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
The average reduction in lost productivity has been estimated at $1,249, at a cost of $25 per day of disability avoided. The annual net savings in reduced health care costs and lost productivity, over the increased cost of triptan therapy, has been estimated at between $114 and $540 per patient; thus the use of these pharmaceuticals represents a cost savings as well as an improvement in the patients' quality of life.
Last I remember the Canadian Blood Service disallows donors who have taken triptans for the past 3 days because it presents a risk to the donor. I'm not allowed to donate to mainstream due to a past false positive, and I have forgotten about taking migraine medication before donating for research purposes, and I definitely felt ill afterwards. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
208.65.73.201 (
talk)
21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Triptan vs. Triptans
Reading this article, it would appear that this page is about a family of drugs, referred repeatedly throughout the article as Triptans ... therefore it would appear that this article should be named Triptans rather than the singular Triptan. As now, Triptans redirects to Triptan ... probably it should be the other way around.
Enquire (
talk)
19:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)reply
What does this MEAN
"Many patients have a recurrent attack later in the day, and only one such recurrence in a day can be treated with a second dose of a triptan."
Anypodetos In September 2016
you removed this drug safety box saying "(WP:NOTHOWTO; copyedit; some additions and fringe removal)". I posted this. I work for an organization which publishes this and other layman drug safety information.
Could you say more about why you oppose the inclusion of this information? Do you think that Wikipedia should not have drug safety information generally (no
WP:HOWTO), or is there a problem with this information specifically? Anything you could share would be useful to me. I acknowledge that most Wikipedia articles do not have safety alerts like this. Thanks.
Blue Rasberry (talk)22:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)reply
My main point was
WP:NOTHOWTO #1, which says "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not", so using imperatives such as "Consult a pharmacist" or "Do not use if..." are against policy. I'm all for including contraindications, for which there is a section per
MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. Secondly, every drug label has warnings based on the reasoning "We don't have evidence that this could cause problems, but just include it anyway so we are on the safe side in case somebody sues us". I think that many of the points in the second column fall into this category, and I'm sceptical about their inclusion.
Anypodetos Thanks. Actually, I have done similar things with about 10 articles, and I have heard some of this before.
I think what I really wish for is an infobox for contraindications, possibly connected to Wikidata. The imperatives are out of bounds. The box can be an accessibility issue for having free form text in columns.
I agree that drug safety sheets list too many indications. My organization makes subjective judgements and cuts many of those out when reporting adverse effects, and intends to provide consumer information without any regard to pharma companies.
I will think more about this. I suppose the safe alternative would be for me to add some of this as prose text in the contraindications section. I am going to think about this for a while. Thanks for feedback.
Blue Rasberry (talk)15:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The most glaring issue is the severe lack of
WP:PROSE. The way it's written also borders too far on medical advice for comfort. The level of detail is markedly inadequate in the absolute contraindications section. We generally do not cover relative contraindications very much because they are so broad (although it can be argued that we inadequately cover them as a result, but avoiding alert fatigue seems more important), and your list of those is too broad while also suffering from the same issue with lack of detail as the absolute contraindications. You may benefit from taking a look at
WP:PHARMMOS.
Garzfoth (
talk)
15:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)reply
I came here from the note at
WT:PHARM. I agree with removing the table, for pretty much all the reasons that other editors have given. Per MEDMOS and PHARMMOS, I think the best thing is to have a brief summary in paragraph prose, focusing only on the most significant contraindications. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
20:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with both of you - Wikipedia should not present information in this way. If this information has a place at all it should be with a fundamentally different presentation more like "health effects of tobacco" than anything instructive.
Blue Rasberry (talk)22:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Citation of Examples of Triptans Table
It is unclear where the data for this table is coming from, especially that of the L-703,664 and GR 46611 molecules as they are referenced nowhere else in the article and have no article attached to them. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.221.10.230 (
talk)
14:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Good catch! I referenced GR-46611 and deleted the other, which only seems to block 5-HT1D receptors so probably doesn't count as a triptan. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
15:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Confusion in introduction with respect to efficacy in tension-type headaches
This is how a pair of sentences in the introduction currently read: "They are not effective for the treatment of tension–type headache,[1] except in persons who also experience migraines.[2] They may be effective in disabling tension–type headaches, which exist on a spectrum of migraine.[2] "
If I understand correctly, they may (with a low degree of certainty) be useful as treatment for tension headaches in migraineurs. This is not what is currently stated, rather it goes all-in on saying they are not effective for tension headaches, it then makes the exception, but in a separate sentence restates the exception. This is unclear and I would be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than myself could tidy and condense this into one sentence, either stating that this exception exists or disregarding it altogether as appropriate.
I've removed the second, separate sentence as it is unsupported by the source, which actually states that true "disabling tension–type headaches" do not respond to sumatriptan; those that do, in people with a history of migraine, are actually migraine-spectrum headaches which the patients believe to be (or report as) tension-type headaches because they lack the more distinguishing features of migraine. Thank you for noting this confusion.
Fvasconcellos (
t·
c)
01:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)reply