrine (medication)? The textbooks I've come into contact with call Adrenaline Epinephrine, so I would have thought it would be the main target. This article might then be named Epinephrine (medication) again or "Epinephrine as medication". – Thjarkur (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no strong feelings about the naming. We could leave it at "epinephrine", we could move it to "epinephrine (medication)", we could move it to "adrenaline (medication)". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, had just been wondering about the original title. Most of the incoming links are referring to the hormone, so I suppose I'll move this one. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still think epinephrine should redirect to adrenaline as it appears to have done originally, since they're synonyms and most incoming links are referring to the hormone. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cost information in the United States

@Doc James: the cost data you've been adding to articles for the US isn't particularly helpful for the average consumer. If you really want to communicate drug prices to US consumers, the best way to do it would be to add a link to the relevant GoodRx webpage in the drugbox (e.g., https://www.goodrx.com/epipen ~ $125 & https://www.goodrx.com/epinephrine-adrenaclick ~ $110 - these are cheaper than what is listed in the article). FWIW, your consumer reports citation cites GoodRx when citing its claim and drug prices at pharmacies listed on that website change literally every day. So, putting that information in an article might not even be accurate the day after you cite it, especially if the reference you've added cites the GoodRx website to support its claim. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could use goodrx.com I guess. I use this source frequently which is updated weekly. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/prescription-drugs/pharmacy-pricing/index.html

The problem with GoodRx is it is not accessible outside the USA. We currently say "US$140" for two which is very close to the current number and that was 3 years ago. So prices usually change slowly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The stability of a drug's price depends on the drug. The price history of an arbitrary drug happens to be shown on the GoodRx website as well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am working on an effort to graph price histories via Wikidata... Will likely take a few more months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: If we were to put a GoodRx link in the drugbox template, we could list the left-hand side field as "US Rx prices" and the RHS could just link directly to the corresponding GoodRx webpage(s) listed on Wikidata for an article (that'd require creating an identifier property for GoodRx though). I'd be willing to add the corresponding identifiers to all of the Wikidata entries on prescription drugs listed on the GoodRx website with a bot if there's consensus to do add it to the drugbox. How do you feel about that approach? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support adding GoodRx link to Wikidata and the drugbox.

What should we call it? Maybe US consumer price? We are about to add the medicaid pricing for 700 meds going back in time so we can graph those. Those are wholesale, these would be consumer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds fine. I'll propose it at template:infobox drug. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion of infoboxes

Not a big fan of this. Content on a page should generally exist on that page, especially that in the lead. Also makes translation a problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes were different to begin with. Even if we fix them now, they'll end up being modified separately again and the problem will persist. The whole point of transcluding content which should be identical on 2+ pages is to keep said content identical on those 2+ pages. ~~Just tell the translator to look at the other infobox in a censored note on this page.~~ Nevermind, I'm find with doing it the other way around. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of epinephrine on blood vessels?

Epinephrine may be injected into the sub-mucosal layer of the digestive tract as a part of an endoscopic mucosal resection endoscopic submucosal dissection procedure, for safety. What does the epinephrine do? More generally, does epinephrine constrict blood vessels or does it dilate them? 108.45.179.167 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy/Breastfeeding Mention in Lead

(New editor here, please be patient.) The single sentence in the lead that mentions risks for pregnant/breastfeeding women seems strange and out of place. A reader looking for general information on the drug wouldn't really get enough information from that statement for it to be useful, and the citation isn't really any more clear. There isn't any corresponding section in the remainder of the article either. Furthermore, the last phrase ("the benefits to the mother must be taken into account") seems to be implying some sort of moral obligation or appeal, which seems inappropriate. I would recommend changing this sentence, adding more information, or eliminating it altogether. Thoughts? Vcymbals16 (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vcymbals16 Many of our medication articles have a very clear statement in the lede, regarding effects on pregnant women and their breastfeeding or unborn children. Not everyone can read or comprehend the entirety of these types of articles, which is why the lede states information in clear, simple language. And yes, there may be a “moral obligation or appeal“ at work here. A woman (and her physician, healthcare provider, etc.) would want to weigh the severity of her current health situation against the possible damage to her child. Perhaps asthma could be managed with another medication, but perhaps cardiac arrest could not. It would be a grave tragedy for a “doctor” to inform her patient that damage to an “child” could have been avoided. Likewise, losing two lives, would be equally a bad outcome. (I am not sure why you think this phrase implies “ some sort of moral obligation or appeal”. It seems like a risk vs. benefit sort of statement, to me.) “First, do no harm” is still considered to be a valid point, as we know. And perhaps a better source is needed, we could ask some other people! Happy to discuss this further, as these are just my thoughts, I am no expert, nor a physician! Nice to meet you...Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 16:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Epinephrine. The ultimate decision was to not move the article because a good case was made that the naturally occurring hormone is more commonly called "adrenaline". I think it is also the case that "epinephrine" is the more common name of the substance when used as a medication. It also happenes to be a very convenient way that we can disambiguate the two article titles without having to resort to using any parenthetical disambiguator. There are already hatnotes at the top of both articles that easily redirect to the other article. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose, epinephrine is synonymous with adrenaline, the vast majority of incoming links are referring to the hormone. The common name of the hormone in popular culture is "adrenaline", the common name of the hormone in biochemistry/physiology is "epinephrine". – Thjarkur (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are synonyms. The point is that since there are two words for the same thing and we have two articles that are for the same thing, just different uses, it makes sense to use both terms as article titles so we can avoid having to use a parenthetical in the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a logical way to work it, but our

article title policy currently says the opposite. Andrewa (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose. There is too much material to merge the articles, but too little to justify creating a
BCA. No case has been made that the medication is the primary topic for Epinephrine, and it seems unlikely; Most people would call both of them Adrenaline, while some specialists would call one or the other or both Epinephrine. A few more redirects would be a good idea. Andrewa (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the ball and stick model accurate?

It seems to suggest the N has a valency of 4 (i.e. there is one too many H atoms on there). Can an expert check this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:4557:8AA4:4A7:55E7 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Croup

Stating that 'standard' epinephrine "...works equally well" when compared to racemic epinephrine is quite a bold statement to make with zero citations, which is bordering on opinion when the prior statement lists and implies racemic epinephrine as the standard of care for croup. Anecdotally, this is the only medicine I've used for croup. As such, I have added the appropriate tags. Perhaps this sentence should be removed?2600:1700:2D0:BBE0:5D40:B756:1AF:4591 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]