Jump to content

Talk:Niacin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Medical uses

Two meta-analyses published in 2010, cited in the article, concluded that niacin was beneficial for cardiovascular health when taken alone. (http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(09)01031-4/abstract , http://cpt.sagepub.com/content/15/2/158 ). But since 2010 there have been two very large studies that point to niacin not working: AIM-HIGH, reported here - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1107579 , and analyzed here - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1311039 ; and HPS2-THRIVE (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1300955 [I added that to the Niacin article].

These two studies are cited in a July 2014 editorial in the NEJM - "Niacin and HDL Cholesterol — Time to Face Facts", by Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, M.D ( http://www.biochemiran.com/files/site1/pages/nejme1406410.pdf for full text). In that editorial, Lloyd-Jones says, bluntly, "On the basis of the weight of available evidence showing net clinical harm, niacin must be considered to have an unacceptable toxicity profile for the majority of patients, and it should not be used routinely."

I think such information belongs in the Wikipedia article, but I'll defer to those with more of a medical background. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also see below "Additional medical uses"

proposal that nicotinamide be merged into this article

I propose that Nicotinamide be merged into Niacin, where there is already a history section explaining the origin of the confusing term nicotinic, as well as a better discussion of the differing pharmacologic effects of the acid and amide forms of the vitamin in various doses. Having it all in one place would lessen the chance that people will think cigarettes contain a vitamin, or that one form of the vitamin is entirely harmless while the other should never be taken because it is "toxic".CharlesHBennett (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: Comments regarding the above proposal are at Talk:Nicotinamide#Merger_proposal, not here. --IO Device (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Dietary Reference Intakes

I am creating the same format for DRIs for all B vitamins. That is a U.S.- based system that identifies Estimated Average Requirements (EARs), Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs), Adequate Intakes (AIs) if there is not enough information to establish EARs and RDAs, and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs). Another major regulatory agency that has established ULs is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). ULs for both are provided, as they often differ. If there is a UL (for some vitamins none has been determined) then rationale is covered in a Toxicity section. In addition to DRIs, the U.S. also established Daily Value, using it on food and dietary supplement labels as % DV. DVs were based on older RDAs and as of 2016 have never been updated to reflect the newer DRIs. Thus, often a product that has 100% DV and greater than 100% RDA. Examples given for each vitamin. What I have written can be improved. It lacks EFSA or other major country RDAs. It lacks an estimate of what percentages of people are deficient - although that is often covered in a separate section on deficiency and consequences of deficiency. I am creating this Subject in all of the Talk pages of the vitamin entries I have edited. Comments and improvements are welcome.David notMD (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Text on Daily Value now captures FDA changes made May 2016.David notMD (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Changed section title to Dietary recommendations because Dietary Reference Intakes is used only in U.S. and Canada; added European information, with citations.David notMD (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Daily Reference Intake section

I noticed that there was a discrepancy between the various different recommended daily amounts and the EU's upper limit. According to this section, most of the recommended intake amounts are greater than 10 mg/day. Then it goes on to say that the EU's upper limit is set at 10 mg/day. I went to look at the reference cited on that. That 10/mg upper limit refers specifically to Nicotinic acid. The same exact document lists a 900 mg/day upper limit for Nicotinamide. I am not going to edit the article myself but I'd suggest reviewing all of the references to make sure all of the numbers are accurate. 73.222.239.155 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

=Yes, the EFSA UL is set at a dose of 10 mg, based on the lowest dose that saw flushing in a clinical trial was 30 mg and a decision to use 1/3 of that to avoid same in very sensitive people. (Nicotinic acid is same as niacin - two names, same compound.) As to explaining why UL is lower than RDA, the UL is directed to an acute dose, as from a dietary supplement. A daily total can be higher without risk of triggering symptoms, as spread out over the day. Same logic applies to magnesium - the UL is set to avoid an acute dose that might cause diarrhea even though that UL is lower than the RDA. Finally, nicotinamide does not have same UL, as it does not trigger the flush reaction.David notMD (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Meaning question

> NIACR1 and NIACR2 inhibit cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) production and thus fat breakdown in adipose tissue and free fatty acids available for liver to produce triglycerides and very-low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) and consequently low-density lipoprotein (LDL) or "bad" cholesterol.

"Inhibits... fat breakdown and free fatty acids available for liver..."

Inhibits free fatty acids? Probably means, "Inhibits... fat breakdown, which decreases the amount of free fatty acids available for liver..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.j.beck (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is Pork not Mentioned?

Pork is extremely high in Niacin, but there's absolutely no mention of it in the article. It makes me think the article is crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.69.11 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

convertible or not convertible?

From the summary: "Nicotinic acid and niacinamide are convertible to each other". "Niacin cannot be directly converted to nicotinamide". These statements are contradictory, since we are also told that "nicotinic acid" is another name for niacin, and that "niacinamide" is another name for nicotinamide. Are niacin=nicotinicacid and niacinamide=nicotinamide mutually convertible or not? 86.128.73.30 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Recommendations tables and text

I am of the opinion that the recently added information is too much for the purpose of the article. A while back I raised vitamin C to GA, and am currently working on vitamin E. (Also working on standardizing order of sections for all vitamins.) I suggest that these two be models for how to present dietary recommendations when US, EU and countries do not always agree. I would like to see some discussion here from interested parties. David notMD (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: I realize I'm replying 7 months late, but I also thought it was excessive when I scrolled through the article. The 4 tables in Niacin#Dietary recommendations went halfway through the following section, so I did some reformatting and condensed how they appear when this article is viewed in a "desktop" browser. On mobile browsers, those tables are uncollapsed; there's not much I can do about.
FWIW, I like the way you covered this material in the articles on vitamins C and E; I find it really off-putting when an article includes multiple juxtaposed data tables like this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Considering GA nomination

While waiting on a reviewer for the vitamin B12 nomination, working on this article to prepare it for a GA nomination. David notMD (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what is missing? David notMD (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Self-answering that a lot is missing. Got B12 to GA, so now working to improve this before nominating. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Working on lipids subsection. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing this article again, and checking for reviews (most recent are 2017-18) to update content, I think this is a good article now. Zefr (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Will nominate soon. I just created a table of niacin content in a range of food sources. David notMD (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Nominating for GA. Will continue to work on while awaiting a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Pharmacodyanmics section is repetitive and poorly organized. Some of the content will be moved to the lipids section. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Chemical formula

Moved from the 1st to third paragraph along with the mechanism of action. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Two infoboxes

Wondering if these could be merged? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like each infobox contains data not in the other. What is the best way to handle that? Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a lot of duplication of information (KEGG, UNI II...). Could the duplicated line items be deleted from one set? David notMD (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable approach. Done. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
We can also add items from one that are missing to the others by working to improve the underlying template. The first question is what one should be used here? Many medications and supplements are also chemicals.
There has also been extensive discussion regarding if we should move some stuff to the bottom in a template like we did with {{medical resources}} Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Niacin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 22:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


Hello! It's great to see another article for a common nutrient at GAN! Give me a few days to find some time, but I'll get to this review asap. Ajpolino (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. I am currently part-way into replying to the editor who is doing my GA nomination for pantothenic acid, but believe I can manage both in a timely fashion. David notMD (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll post things as I go. Currently on my first read-through (mostly looking for the first criterion, which I think in this case will be most of my comments). Made it through Dietary recommendations. Will get to the rest asap. Apologies, I already have quite a bit to say. The open review time is typically around a week or two, but we're in no rush. We can leave this open as long as you need (also, as you've seen, I'm a bit slow). If you decide to close the review and make changes outside GAN, I still intend to finish this review, just so that there's a full review for you or other editors/reviewers in the future to reference. I hope all is well during these crazy times. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@David notMD: Hi David notMD, just wanted to let you know I'll be traveling in real life over the next week and will have limited access to the internet. Sorry to leave you hanging in the middle of the review. I look forward to going through the second half of the article when I return. I hope you're well! Ajpolino (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem. I will plod through my responses. All well here (at age risk, and so sequestered). David notMD (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: I ran a copy violation check and found a very high overlap with a Niacin article at LibreTexts. This is a copy of the Wikipedia article rather than the other way around. I state this because much of what exists at LibreTexts is content that I wrote for the Wikipedia article. LibreTexts does not acknowledge Wikipedia as a source, and does label its article as copyright. I sent an email asking for an explanation. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC) https://med.libretexts.org/Courses/Dominican_University/DU_Bio_1550%3A_Nutrition_(LoPresto)_OLD/07%3A_Vitamins/7.3%3A_Water_Soluble_Vitamins/Vitamin_B3_(Niacin)

UPDATE: LibreTexts confirmed that its content draws on the Wikipedia article, and will add a mention to that effect. David notMD (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: When you return to this GA review I suggest you start at the beginning again, as I have made major section moves to an order that in my opinion makes better sense. For example, lipid modifying mechanisms moved out of Pharmacology and vitamin deficiency history moved from Deficiency to History. David notMD (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Still working on addressing your comments/requests. David notMD (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I have addressed all the points raised in the first phase of the GA review. David notMD (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Great! Digging myself out of the post-vacation hole at my real-life job. Will get to this asap. Looking forward to the read. Stay well! Ajpolino (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Alright, starting to go back through as I find time. Feel free to address comments as I go, or wait. Up to you. Ajpolino (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I will wait. Please ping me when this round is completed. Thanks for collapsing first round of comments and responses. David notMD (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Today (18 July) I will start addressing the second round of comments and recommendations. David notMD (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

A quiet Saturday at last! I'll finish up the second round of review presently. Apologies for the drawn out review. I hope all is well there. Here it's a scorcher; a nice day to be indoors on the web. Ajpolino (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Much later than expected (real life intruded), but have begun to work through the second set of comments and recommendations. David notMD (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi David notMD. I've marked the nomination as "on hold" for now, which is just to signify to those who watch the GAN queue that I haven't forgotten you. The template says reviews will stay open a week, but we're in no rush here, so take as much time as you need. I've got this on my watchlist, but feel free to ping me back here if I'm slow to respond to anything. I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Completing my responses to the second round of comments today. We had two non-COVID family medical emergencies, but of which stabilized. Thank you for your patience. David notMD (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Your changes look great! I think the article is much improved; I hope you agree. I'll mark this as a pass. More importantly, I hope you and your family are well. All the best. Ajpolino (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
First round of comments
  • I think in some ways, the article is currently a somewhat schizophrenic read. This article seems to have an unclear identity: is it about a medical drug, or a nutrient? If it's about a drug, perhaps we'd tell the reader "what is the drug?", "what does it treat?", "what are the drawbacks?", etc. basically per MEDMOS. If it's a nutrient, then we wouldn't lead with what it treats, we'd probably lead with "what is the nutrient?", "how does it contribute to normal biology?", "where in our diets do we get it?", then "what happens when you don't have enough?" as for example is laid out at Vitamin D (which I picked arbitrarily, and where it looks like you've also been involved). From a first read-through, it seems that niacin is primarily a nutrient (I mean it's primarily used to treat its own deficiency), and some re-organization would help this article flow better. I'd suggest pushing the medical uses sections down, and bringing up/creating the sections about niacin the nutrient.
  • Medical uses>Lipids - Is niacin still used to treat hyperlipidemia? The first paragraph makes it sound like it is. The second paragraph makes it sound like we no longer think increasing HDL in statin-treated people is worthwhile.
    • I intend to revise the lipids section. Yes, it is still prescribed to treat hyperlipidemia. As recently as a few years ago (2017 the last year data is available for), U.S. prescriptions more than one million per year. Also yes, combining niacin with statins did not work better than statins alone, and the two statin-niacin combination prescription products were discontinued. Some people cannot tolerate statins, and niacin is an alternative. Niacin is properly prescribed to treat elevated triglycerides in the absence of elevated cholesterol. David notMD (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Adverse effects>Facial flusing - The second paragraph Prostaglandin... the reaction feels like it comes out of left-field. Perhaps this subsection could be rearranged to say "Niacin causes flushing [describe flushing] due to the effect of niacin on [whatever signaling molecules and cells]. Flushing can be prevented by slow release forms, or inhibiting the [whatever] pathway by using COX inhibitors (aspirin, ibuprofen) or a prostaglandin receptor antagonist." I'm not wedded to that particular order, but something could be done to make that subsection read more clearly.
Revised and shortened. David notMD (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Adverse effects>Liver damage - Is the increase in serum aminotransferase, decrease in coagulation factors, and increased bleeding and bruising due to liver damage? It's in the "liver damage" subsection, but the way things are worded makes it seem as if the "liver damage" part of the subsection begins with Niacin can also cause serious hepatotoxicity...
Addressed. David notMD (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Deficiency - For the first paragraph, I assume "normal" levels of niacin (and its metabolites) is defined by some authority body (you have citations to the US Institute of Medicine and the WHO)? Since these are authority-defined thresholds rather than biological facts, perhaps it would be clearer if you directly attributed them in the text.
World Health Organization identified as setting defieicent, low, etc. David notMD (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Deficiency - Opening the "Deficiency" section with some notes on how to measure niacin levels and what the exact thresholds are is somewhat technical and jarring. Presumably most readers will be less interested in and compelled by this information. Is there some way you could rearrange the section to lead with whatever the key information is about niacin deficiency and then launch into the explanations below?
  • Dietary recommendations - I'm impressed with how cleanly you've summarized this topic, with the useful data unobstructively to the side in collapsed tables. Just a few small things here: I'm not sure what AI and UL are. I can't find where they're defined.
  • Little things:
    • Medical uses>Lipids - Extended release niacin... (trade name Mevacor). Do these two sentences say the same thing?
    • There are a couple uses of "patient" to describe someone with flushing or taking anticoagulants. We typically try to avoid calling people "patients" on Wikipedia; see MEDMOS (this, of course, doesn't apply to the use of "patient" in the FDA quote).
    • Adverse effects>Liver damage - Some of the sentences in the subsection are so short they feel like jotted notes rather than part of an encyclopedia article. I'm all for varying sentence length and structure to keep your reader engaged, but a couple of these sentence-lets could probably be merged into other sentences or expanded: Onset is days to weeks., Serum aminotransferase concentration is very high.
Text revised per GA suggestion. David notMD (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Adverse effects>Diabetes - ... profile have been shown to elevate... = profile elevate. The filler words just offer the reader a chance to get lost.
Reworded per suggestion. David notMD (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Adverse effects>Diabetes - Reviews reported that... any reason this is attributed explicitly to "reviews"? Is it not widely held and you're hesitant to state it in Wikipedia's voice? Otherwise, you can drop the attribution Long-term niacin therapy is also associated with increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes.
Reworded per suggestion David notMD (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Adverse effects>Other - Perhaps you could merge the first two sentences?
    • Adverse effects>Other - We typically avoid medical advice in Wikipedia voice therefore these should be monitored closely..., instead medical advice should be attributed to the actual authority that gave it (as you did in Medical uses>Treatment of deficiency with the WHO recommendation).
    • Deficiency - which is characterized by diarrhea... and eventually death - is there an extraneous and ("and dementia") in that list? Or is the dementia also sun-sensitive?
"dementia" moved, and some additional changes to the sentence. David notMD (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Deficiency - The alphabet soup in The biochemical mechanism(s) for... due to the niacin deficiency doesn't add much value as-is. At a minimum, perhaps you could add some wikilinks. Also no need to define acronyms you don't use (PARP), and is it supposed to be "ADP-ribose"? I think there's a letter missing.
Better explanation of list of purported mechanisms and addition of Wikilinks ("ADP-ribose" was missing the"r" in the abstract but not in the article text). David notMD (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Deficiency - Chronic alcoholism combined... with niacin supplementation - you already told us above that niacin deficiency can lead to psychiatric symptoms. You also told us way above that alcoholism can cause niacin deficiency. If there's something different you're trying to communicate with this sentence, could you clarify?
Sentence and ref removed, as not contributing David notMD (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In general, I still feel the order of sections is somewhat unnatural as-is. I like the order of the lead. It seems like niacin is most importantly an essential nutrient. Secondarily, high-dose niacin is used to reduce certain blood lipids. It seems unnatural to discuss the latter of those (we use niacin sometimes as a medication) before the former (we all need niacin to survive). I think moving sections around would help make the article a more clear and compelling read.
  • As lipid-modifying medication>Mechanisms - The beginning of paragraph two was surprising to read since I thought we'd just established this in the preceding paragraph. It reads as if paragraph 1 expands on the mechanism listed as #3 in paragraph 2? Perhaps you could merge the two paragraphs (or just re-order sentences a bit) to make clear that niacin acts by several mechanisms including paragraph 1 (activate NIACR1/2, inhibit cAMP...), and the others enumerated in paragraph 2? If I'm totally misunderstanding how those two paragraphs connect, all the more reason to clarify.
  • As lipid-modifying medication>Mechanisms - The sentence Similarly, an Abbott laboratories combination drug (trade name Simcor)... sticks out; the first half repeats the first sentence of that paragraph. Could you smooth out that paragraph (perhaps you could just replace that sentence with "...and Simcor in February, 2008".)
  • As vitamin - Some material here would be better placed in the "Vitamin deficiency" section below (i.e. which form of niacin is used to treat pellagra, doses, how quickly symptoms improve)
  • As vitamin - Perhaps the second paragraph of this section (all about niacin as a dietary supplement) would make more sense in the "Source" section, maybe as a new subsection.
    • Done.
  • Vitamin deficiency - I think this section would be clearer if you flipped the first and second paragraphs (i.e. tell us what pellagra is first, and who gets it second).

Minor things:

  • As lipid-modifying medication - Is there some reasonable wikilnk target for "mixed dyslipidemia"? As a non-physician the term is sadly meaningless to me.
  • As lipid-modifying medication>Mechnisms - ...but not in other expected organs such as... is confusing (personally I had no such expectation). If it's important, perhaps you could clarify? If not, perhaps it could be removed.
  • As lipid-modifying medication>Mechanisms - I assume "apoB" is Apolipoprotein B? If so, either give the full name at first use, or just wikilinik the first use.
  • As lipid-modifying medication>Mechanisms - Wikilink "Acyl-CoA:diacylglycerol acyltransferases 2"? DGAT2 currently redirects to Diglyceride acyltransferase.
  • As lipid-modifying medication>Mechanisms - From a glance at our articles, it looks like NIACR1 and HCA2 are the same thing? If that's true, perhaps you could pick one name and use it throughout.
  • As lipid-modifying medication>Mechanisms - Wikilink catabolism; probably not a word normal-folk know.
  • As lipid-modifying medication>Combined with statins - Just lodging my personal opinion that the full day + month + year of each FDA action is unnecessary detail. Now that we're several years out, I think the month + year alone would suffice. You're more than welcome to ignore that opinion if yours differs.
  • As lipid-modifying medication>Combined with statins - agreed to voluntarily is redundant. Either "agreed to discontinue" or "voluntarily discontinued" would suffice.
  • As lipid-modifying medicine>Contraindications - The absence of efficacy... not approved for children is an odd sentence to read. What statement? Perhaps it could be rephrased as "High-dose niacin has not been tested or approved for use in children under 16 years."
  • As lipid-modifying medicine>Contraindications>Liver damage - The changes are reversed if drug treatment is stopped, and usually resolve even when drug intake is continued. I'm not sure what this means. It sounds like either (1) stopping niacin makes transaminases return to normal; restarting niacin has no effect on transaminases (which is weird), or (2) stopping niacin makes transaminases return to normal; however, continuing if one doesn't stop niacin, transminases eventually return to normal on their own.... If it's (1), that's surprising. But fair enough. If it's (2) could you clarify the way it's written?
  • Vitamin deficiency - Compromise of expression of neuro-protective brain-derived... What does compromise mean here? Elimination? Reduction? Perhaps a different verb would be more clear.
  • Pharmacology>Pharmacodynamics - Would it be equally accurate to say in the first sentence "Niacin and nicotinamide are both converted into the coenzyme NAD in the body"? That would remove some jargon, and NADP is already mentioned in the next sentence.
  • Pharmacology>Pharmacodynamics - Is there any reasonably wikilink or alternative word for "non-hypolipidemic"?
  • Production>Industrial synthesis - I stumble over the words when I read ...and other purposes is of nicotinamide, namely the "Commercial production... is of nicotinamide" is an unusual sentence construction. Perhaps it could be rephrased (e.g. Nicotinamide, which can be coverted to niacin, is used for...)?
  • Preparations>Nicotinamide - Could you wikilink something for "hydrolysed"?
  • Preparations>Combination products - Same for "prostaglandin D2"

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  • There are a few reference-related tags: I see a {{page needed}} (adverse effects>other), {{citation needed}} (Pharmacology>pharmacodynamics), and {{Medical citation needed}} (Chemistry). I haven't looked deeply into any of them, but could you address each please?
Addressed. Provided refs for two. For third, removed mention of esters, as while chemically possible (there are patents), there are no applications. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Vitamin deficiency>Measuring vitamin status - For adults, a value of less than 5.8... According to who? It feels strange to read this in Wikipedia's voice. I assume this is some authority's guideline?
  • Preparations>Combination products - Similar problem. It's weird to read Thus, so far there is not enough evidence to recommend IHN to treat dyslipidemia in Wikipedia's voice. Enough evidence for who to recommend it? Us? Perhaps it could be rephrased or directly attributed to some authority?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
First round of comments
  • Given that the article is about niacin, it would be helpful to start with a brief section on what niacin is. You could very briefly compare it to the other vitamin B3 forms (especially since you mention niacinamide several times), as well as to NAD. Perhaps this could replace the Chemistry section that's currently below (though unlike chemistry sections in other articles, this one need not be overly technical or boring...).
  • Contraindications - Any idea why niacin supplementation is contraindicated in the stated populations? The section now reads like the back of a pill bottle.
    • contraindications for pregnancy, lactating and children are not because there are known adverse effects unique to these populations, but because the drug-level doses (prescription or dietary supplement) have not been evaluated and shown safe in these populations. It is standard practice for drug and supplement labeling. I have added wording to this effect to the article. David notMD (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Deficiency - Between 1906... as a result this material seems out-of-place here. I'm not sure if it should go in the history section here, or if it should just be in the history section of Pellagra.
  • Definition - This section seems a bit odd as it stands. A definition section should answer the question "What is niacin?" This one seems mostly to answer "How much niacin should I put in my body?".
  • As lipid-modifying medication>Contraindications - I like how you've clarified why niacin is contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding. Could you do something similar for the first group of contraindications (liver disease, peptic ulcers, arterial bleeding)?
  • As vitamin - Niacin and niacinamide are used for prevention and treatment of pellagra seems circularly uninformative. It's like opening Food with "Food is used for the prevention of starvation". Instead, it would be clearer to have this section say why we need niacin. We don't need the molecular detail of the pharmacodynamics section here, but just a few sentences would be a great help. Then you could mention that the lack of niacin results in a disease we call pellagra.
  • Sources>Food fortification - The first sentence The Food Fortification Initiative... seems unnecessarily broad and could be chopped to keep the article focused (unless there was some particular point you wanted to make about the FFI).
  • Pharmacology>Pharmacokinetics - For adults a urine 2-pyridone... is already mentioned in Vitamin deficiency>Measuring vitamin status. I don't think much is gained repeating it here.
  • Production>Biosynthesis - The first half of this paragraph is great! The second half could probably be trimmed to keep the article focused. The point about the RDAs for tryptophan and protein is interesting, but I'm not sure I get enough context here to really understand the implications (how much of that RDA for tryptophan do we need for other processes vs. how much is truly free to be turned into niacin? Surely dietary tryptophan content differs broadly based on diet, e.g. you mention a maize-based diet...) I appreciate a good back-of-the-envelope calculation, but this may be getting out over our skis a bit... Also the point about pellagra in maize-rich diets was made in the section Vitamin deficiency; I don't think much is gained by re-noting it here.
  • Preparations - The material at the beginning of the Preparations section has already been mentioned elsewhere (except that the slow release form includes inositol hexanicotinate!); in the interest of flow, focus, and maintainability, I think it'd be best to pick one place for that info.
  • Preparations>Combination products - The second paragraph was all already stated above. Typically if you find you need to duplicate info in multiple sections, it indicates sections that should be close together are instead far apart.
  • History - I always appreciate interesting history, but I think some of the material in the first paragraph ("The term vitamin... name, hence 'vitamin'" at least) can probably be trimmed as a bit of a digression. Perhaps you could wikilink readers to Vitamin#History (where I see you've put in quite a bit of work!) instead.
  • History - Similarly, some of the pellagra information could be streamlined. It should be fleshed out at Pellagra#History rather than at the history section of Niacin.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:

Pass/Fail:

DYK nomination 14 August

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(
)
  • ... that niacin is not only a vitamin, but also the first cholesterol-lowering drug, pre-dating statins by decades? From end of History section: "In 1955, Altschul and colleagues described large amounts of niacin as having a lipid-lowering property.[109] As such, niacin is the oldest known lipid-lowering drug.[110] Lovastatin, the first 'statin' drug, was first marketed in 1987.[111]"

Improved to Good Article status by David notMD (talk). Self-nominated at 01:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I cleaned it up just a little by adding "not only." Earwig copyvio detector was down, so I will assume good faith and say it is plagiarism free based on the GA review. Also, this is my first qpq review so let me know if you think I messed up.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 06:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Ref added for Chemistry section. It had been there, then misplaced during some section reordering. During the GA review, Earwig had picked up a major copyright issue, but turns out that website had copied its content from Wikipedia without attribution. The website manager confirmed the situation. David notMD (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(
)
  • ... that niacin is not only a vitamin, but also the first cholesterol-lowering drug, pre-dating statins by decades? From end of History section: "In 1955, Altschul and colleagues described large amounts of niacin as having a lipid-lowering property.[109] As such, niacin is the oldest known lipid-lowering drug.[110] Lovastatin, the first 'statin' drug, was first marketed in 1987.[111]"

Improved to Good Article status by David notMD (talk). Self-nominated at 01:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I cleaned it up just a little by adding "not only." Earwig copyvio detector was down, so I will assume good faith and say it is plagiarism free based on the GA review. Also, this is my first qpq review so let me know if you think I messed up.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 06:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Ref added for Chemistry section. It had been there, then misplaced during some section reordering. During the GA review, Earwig had picked up a major copyright issue, but turns out that website had copied its content from Wikipedia without attribution. The website manager confirmed the situation. David notMD (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

LONZA

Lonza Group reference retained in the Industrial synthesis section, but mention not added to History, as appears that LONZA was not the first company with an industrial synthesis product. David notMD (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Prescription drug?

In several places, niacin is described as a "prescription drug", where what is meant is medical use (for other than vitamin deficiency). I am putting in a "where?" for now, although I suspect from context it is in the US. In Canada at least at present [2021] it is available in large dose form OTC and in health food shops, so "prescription" is actually incorrect. However, my main issue with the wording is that it's a bad description. "Prescription" is a legal designation, local to particular jurisdictions, and tells us nothing about the medical use; absolute alcohol used to be a prescription drug where I live until fairly recently! What is evidently meant is that niacin has medical uses as opposed to its role in nutrition. Since emergency B3 replacement is also a "medical" use, this needs careful wording, although perhaps just dropping the word "prescription" altogether will do; legal status belongs in the usual place in the infobox anyway. I am just putting this on my watchlist for now; as usual, feel free to jump in. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"Niacin is also a prescription medication." The "also" in this sentence in the lead is intended to signify that in addition to being a vitamin, i.e., an essential nutrient, with a UL of 30 mg, niacin as a prescription drug is used at daily dosing of 500-2000 mg/day (Niaspan) or 1500-3000 mg/day (Niacor). U.S. FDA allows sale as a non-prescription dietary supplement. Many product on market at 100 to 500 mg/serving. Some of those are inositol hexanicotinate, with claims to be flush-free, but no valid evidence of lipid benefits. David notMD (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you quite take my point. It's OK to state that niacin is a prescription drug in the US; in other places, it is not Rx, and calling it a prescription drug/use is confusing. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I was not aware that it is not a prescription drug outside the US. Is that everywhere other than US? If true, then the section "As lipid-modifying medication" should lead with a sentence "Niacin is a prescription drug in the United States." Also, I discovered that in late 2017, Avondale, a small, private, pharmaceutical company, bought the rights to Niacor and raised the price by 800%. David notMD (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
To lipid lowering section, added niacin is a US prescription drug. David notMD (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional medical uses

High-dose niacin also has other medical/alternative uses. In addition to the established use for lowering cholesterol, it has been proposed, and is still in use by some, for stabilizing blood sugar (particularly in reactive hypoglycemia), poor circulation, schizophrenia and alcoholism. Although these uses are largely historical, they were attested in peer-reviewed journals in the 1970s iirc; see Humphrey & Osmund.

All in all I am surprised to see so short an article on such an important biochemical. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

As vitamin articles, go, it is in the middle - shorter than the articles for vitamins C, D, E, Folate and Vitamin B12, but longer than the other seven. Perhaps those historical applications can be mention in the History section. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Vis-a-vis schizophrenia, I did find Hoffer & Osmond (1964), PMID 14235254, but also some more recent takes on niacin treatment for schizophrenia, the most recent being Xu XJ, Jiang GS. Niacin-respondent subset of schizophrenia – a therapeutic review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(6):988-97. PMID 25855923. And a historical review: Hoffer LJ. Vitamin therapy in schizophrenia. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2008;45(1):3-10. PMID 18587164. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Can niacin be also useful against the small spike protein blood clots in small blood vessels resulting from the mRNA type anti-covid injections?

I did not see any literature in published clinical trials or ongoing clinical trials looking at niacin and mRNA vaccine. David notMD (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Split B3

We should split the medication and nutrition aspects of this page away from each other by making use of the Vitamin B3 page we have, so that we get an arrangement similar to the vitamers of Vitamin B6. Doing so will fix the issue of many statements wrongly implying which form of B3 is found in food. (CC David notMD.) Artoria2e5 🌉 11:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

See also the #Merger proposal above, which IMO was the wrong way to deal with the current confusion. One important point though is that USDA is not being cooperative in this regard. --Artoria2e5 🌉 11:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Vitamin B3 exists, but as a weak article. In my opinion it could cover more. The Niacin article has content on the nutrition and medicinal applications of the vitamin. I believe Wikipedia visitors come the the article looing for information on one or the other, but benefit be finding both together. Similarly, many of the vitamins have an essential nutrient role, but also have claimed health benefits for amounts in excess of RDA, with all that information in the same article. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I removed the SPLIT query because too few people participated and no consensus reached. David notMD (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm too new here to understand how footnote 74 contains a link but it is a dead link. Here is the actual address http://www.orgsyn.org/demo.aspx?prep=CV1P0385 and here for the pdf http://www.orgsyn.org/Content/pdfs/procedures/CV1P0385.pdf I'm hoping someone will correct it or explain to me what part of the footnote makes it a clickable link. ThanksAquarianEssence (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if that fixed it User:AquarianEssence Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
It works now. @Aquarian: the value immediately after "url=" specifies the outgoing link in citation templates. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
ThanksAquarianEssence (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted split

The split was proposed in October 2021. As the person who raised Niacin to Good article, I opposed the split proposal, and removed the Split query in January 2022 because there was no other participation in the discussion. Artoria2e5 did the split on 24 August 2022. I reverted it. Any consideration of the split proposal should be discussed here, with request for a third opinion if no one other than Artoria2e5 and I do not agree. David notMD (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

One needs zinc to absorb it.

One needs zinc to absorb it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantinehuk (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nearly unanimous decision to not merge. Merge proposal withdrawn. SusanLesch (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I propose that Vitamin B3 be merged into Niacin. The vitamin B3 article adds unnecessary complexity for the reader. Evidently others have wondered about this, see archive. The Vitamin B3 article was renamed from "Vitamin B3 complex" yesterday so I closed an AfD. "Vitamin B3 complex" doesn't exist in the most reliable nutrition sources. (I checked Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease and Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism.) If we use the definition in the new source given, Biochemical, Physiological, and Molecular Aspects of Human Nutrition, vitamin B3 is any one of three known precursors to NAD. It would follow the lead of three textbooks, and be simplest and most elegant to just write a sentence saying so in the article niacin. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: So what you say goes and (to pick a few) French Wikipedia, German, Spanish, and Italian are all wrong? And all three textbooks cited here are wrong? This was unanswered from the AfD. -SusanLesch (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know. Sorry to not be more definitive. When you have three related chemicals that function in a similar way but have subtle differences, what is correct. SusanLesch seems to be proposing to have the most commonly used one (i think?) as the main B3 article. Doc James wants to have a truly "main" article and three subs. There are problems with each way, with respect to dealing with the stuff that is truly general (about B3) in one place and ensuring it is just summarized in the others, so we don't have thickety growth in different articles that ends up uneven and often contradictory. The meta-editing issue is important. How do each of you propose to handle the meta-editing stuff? Could all three be merged into one? Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • They have different side effects. One could merge all of them to "vitamin B3" but I think it is fine the way they are. Yes there will be some overlap. I was more thinking a brief overview of the three with most of the details on the subpages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Why is this project about what you are thinking? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Jytdog, nicotinamide is a treatment for pellagra and a WHO essential medicine. Apparently it doesn't cause skin flushing as Doc James said. I support its separate, but shorter article. We can deal with meta-editing by merging vitamin B3 away from stub class into niacin which is potentially a GA. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks for replying SusanLesch but your response doesn't address meta-editing. at all. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Oppose I'm of the opinion that Vitamin B3 should remain as an article. (I would like to see "also known as vitamin B3 complex" deleted from the first sentence.) From page view statistics, Vitamin B3 gets 600 views per month, whereas Niacin gets 53,400 and Nicotinamide gets 29,800. Given this, my thinking is that Vitamin B3 can remain - but as a stub - with hyperlinks to the compounds that most people search for. Leaving it as a stub is better than just a redirect to Niacin. Jytdog's query about meta-editing is important, and applies to other vitamins when the common "vitamin" name actually includes several vitaminers: Vitamin A/Retinol/Retinal/Retinoic acid; Vitamin E/Tocopherol/Tocotrienol. In those examples, the common name (Vitamin A, Vitamin E) is the commonly used name, so gets a long article. For Vitamin B3 the commonly used name is Niacin. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Page views for all languages would tell you that Niacin is in 42 languages and Vitamin B3 is in one. Sorry I can't support the idea of a perpetual stub for an essential nutrient. Confused users will add their bits willy nilly. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • This sounds like a case for a set index or disambiguation page. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nicotinamide and niacin (nicotinic acid) are two different chemical compounds, however they both are referred in the literature as different forms of vitamin B3. Vitamin B3 also frequently appears as a dietary supplement (in different forms), rather than simply a chemical compound. Therefore, we should have a separate page for vitamine B3. This should NOT be just a disambiguation page because one can say a lot of substance about this vitamin "complex" as a dietary supplement. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • merge all four into one I oppose any partial merging and I think this discussion should be reframed.
Look, in terms of B3 as a nutrient in food all three function the same; they are precursors of NAD. Perhaps more importantly, the list of amounts in food that appears in high up in this article is not just about this chemical, nicotinic acid, but includes nicotinamide. [1] That is important.
We probably need to review this page very carefully and make sure that when "niacin" is being referred to in a source, it is actually referring to this chemical and not to the family broadly. This is something we will be able to be more sensitive to, if all four things (the three chemicals and the class) are covered in one page.
Also the biochemistry section should describe how each of these feed into NAD. The history section should lay out the whole story. The nicotinamide article has an industrial production section; neither of the other two do. That is goofy.
We can handle the different side effects and different specific uses very easily; they are not that different.
These all should be handled in one page in WP to help us present readers with a clear, coherent picture of all three chemicals and the family, with appropriate weight and coverage for all three.

References

  1. ^ Nicotinamide ("niacinamide") and nicotinic acid ("niacin", narrowly) are measured together and counted as "niacin" (broadly) by the USDA. Per page 15 of this ref, that number is "determined by microbiological methods (AOAC 944.13). The values for niacin are for preformed niacin only and do not include the niacin contributed by tryptophan, a niacin precursor." This superhelpful document from the UK makes it clear that 944.13 measures both nicotinamide and nicotinic acid - it uses Lactobacillus plantarum and "relies on the specific requirement for niacin by Lactobacillus plantarum to enable their growth in a supporting medium. Under appropriate conditions, the amount of growth is proportional to the amount of niacin in the test extract". I quickly looked and I don't know if the L plantus assay responds to NR too; PMID 24071780 says it has a separate metabolic pathway from the other two.

--Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Merging chemically different compounds (i.e. Nicotinamide and nicotinic acid) is definitely not a good idea. Making "vitamin B3" a disambig. page might be possible, but I think not an optimal solution. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keep separate articles linking to each other. Several similar situations exist (e.g. vitamin D, cholecalciferol, ergocalciferol, or retinoid/vitamin A.). Niacin and nicotinamide need separate entries.Jrfw51 (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with Jrfw51, this would set a precedent we would likely need to follow to the other vitamin articles. But, if I were to look up Vitamin B3 as a layperson I would think the more relevant information would actually be found on the Niacin page. As for the disambig idea, I'd rather have this stub page than turn it into a disambig. We could create Vitamin B3 (disambiguation) though. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger as written. I agree with the points made by Doc James, My very best wishes, and Jrfw51. As I review what we have to deal with, there are: B vitamins (which of course is not limited to B3), Vitamin B3, Niacin, Nicotinamide and some derivative compounds, and Vitamin B-3 which is a redirect to Niacin. I agree with the arguments that niacin, nicotinamide, and so forth should each have an individual page for each compound. I do not think that we need a disambiguation page, but I do believe that Vitamin B3 should remain, as a WP:Summary style page. And I think that Vitamin B-3 should redirect there, not here to Niacin. I think that readers who come here with no preconceived notion, looking for Vitamin B3 information, should first be led to Vitamin B3, where they will get an overview, and where it should make it clear that Niacin is the primary subtopic. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is one of the cases when something called "vitamin X" is not a single chemical compound, but a mixture or a set of different compounds. What should we do in such cases? Keep a separate page for every chemical compound (assuming they pass our notability guidelines), and also have an additional page about the vitamin. Possibly the best solution would be to move a significant part of content from Niacin to page Vitamin B3, meaning that Niacin would be primarily a page about a chemical compound, but Vitamin B3 would be about the vitamin. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for another reason: Niacin is a vitamin, dietary supplement and prescription drug, depending on amount and purpose. More to the point, niacin in pharmaceutical amounts lowers cholesterol, LDL-C and triglycerides, and raises HDL-C. Nicotinomide does none of those things. Again, IMO, Niacin as main article, Vitamin B3 as Stub with hyperlinks. David notMD (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose per all the reasons given above by other 5 editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
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.

I expanded the About to include Niacin (nutrient). If it's too wordy, I can trim it, but (IMO), it reads well. Also corrected the internal link to Liver damage which was pointing to the DAB page, likely leftover from a move of this page. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2022

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: moved. per discussion consensus and NATURALDISAMBIGUATION vs no disambig when natural. Precision is also important here, which supports this move as for the natural usage of these terms. Substance is a useless DAB term, and this in and of itself is the base phrase as nicotinic acid. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Niacin (substance) → Niacin – Conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niacin The Banner talk 12:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

An alternative to consider would be to move this page to Nicotinic acid and leave the dab page alone for the moment, where a second discussion (perhaps a new Afd) could consider whether to keep the dab page (no primary topic) or whether Niacin should target the vitamin article or this article as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, or consider returning to the pre-2018 status quo by merging the articles to have a single article on the subject and make all of these other issues moot. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not know about how to perform multi-move discussion. I am just honestly trying to clean up the mess. The Banner talk 08:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Moving to "nicotinic acid" and leaving the dab page make sense to me. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Niacin/Archive_2&oldid=1209015293"