Talk:Digoxin

note

it is brilliant 83.70.218.152 (talk · contribs)

What, digoxin or this page? JFW | T@lk 14:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Highly informative article, and I shouldn't carp. But I shall: nanograms per milliliter here and micrograms per liter there? You could at least provide the conversion factor! (Joke. But seriously, consistency has its values.) Dandrake (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The hypothalamus produces digoxin - it's a neurotransmitter!

See, e.g., the interesting articles by Kurup & Kurup

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/1275

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12745627&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

- Jim@pagenotes.com 24.41.95.163 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of Digibind. It's a counteractive drug used to treat Digoxin toxicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.89.74 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Xanthopsia

In the second para of "Adverse Effects" section, visual disturbances (yellow-green halos) are listed under "common (>=1%)". However in the final (one line) para xanthopsia (yellow-green vision) is listed as rare.

I suggest that the first mention should be deleted - I am not aware of a great deal of evidence for colour vision disturbance being very common with digoxin use (i.e. agree with the last para!). Kitb 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with above re:xanthopsia being quite rare. As I understand, the occulotoxicity of digoxin comes only from the plant isolate; i.e. from eating the leaves or its direct distillate. Pharmacogenerated digoxin has some glycoside coumpounds washed out. Modern day toxicity may include blurry vision, but the others, xanthopsia and halo's (as I've recently added) do not occur. The analogy is similar to that of marinol, isolated THC, vs. marijuana. Marijuana has many different cannabinoids, THC being the most common, all of which contribute to its effects. The foxglove has many cardiac glycosides, three of which are the most common and are isolated for the medicinal compound. It is possible that these other, less common forms are responsible to the visual effects seen in toxic ingestions. --Wildwoodfrusciante (talk) 07:08, 2 February

This is actually so weird that i'm reading such rebuttles about the said yellow/green halos seen with dig-tox. That was the very first adverse affect taught to us in RN school and the main one that everybody remembers. Our Pharmacology book states it, our med/surge book states it and many websites list it as an adverse affect. I just looked it up in my Davis Drug book, and they as well list it as an adveerse affect. Hmmmm, weird.

Main uses for Digoxin

I don't know how important this is, but the very first line says dig is a cardiac glycosides. If you click on that link, it'll take you to the definition that states, cardiac glycosides are drugs used in the treatment of congestive heart failure and cardiac arrhythmia. Then under uses, it states the main uses of digoxin is for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Is anybody else confused? Not one mention for CHF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.109.164 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Chemotherapy applications

The very short mention at end of article doesn't reflect more recent studies of digoxin and chemotherapy with relation to Hypoxia-inducible factors. Protein inhibitor makes cell susceptible to chemotherapy. Old drugs, new uses. Shenme (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Predecessors

Digoxin is a pharmaceutical drug or a chemical substance. How about using 'generations' instead of words like 'predecessors' or 'successors'? Wouldn't that be much more appropriate? And by the way, this section is almost empty. I'm removing this section for now, since it contains almost nothing. If anyones got a better idea, feel free to inform here.-(Roshu 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)) Roshu 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshu Bangal (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digoxin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100928084636/http://www.circ.ahajournals.org:80/cgi/reprint/51/2/251 to http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/51/2/251

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Energy usage?

I'm probably just forgetting something, but this part is confusing:

"Increased amounts of Ca²⁺ also leads to increased storage of calcium in the sarcoplasmic reticulum, causing a corresponding increase in the release of calcium during each action potential. This leads to increased contractility (the force of contraction) of the heart without increasing heart energy expenditure."

Wouldn't the increased contractility depend on more myosin units working, which would require more ATP and thus more energy usage? Myoglobin (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Digoxin and cancer - plagiarism and too much detail

I'm making an extensive trim of this section. My reasoning is:

(1) The section places far too much weight on the interaction of digoxin and cancer. Remember, although some studies have shown that it has anti-proliferative effects in vitro (which is true of enormous numbers of chemicals), it is not used as an anti-cancer drug. And the studies of how it affects risk of cancer haven't caused any change in its usage. To justify a section this long, we need evidence that in the real world, people are influenced by an interaction of digoxin and cancer.

(2) The entire section is currently very, very detailed, more appropriate to a secondary review article in the medical literature than a tertiary review in an encyclopaedia.

(3) The whole lot appears to be wildly plagiarised from the primary sources. Much of what I've checked is extremely closely paraphrased (For example, our text says "In summary, data of this cohort study for digoxin treatment for HF patients was combined with a cell-based strategy that addresses the translation issue, which revealed the complexity of personalized medicine" while the cited source says "In summary, we combined a cohort study for digoxin treatment for HF patients with a cell-based strategy that addresses the translation issue, which revealed the complexity of personalized medicine"). We therefore have to attribute it as directly lifted from somewhere else, or get rid of it.

Elemimele (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)