Talk:Efavirenz

message: I've dialed back a little on the language on violence/aggression as an adverse effect of efavirenz based on the following considerations.
* The package insert shows an incidence of aggressive behavior that was actually greater in the placebo arm (0.5%) than in the treatment arm (0.4%).
* As a component of Atripla and other HIV regimens, the drug is prescribed over 2 million times a year in the U.S. alone, and has been on the market for well over a decade. So any effects of this type should be readily apparent.  Nonetheless, the only primary research suggesting a connection (and presumably the basis of the Prescrire review's comments, which I cannot see due to the paywall), seems to be 25 case reports in France out of some millions of patients treated.  
* Treatment guidelines do not mention this AE. 
* A pubmed search on "efavirenz & aggression" turns up no hits other than the Prescrire article and the single case report article. Prescrire has an impact factor of close to zero. It lacks a traditional peer review process. 
Formerly 98 (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence/aggression 

message: the below is mostly spam.  will restore this later with independent sources
;Brand names
* Sustivahttp://www.sustiva.com/ (USA, Bristol-Myers Squibb)
* Stocrinhttp://www.medsafe.govt.nz/consumers/cmi/s/stocrin.pdf (EU, MSD)
* Aspen Efavirenz (Sub-Saharan Africa, Aspen Pharmacare)
Generic brands India:Drugsupdate.com generic brands list: http://www.drugsupdate.com/brand/generic/Efavirenz/87
* E.F (McNeil & Argushttp://mcneilargusindia.com/)
* Efavir (Cipla)
* Efcure (Emcure Pharmaceuticals)
* Efferven (Ranbaxy Laboratories)
* Estiva (Hetero)
* Evirenz (Alkem Laboratorieshttp://www.alkemlabs.com/)
* Regast (Pharmasyntez)
* Viranz (Aurobindo Pharma)
-- Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  brand names 

message: STUDENT 1 (David Szeto) - Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify...
* While reading the article for a "neutral point of view", I am actively reflecting on both the material in class and comparing to the example drug article, Cefalexin. I am also only evaluating the neutral point of view, and nothing else. 
* Overall, nothing much to add! I just have to small comments below. Everything else sounds super neutral and objective and balanced.
* "As of 2010 it appeared that efavirenz was safe to use during the first trimester of pregnancy." - I think this sentence is written in a way that suggests interpretation, therefore non-neutral. Maybe it can be worded as "As of 2010, efavirenz was shown to be X during the first trimester of pregnancy" where "X" is whatever the source said. 
* The mentions of cost seem non-neutral since they are different in the beginning and end (Pricing information). I think pricing itself is subjective and non-neutral, though I know Wikipedia people seem to disagree. However, the price for efavirenz is definitely not $200 a month or $550 a month right now. I suggest just removing cost. :) Though Wikipedia authors might add it back in and standardize it. Okay now I'm rambling...
[adding signature late even though I made the edits yesterday]DavidSzeto (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSF CP 133 Peer Review - Group 11 

message: User:Stephwong please explain how this reflects the source provided. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the source and content; the 2014 review is much more definitive than the 2010 ref. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certainty of safety in pregnancy 

message: For further development and upgrade in assessment, this article requires expansion. –Vami_IV✠ 05:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Vami_IV.  This is not a stub; it covers all the sections in MEDMOS.  What exactly do you think needs expansion?  Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jytdog I profess, I am not at all knowledgeable on what a medicine's article should look like, but I feel like some history and de-listifying the article in places would go a long ways toward helping it develop. –Vami_IV✠ 14:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

text: EDIT: Oops, I named this section "stub assessment." It appears that while riding the high of last night's stream of edits, I have blundered. I have rectified this now. Sorry! –Vami_IV✠ 14:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Stub
 Start assessment 

message: I personally know several people who have taken Sustiva and discontinued it due to severe side effects. I notice these side effects are downplayed somewhat in the Adverse Effects, which reads like printed material drug companies and pharmacies include with prescriptions. Perhaps this section should be written with a more neutral POV and not by a drug rep due to conflict of interest.
Also, in section where it says Efavirenz is safe to take during first trimester of pregnancy, nowhere are *dire* consequences of continuing to take the drug throughout pregnancy mentioned: before human "Phase III" trials, drug was tested on chimpanzees, three of which gave birth to babies born with brains located *outside* their skulls. See, this is why we do not allow drug companies to write copy here: their massive conflicts of interest preclude them from furnishing vital info. Can you imagine a pregnant woman starting Efavirenz and neglecting to see her HIV and ob/gyn doctors until giving birth? It's not uncommon for rural and urban patients to forgo regular doctor visits, so this is not a far-fetched scenario. At the very least readers should know about this and other very good reasons to avoid Efavirenz in some cases.
Same problem with downplaying suicides as only hypothetical: due to CNS side effects, several people completed suicide while on drug.
I hate doing research, but in this case I'll make an exception. Comments, advice, help all welcome. Please help improve this entry
(and possibly prevent hideous birth defects. Life is already freaky enough!)
 Kinkyturnip (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide and birth defects 

message: — Assignment last updated by JustinxLane (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Change to sentence structure of Contraindications paragraph to aid information flow --Monoclonalantibodies (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated information in the pregnancy and breastfeeding section based on currently available pregnancy and lactation recommendations from guidelines and pharmaceutical resources. --Monoclonalantibodies (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated the introductory paragraph to match the pregnancy and lactation paragraph below - previously the two sub sections contradicted each other.  Monoclonalantibodies (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Alternation of grammar in adverse effects sub section Monoclonalantibodies (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: PHMD 2040 Service - Learning Spring 2023