Talk:Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stability after removed from a blister pack?

How long is the shelf life in blister packs, and outside blister packs? What happens after expiry date?

Wikipedia now says: "Pfizer selected another factory in Ascoli Piceno, Italy to assist the Freiburg factory with packaging tablets into blister packs".

For how long are the Paxlovid tablets stable after removing them from a blister?

Could the tablets be sold in a bottle?

What about generic Paxlovid? Is the stability about the same as for Pfizer Paxlovid?

--91.159.188.74 (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Excessive detail, wrong audience, trivia

Ftrebien The information in this article contains excessive information, is written for the wrong audience, and contains lists of trivia. Please review WP:MEDMOS and WP:NOTGUIDE and adjust the text. Thank you. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Whywhenwhohow: Please consider alternatives to deletion if you are not satisfied with how the text is presented to the target audience. In response to your request, I've already simplified the text quite a bit. Paxlovid has significant interactions with common drugs, many of which are commonly used by risk groups, and some can even be fatal, this is in the manufacturer's data sheet and it surely does not look like excessive detail to me. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ftrebien: The section of WP:MEDMOS about writing for the wrong audience includes "you use jargon when there are suitable plain English words" and "you are tempted to lift text from a patient information leaflet or website". MEDMOS also talks about "Wikipedia is not a medical primary resource", and "extract the pertinent information rather than just dumping low-level facts in a big list, which should be avoided. For example, a long list of side effects is largely useless without some idea of which are common or serious". In addition, the text copied from the EUA fact sheet may be a copyright violation since the fact sheet is from Pfizer even though it is on the FDA web site. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"you use jargon when there are suitable plain English words" Can you point out what you still consider jargon? It's probably just a matter of using simpler words. I already found and changed a few in the parts you removed using De-Jargonizer. The same tool outputs a high use of jargon in other medicine-related articles in Wikipedia, particularly in their Mechanism of action and Chemistry sections, which is inescapable, but I see nobody complaining. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"you are tempted to lift text from a patient information leaflet or website" The drug's official leaflet is the best source for information on adverse reactions and use in specific populations and the information transferred here is only a high-level summary. Without that, there are no other sources. WP:MEDMOS states at the top that exceptions apply. If there were other sources, then I would agree. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a medical primary resource" The content of WP:MEDMOS § Wikipedia is not a medical primary resource does not seem to apply to the current content of this article in any way. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"extract the pertinent information rather than just dumping low-level facts in a big list, which should be avoided." Done in this edit after you requested. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"For example, a long list of side effects is largely useless without some idea of which are common or serious" Does not occur in the article. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir § Adverse effects lists them with their frequency and the list is small. I didn't write Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir § Ritonavir, it could be trimmed or even removed as the listed drug classes are not in the provided reference (though they are in the drug's fact sheet as I wrote in my original text, which is now simplified). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The frequency information is useless without knowing how much does it differ from placebo.

Wikipedia now says:

"EPIC-HR study included dysgeusia (4.8%–6%")"

How worried should we be about dysgeusia? Anecdotally, Very many people complain about dysgeusia at a Facebook group. Could this lead to permanent harm?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/paxlovid

--91.159.188.74 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"text copied from the EUA fact sheet may be a copyright violation" Very little of it matches the original text exactly, but since I've concentrated in the important bits, I used the same wording sometimes to avoid overinterpretation of what they mean. If this is still a problem, it could be rewritten. The text is also sourced from the EMA, which uses almost the same wording, and as far as I know can be reproduced with attribution. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Pharmacology

There is no information on how this works. Surely an article on a medicine requires this at minimum. 5.80.214.205 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)