Jump to content

Talk:Celecoxib

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Celebrex off the market

[edit]

I'm not prepared to do so, but I believe this article needs someone to edit it in regard to Celebrex being off the market in the USA. One FDA link is not gonna be enough. 68.104.201.53 05:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since I wouldn't want to be responsible for someone getting mistaken info off WP. 68.104.201.53
Or because it hasn't actually been withdrawn from the market? -Techelf 08:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not withdrawn, (the only COX-2 inhibitor not withdrawn?) but there is a current FDA alert: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm124654.pdf.
Perhaps that should be more prominently displayed? Not because this is a medical reference web site, rather, because that is the single most interesting fact about the drug :~) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrex is not off the market and has never been off the market. http://www.celebrex.com/faq.aspx (unsigned response by User:Phalaen447 signed by Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

A bit of illiteracy.

[edit]

This paragraph, though expressive of information, should be edited into standard written English or excised: "It inhibit cyclo-oxygenase 2 only without affect cyclo-oxygenase 1 cox 1 inhibit prostaglandin and thromboxan but cox 2 inhibit prostaglandin only so inhibition of cox 2 only will inhibit PGs synthesis without affecting Thromboxan so it hasn't any effect on platlet aggregation or blood clotting" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.54.23 (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being unpopular and considered a luddite troll... this statement could be made about 90% of WP's scientific (PARTICULARLY medical and pharmacological) articles!
They are DENSE with deeply technical, esoteric terminology rendered utterly illegible to the common person on the street. And yet, I have seen NO ACTION that leads me to believe the editors are moving to fix this issue. If I looked up Celecoxib in my Colliers Encyclopedia thirty years ago, about two-thirds of the words and sentences in this article would be excised and replaced with more commonly used language. And while I do accept that the world is more technically or scientifically educated since then, there remains a high barrier between specific terminology and language in scientific fields compared to standard English. What I am reading in THIS article I would think I would read in a release paper from Pfizer or similar documentation for Doctors or fellow pharmacologists, and, knowing the obfuscation and legal precision in language used by pharmaceutical companies, in their legal disclaimers. And that's fine for them. BUT WP IS **MY** encyclopedia, NOT theirs!
In summary, I am endorsing your assertion, but think it should be spread like a virus to the rest of WP.
comment added by Aragond (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.60.3 (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

recent detail added to dosing

[edit]

i think that recent expansion of the dosing section gives this too much weight, and violates one of the 5 pillars, WP:NOT - particularly WP:NOTMANUAL. We should either delete this section altogether or reduce it to something more simple, as it was. Thoughts? Perhaps also the adverse events... these two sections read like the drug label.Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Heart Association

[edit]

I can find no refernece from the AHA itself where they say celecoxib should be used "as a last resort on patients who have heart disease or a risk of developing it", however when searching this phrase wikipedia is the first result followed by an infinite list of news articles, possibly citing this one. The exact wording of this article is used in most news stories. Perhaps they have retracted this statement since then or never in fact made it in the first place? I have deleted this until someone can find a good reference for it (the reference was a dead link anyway.) It's probably a good call by the AMA if they did, but I can't confirm this. 14.203.153.172 (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is very strange! I did a google search and the first two hits were journal articles where this is said. I am un-deleting and adding the citation. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the subject of heart attack/stroke, in the 2013 meta analysis, the words "paracetamol" or "acetaminophen" do not appear anywhere in the article, so where does the comparison come from? it's true, but there should probably be a reference to that. Leftindicator (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update inline

[edit]

So, this article has one of the oldest dated maintenance tag on Wikipedia. I figured it might be a good idea to see if we can fix that. The Update Inline tag is to see if there has been any subsequent published clinical trials on the use of the drug in treating post-surgical adhesions. Specifically, it is because the Children's Hospital Boston press release said that a multi-centre trial was planned. Here's the three trials I've found subsequently:

Just wondering if someone who knows more about medicine than me could take a look and perhaps update the article based on the information contained here. (Pinging User:Doc James and User:Keilana as two medical folk I know who might be able to help.) —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is all I find to. Will trim this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Celecoxib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Price

[edit]

Drug price transparency in the United States is absolutely awful, so it is hard to find a citation for how much Celebrex really costs. However, I think the $200 per month figure is out of date, and I provided the best citation I could think of. It seems to be more like $30 per month without insurance, and even less with insurance. Fluoborate (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drug prices can vary that much from pharmacy to pharmacy, so an average might be more meaningful. -- Beland (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
> Drug price transparency in the United States is absolutely awful
(original research!!)
My prescription plan (state worker contract) quotes:
Celecoxib Oral Capsule 50 MG
$0.06 Per day -- $5.00 for 90 days
Total cost: $24.64 -- Plan covers: -$19.64 -- You pay: $5.00 / 90 days
The "Total cost" may be lightly marked-up wholesale.
Drugs.com says
50 mg celecoxib oral capsule from $29.14 for 60 capsules
-which is $44 for 90 day supply, half a buck per day.
I am sure you can pay more.
Costs vary very little with dosage or number of pills. (200mg is actually cheaper, for me, than 50mg.)
The next comment says the OTC similars are 5X cheaper. Yes, but IMHO they do not work the same, and the relaxation of pain may be worth a few bucks of cost. (original research!!)
. PRR (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to select other drugs

[edit]

This statement is very misleading:

"celecoxib costs about five times more than acetaminophen, ibuprofen, or naproxen — which are equally effective for pain relief"

The sentence implies that celecoxib is used when cheaper drugs work just as well. The drugs cited are first-line drugs. Thus other medications are used when these fail.

Pain relief is only one of the symptoms addressed by celecoxib. Inflammation is another issue entirely. It is common for one NSAID to work when another has failed.

Contradiction

[edit]

The article says that "coxibs (which includes celecoxib) increase the risk of major cardiovascular problems by about 37%", but that contradicts the result of the 2016 study. The latter study seems to have been accepted by the FDA advisory panel [1] so this article probably needs to explain why the previous study might have been wrong, according to experts. The FDA will probably soon update the safety warning. -- Beland (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland: The studies could be seen to disagree, though not for the reasons you state. The first study is comparing celecoxib to placebo when it comes to its conclusion on the risk of cardiovascular problems. The second study finds that celecoxib is not significantly more dangerous than naproxen. Assuming naproxen is also more dangerous to placebo, this makes sense. The issue comes when you realise that the first study finds naproxen not to be significantly more dangerous than placebo; however, this isn't necessarily contradictory as it's possible for celecoxib to be significantly more risky than placebo while naproxen is not significantly different to either celecoxib or placebo, due to the way statistics works. PriceDL (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and importantly, the second study only accepted participants who were already at high risk for cardiovascular problems. PriceDL (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have hopefully cleared up the confusion with some rewrites. I shall refrain from removing the section template until someone verifies this makes more sense now. PriceDL (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PriceDL: Thanks for the rewrite! That makes a lot more sense now, so I removed the contradiction template. -- Beland (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of litigation involving Searle

[edit]

The second and third paragraphs of the history section appear to cover the same court case. It needs to be read, and perhaps condensed, by someone with knowledge of the compound and its history. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celecoxib&oldid=1233747139"