Talk:Aprepitant

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aprepitant article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

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.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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 Aprepitant.

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

Clutter removal needed

I wikified and edited the page quite a bit, also removing the entirely repetitive and un-Wikipedia like conclusion paragraph. However there's probably still a lot of stuff that doesn't belong there, eg. the sections Synthesis and Drug development (perhaps Structure and properties of aprepitant as well) could probably be compressed into a new section of just a few paragraphs ditching most of the unimportant tidbits, and perhaps Mechanism of action could be shortened as well. I don't have enough knowledge about biochemistry etc to do this myself. DiamonDie 13:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Emend really distributed by Critical Therapeutics?

Is Emend really distributed by Critical Therapeutics? Their website (http://www.criticaltherapeutics.com) lists only ZYFLO as a product. Emend is manufactured by Merck & Co., which owns the brand name (see http://www.findownersearch.com/brand/647859/). Merck's distributor list does not include Critical Therapeutics as an authorized distributor of Emend. — Nonenmac 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-check the history of Merck's intended therapeutic purpose

I was under the understanding that this NK1-R antagonist was originally developed with psychiatric treatment in mind, particularly in hopes of treating depression see [Kramer et al. Science. 1998 Sep 11;281(5383):1640-5]. The current Wikipedia correctly notes that this did not pan out, but the main part of this entry indicates that the treatment of nausea and vomiting (a later, and more successful endpoint) was the original goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.251.88.50 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactivity?

Under "mechanism of action" the article states:

Its average bioavailability is around 60-65% and has a main function of increasing the patient's plasma radioactivity and concentration, which occurs because it is more than 95% bound to plasma proteins. It is estimated that after about four hours after administration the average plasma concentration reaches it highest point. Despite this however, an increase in plasma radioactivity can last for up to 72 hours. Aprepitant is primarily..."

My chemistry is pretty rusty but I think both those 'radioactivity's don't belong. This isn't a radioactive chemical. 206.15.129.196 (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Point

The description of the single structures is quite pointless. What does the boiling point have to do with binding. It should be deleted. --89.48.1.103 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Development

The topic that is described in this section is formula development which is a fraction of a drug development process. Amanitin (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

I added some citation needed notes to the synthesis section. The main synthesis description seems to be copy/pasted from somewhere else, as it references 'colors' for pieces of the molecule, as if there is an image that was supposed to be present but is not. 150.212.34.116 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added some sources. Page still needs cleanup, but at least there's somewhere to go to chase the claims made in the article. Seems like whoever was writing this one actually knew their stuff, but didn't properly cite. Some of the language of the article seems a bit un-encyclopedic, but cleaning that up isn't my forte. 150.212.34.116 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

assorted problems

Structure and properties - "molecular weight of around 534.53" - the summary box gives 534.427. Synthesis - magnesium chloride has almost no hazard. "By the end of this step a secondary amine, the base of the drug, is formed" - morpholine is already a secondary amine. The "racemic morpholine precursor" would be too unless it was N-substituted. "The most notable of which is a reduction in the price of the drug." is a sentence fragment. "the number long-term detrimental" is garbled. Mechanism of action - "enzyme transporter, ion channels" does not make sense (suggest just "receptors"). The dosing does not belong in the Mechanism of action section. Major depression - "see anti-cancer below" - no anti-cancer below. "crepe hanging" makes absolutely no sense. Much of the wording is awkward and should be edited. 69.72.92.11 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]