Talk:Bivalirudin

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: We often use bival for HIT; is this an official indication? If so, it's not listed. Obviously this might just be the standard off-label sort of thing... 71.248.114.201 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indications 

message: why does the page say "Bivalirudin ... overcomes many limitations seen with indirect thrombin inhibitors, such as heparin" when Bivalirudin was inferior to heparin in both efficacy and safety in a recent study published in the lancet: 
Shahzad et al. 2014. Unfractionated heparin versus bivalirudin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (HEAT-PPCI): an open-label, single centre, randomised controlled trial.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andywhatever (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs updating according to new study results? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bivalirudin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120426012238/http://angiomax.com/Downloads/Angiomax_PI_2010_PN1601-12.pdf to http://angiomax.com/Downloads/Angiomax_PI_2010_PN1601-12.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bivalirudin. 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/20120426012235/http://www.themedicinescompany.com/new-images/Angiox-PIs/emea-combined-h562en.pdf to http://www.themedicinescompany.com/new-images/Angiox-PIs/emea-combined-h562en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203135952/http://angiomax.com/downloads/Angiomax_US_PI_June_2013.pdf to http://www.angiomax.com/downloads/Angiomax_US_PI_June_2013.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed language in a couple of places (one of them in the first sentence of the lead section) that called bivalirudin "reversible", although I've left in place the explanation in the section "Basic chemical and pharmacological properties", which makes it clear that the term "reversible" refers to the mode of binding at the molecular level. The language "reversible" in other places misleadingly suggests the existence of a specific clinical reversal agent (antidote) that would reverse the clinical effects of bivalirudin, in the way that idarucizumab (Praxbind) reverses the effects of dabigatran (Pradaxa). No such specific clinical reversal agent exists for bivalirudin, and it is potentially dangerous to lead readers to think it does.
The "reversible" claim is from the manufacturer's prescribing information for bivalirudin, which presumes a professional readership. This is an illustration of the pitfalls of using language from professional literature directly in a source like Wikipedia, whose intended audience is the general public.
—Syrenka V (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity pitfall in the term "reversible"