Talk:Sodium valproate

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jamcgo25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed

Removed the sentence 'Sodium valproate may also be used as an antidepressant, though this is not its usual indication.', as far as I can see there is a small amount of evidence saying it may have antidepressant effects, but this is not the same as using it as an antidepressant. Maybe it would be better to leave this out until someone writes a more detailed 'mechanism of action' type bit, and the link to the paper showing possibility of antidepressant action. May make a start if I have time.Berry 08:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The above sentence was added by 143.239.68.37 and I regret not immediately removing it. You may be interested in reading some Cochrane reviews rather than just plucking papers at random. See this and this for example.

My preference would be to indicate that a drug is used off-label or is being researched for if there are papers discussing "uses" such as this. And only state that it is "used" for something if it actually is licenced and you can point at the BNF, etc as proof that doctors really are using it as such. For historical uses, Google Books can usually turn up some textbooks to use for sources. My own pet peeve is that loads of drugs have some anticonvulsant effect, but rather few are actually used for the purpose.

Regardless, sources are vital. Colin°^Talk 09:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The following was added to the article -

News about action taken against this drug in UK

• [1]

I am not convinced this belongs in the article as this is a very new story and the allegations have not been proven one way or the other. Certainly I seem to remember it is well known that some anticonvulsants cause birth defects and I am sure Sanofi made that perfectly clear in their PI, probably to avoid stories like this. A lot of the claims seem not to be due to birth defects but to the presence of so called autistic spectrum disorders and behavioural effects, don't get me started on the autism epidemic...this makes me think it may be difficult to prove a case against the company. The trial date is set for 2008 so I think if relevant any information should be added then (if anyone is still around!) Basically I think this is a somewhat biased view from 140 families which are extrapolating their data to the whole of the UK but judgement should be reserved until the trial date. Berry 09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Information again added yesterday re closing date for other families to sign up to law firm's action and how it will advertise between now and the deadline. I removed this for very reasons given above from 2 years ago. That it can cause fetal abnormalities is clearly listed in relevant sections of BNF, but not taking this or other antiepileptics and having seizures also carries risks to mother & baby. Unless argument is that the degree of risks were not disclosed to permit informed decisions by doctors & patients, or that some counter measure would reduce the risk (high dose folic acid is recomended for all antiepileptic I believe), or that there is an alternative entirely safe antiepileptic to be used during pregnancy (which BNF indicates there is not), then case seems odd (whilst of far lesser magnitude, do people seek compensation from antibiotic manufacturers if they experience a tummy upset as a result ?) - if case wins then I can appreciate may have wide ranging implications and thus be notable, until then just a legal case in progress and not notable.David Ruben ^Talk 00:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

<following copied across from my talk page> David Ruben ^Talk 03:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi David,

I'm new to this talk business so please forgive any incorrect usage of the forum.

I believe that the section "safety in pregnancy" is warranted on the sodium valproate wiki page. Wikipedia is designed to provide not just medical info, but info pertinent to all issues regarding to the subject in question - in this case, sodium valproate.

I also speak from experience that wikipedia is often one of the only places that a layperson can go to get information easily that may not come directly from the medical fraternity. Although it does contain biases and inconsistencies, it's generall a good and corerct source. I use wikipedia for a whole range of subjects, and find it is generally correct.

It could be the case that the information on the sodium valproate case could alert a woman to risks associated with being on the drug during pregnancy. The standard information given from neurologists (at least in Australia, where I hail from), is that there are no known risks associated with autism. This is the information that is given to all women contemplating pregnancy, and was the information given to me. I now have an autistic son. Had I known that risks were associated with this drug (risks that are now confirmed by the Australian Epilepsy Pregnancy Database, but still not told to women considering pregnancy and that are not listed in the inserts on the drug packaging), I would not have used epilim during pregnancy.

There is the possibility that something as simple as Wikipedia could make a difference to a woman's choice of anti-convulsant medication. A woman may trust her heurologist when he says epilim is fine, but just check the net to be sure. Providing the info that there is a class action involving the drug on the wiki page about the drug is relevant, and belongs there. It may just prevent another autism case as well.

Thus I believe that to remove the information is to remove valuable, relevant and appropriate information. I have therefore reinstated the information regarding the class action.

Regards,Daharja

Thanks for your explanation.

1. Firstly is question whether such specific risk (valproate & autism) exists, and as witnessed by MMR-autism debackle, coincidence and cause are neither the same thing nor ease to prove eitherway. A legal claim being planned does not, IMHO, constitute proof of the association and the legal firm's website is not an independant 3rd party source (vs say a national media report) - so seems lack of WP:reliable sources for inclusion. An official requirement to alter a products datasheet, or indeed the citation of the case after it has been won would seem more useful from an encyclopedic construction (ie wikipedia notes established knowledge after it has been agreed, rather than speculate where knowledge, i.e. the courtcase discussion, may lead).
2. Secondly articles are written for a general readership and not for patients, as the WP:General disclaimer states "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area." and the Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer "WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE" (in bold no less) and "Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine". So "something as simple as Wikipedia could make a difference to a woman's choice of anti-convulsant medication" would seem quite specifically against wikipedia's style (see WP:NOT#GUIDE).

Lets see what other editors make of this section :-) David Ruben ^Talk 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly that source -- a press release from a law firm -- is entirely inadequate. The mere fact of a planned lawsuit is relatively unimportant. We need a proper study, or at least a newspaper article. After all, the point would be to document a suspected problem, not a suspected way to make a law firm wealthy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Daharja here. I believe that the sodium valproate page should contain not just information about the drug itself, but also (non-medical) reactions to the drug in the general community, and such reactions would include lawsuits as a matter of general information and interest. It is of interest to the wikipedia-reading public that a lawsuit is proceeding against the drug; therefore this information is relevant, although perhaps a better source could be found.

I am currently in the process of attempting to get the raw data from the Australian Epilepsy Pregnancy Database, of which I am a participant and which has also noted increased rates of some of the various listed birth defects (including autism) in its first 1000 subjects. Shold I manage to do this, I will add the information to Wikipedia. In the meanwhile, it is appropriate that at least basic information that a lawsuit is in the works against the drug should remain - this falls under general information about the drug for readers of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daharja (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Daharja back. I have updated this page, and provided reference regarding the safety of sodium valproate in pregnancy with a link to a journal article (2005) from the University of Aberdeen. If anyone feels that more links are necessary to validate the inclusion of a section on the SV page about safety in pregnancy, I am happy to dig around and supply more links. Let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daharja (talk • contribs) 09:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of Sodium Valproate for prevention of psychoses

It seems that Sodium Valproate has recently been discovered to be helpful in preventing relapses fromm certain psychiatric disorders, specifically psychoses.-posted 13:15, 1 August 2006 by 129.35.231.17-

Could you please provide a source of this information and sign your posts? Valproate is in deed given by certain psychotic states, but mainly to stabilise the mood and/or supress mania, and/or epileptic seizures. An antipsychotic effect is not known, as far as I know.--Spiperon 01:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)