Template:Did you know nominations/Rabeprazole

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) 19:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Rabeprazole

(

)

3D representation of rabeprazole spinning along an axis.

...that people of Japanese ancestry may have trouble metabolizing rabeprazole? Source: "In studies that used different formulations of rabeprazole, AUC0-∞ values for healthy Japanese men were approximately 50-60% greater than values derived from pooled data from healthy men in the United States." (Citation1, page 10 of PDF); Source2: " Patients with the CYP2C19 poor metabolizer genotypes may have slower rabeprazole metabolism and increased suppression of gastric acid as compared to more extensive metabolizers...CYP2C19 exhibits a known genetic polymorphism due to its deficiency in some sub-populations (e.g. 3 to 5% of Caucasians and 17 to 20% of Asians). Rabeprazole metabolism is slow in these sub-populations, therefore, they are referred to as poor metabolizers of the drug. (Citation2)

Comment: GA on Dec. 14. Using DYK credit from Fawad Khan.

Improved to Good Article status by Biochemistry&Love (talk). Self-nominated at 04:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC).

Recently improved to GA status, source is titled to a Food and Drug Administration paper which is RS, article is long enough, NPOV, QPQ done. Image is correctly licensed. All other criteria met. Chetsford (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but made some edits to the article which I believe reflect the source. Please check to see that they are correct. The study only mentioned Japanese men, not Japanese people. Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thank you for your edits. I have clarified one of the edits, which seemed to imply that this effect only exists in males, while the study itself did not directly evaluate females (and thus cannot speak towards them). ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 12:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Biochemistry&Love: thank you for fixing that line in the article. So, do you want to change the hook? Yoninah (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I would like to keep the hook the same. The pharmgkb.org reference clearly notes that this refers to the population as a whole. I don't think it's much of a stretch to imply that the genetic difference occurs due to the population, not dependent upon sex. I feel that to change the hook to note "men of Japanese ancestry" would unfairly imply that the same didn't apply to women of Japanese ancestry. The pharmgkb.org reference doesn't distinguish by sex, and I don't wish to confuse the average reader that cannot interpret scientific literature (WP:ONEDOWN). While I'm happy for the article itself to discuss a specific study, a broader understanding should reflect common sense. What are your thoughts?―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Biochemistry&Love: OK, fine. I think I was looking at a different citation, but see that the one which verifies the hook fact (footnote 13) does state it the way you say. Sorry about that. Restoring tick per Chetsford's review. Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)