Talk:Donepezil

message: the bit about NICE guidlines stating donepezil can't be used in mild dimentia is wrong or has been superseded by more recent guidelines, http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=byID&o=13419 . if someone could ammend the page that would be grand. thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.9.85 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NICE guidlines

message: I know that this drug is prescribed off label for ADHD, with some study backing particularly for executive functioning, and also for non-alzheimers related cognitive complaints, including relating to mood disorders. Galantamine (another anticholinesterase inhibitor) has been studied to treat the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and a study was in progress for compulsive hoarding at UCLA (haven't seen it yet, i hope it hasnt been abandoned.) These types of medications have also been looked at for treating apathy, and not simply in neurodegenerative and depression related cases.
I was wondering if anyone else shares interest in covering the promising possible applications for the drug. I know that there was talk that Aricept was even being submitted to the FDA for treatment approval ADHD at one point. It looks very promising and warrants mention. I was wondering if anyone else has knowlege and wants to help. I can hunt back for the links and such. 69.196.227.59 05:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute here. Please assume good faith. To me, it seemed the above user was merely wanting to find reliable sources that talked about what he had previously heard. If what he says is true, and reliable sources saying it could be found, it would merit mentioning in the article and certainly would not be original research.--Gloriamarie 19:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADHD, non-alzheimers cognitive disruptions, apathy 

message: is it tertiary or qaternary?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.139.219 (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  formula 

message: There is an article called Donezepil which seems to be largely identical with this one. Donezepil should simply be a redirect to this page. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did it. If the creator was correct, then the other page is unnecessary; if he was incorrect, we'll find out sometime, and that page would still need to be cut down. :) II | (t - c) 09:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Article is not clear on FDA, EU and other approvals for AD or other indications. Rod57 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What approvals 

message: What does this article mean by autism? Classical autism or the overall autism spectrum? Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service | my evil deads) 01:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autistic? 

message: Improved lead section, added more appropriate secondary literature references
Added to the adverse effects and contraindication sections, along with references. Included more rare but serious side effects, rather than just the most common GI effects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cngiese SOP8 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job! Here is our peer review by Group 7. The first sentence of lead section has a typo. In the Medical Uses section, it would be helpful to note that the US FDA approved donepezil for mild, moderate, and severe dementia in Alzheimer's, rather than just severe dementia. In the Adverse Effects section, some of the sentences need references, and adding in the frequencies for each of the mentioned adverse effects would be helpful. The first sentence of the contraindications section needs a citation. It might also be confusing for a normal person to look at the contraindications section and see the "caution populations," as this is not a formal contraindication.7jmv (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  11/3/15 changes our group made 

message: - Renamed the "Contraindications" section to "Warnings and Precautions" to better reflect the content (cautionary details about the drug). Also rearranged some statements in that section to better organize the information.
- Added citation to the first sentence in the Warnings and Precaution section
- Edited the medical uses section to specify the FDA indication was approved for "dementia" in "Alzheimer patients."  
- Corrected the typo in the lead sentence
- Incidence of adverse effects were not included because that information was found mainly in primary literature, a source we did not want to reference due to the nature of Wiki. Instead, we discussed common side effects and separated them from more rare and serious side effects. 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by YykimSOP 8 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  11/9 Final Draft Edits - Group 8 

message: Commented here Talk:Suvorexant Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs discussion

message: Article in R&D magazine online at https://www.rdmag.com/news/2018/02/alzheimers-drug-repairs-brain-damage-after-alcohol-binges-rodents?et_cid=6264661&et_rid=612267395&type=cta&et_cid=6264661&et_rid=612267395&linkid=content
"In a study led by Duke Health and published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, scientists demonstrate in rats that a short duration of the drug donepezil can reverse both structural and genetic damage that bouts of alcohol use causes in neurons, or nerve cells, in the young brain."  senior author Scott Swartzwelder, Ph.D., professor in psychiatry at Duke
96.69.194.115 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  As treatment for alcoholism brain damage 

message: User:Exert yourself has attempted to present donepezil as an accepted treatment rather than early stage research in ADHD and autism. Have moved to the research section. These are not accepted uses.
The source is page 369 here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: also agree w/ Doc James, book in question has no weight--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I think people can provide another evidence to state them together rather than just kicking the ref out of the sight.--Exert yourself (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref is useless, though. The whole point of using secondary and tertiary sources is to get commentary and analysis of primary sources from independent experts. This book doesn't do that. It just lists a few studies and a case report of donepezil use and gives a brief summary. This is nominally a tertiary source, but in reality, insofar as this drug is concerned, it's nothing. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they probably had filtered out many studies before. This is the fourth edition. If the book is low quality, it should not have the chance to get the opportunity to release updates. --Exert yourself (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Doc. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Also, WP:MEDDATE is clear that the reason editors should try to find newer sources is "to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." We don't automatically give more weight to a newer source. Like WP:MEDDATE also states, "Assessing reviews may be difficult. While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review (see recentism). Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. E.g., the article Genetics could mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Donepezil