Talk:Glatiramer acetate

message: The tag on Wiki Cleanup Standards has existed here since January 2007. I think the page has come a long way, and could now be removed.io-io (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup Standards

message: Most of the text is a wikified version of http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/Copaxone.html. Added copyvio notice. SpiceMan (会話) 05:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: January 6, 2010: I have had MS for 7 years and recently started copaxone although I was worried about injection site reactions like I had with Avonex in the past. Although the side effects section lists the side effects associated with copaxone, it is not really very useful because it has no data on how common these side effects are. The only data I could find on this was published by a website called iGuard.org based on an ongoing survey of 1700 copaxone patients [] (e.g. injection site reactions in 30% of patients, which seems about right based on my own limited discussions with my doctor). The data is, to my knowledge, not from a peer reviewed journal but it is the only data I could find of its kind. I am new to Wikipedia (and not sure if I am even doing this properly) but wondered if there was a policy about putting side effect frequencies next to side effects / referencing social media results with caveats? It does not seem like any other drug pages on wikipedia have this information. Thank you. Thierlpin (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Side effects are often listed as common, rare etc - with standard definitions : Side_effect#Frequency_of_side_effects :
* Very common, ≥ 1⁄10
* Common (frequent), 1⁄10 to 1⁄100
* Uncommon (infrequent), 1⁄100 to 1⁄1000
* Rare, 1⁄1000 to 1⁄10000
* Very rare, < 1⁄10000
- It could be helpful to indicate the frequency or incidence of different side-effects - if you have a source to reference. - Rod57 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Side-Effect Data

message: June 11, 2009: An addition to the efficacy section I included a few weeks ago was erased by user Uri Ravel (somebody working for TEVA, the company marketing Copaxone?) without explanation. The addition cites articles that have appeared in major medical journals to make the point that the induction of immune reactions against MBP is worrisome for patients with mild form of a CIS, as well as for those thinking of ever discontinuing the drug. If it is erased again I will contact wikipedia administrators to stop this vandalism.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha123456 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: - I'm a neuroscientist not an immunologist, but on a superficial survey I don't see that any of the links included in the above disputed paragraph directly support what seems to be a very speculative hypothesis suggesting a potential risk of copaxone.  Wikipedia doesn't seem the place to suggest & argue new theories of potential risks of a medication.  I'd be happy for an actual immunologist or MS doc to correct me, but it seems like unless the author of this paragraph can provide a link to someone actually suggesting this potential risk of Copaxone, the paragraph should indeed be removed.  (note: I am in no way affiliated with the pharmaceutical industry and have no financial conflicts of interest regarding this topic) Leppac (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: - Update: I have now read a bit more on this subject, and have found nothing at all to support the above author's supposition, but a number of things to refute it.  First of all, although the author claims that GA triggers an immune response against MBP, the article he cites (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17676050) support that point; this article is actually saying that GA shifts the type of response that T-cells have to MBP (and other antigens in general).  What is generally accepted is that GA triggers the development of antibodies against GA itself.  However, as illustrated in eg http://msj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1_suppl/28, the development of these anti-GA antibodies does not appear to be associated with adverse clinical outcomes.  In addition, I brought this up with an MS specialist in one of the top-ranked US medical schools, and was told that this is not a theory that is even being discussed or a topic of concern in the MS community.  I would be glad (in fact, I would be very happy) to continue this discussion with the individual who initiated it; however, I think that at this point it is clear that this hypothesis is not one that is at this point in time appropriate for the general wikipedia page on GA, and I will remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leppac (talk • contribs) 23:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficacy issues

message: The Efficacy section, last paragraph, vaguely refers "to studies with a higher dose of glatiramer acetare ( 40 mg - the FORTE study); studies in Clinically Isolated Syndrome patients (the PreCISe study) as well as numerous combination and induction protocols, in which glatiramer acetate is given together with or following another active product.  Recent results from some of the latter studies reveal a very good effect of glatiramer acetate in highly active patients".
However, the FORTE study only started enrolling in 2006, and no results will be available probably until 2009. Also the PreCISe study is not in confirmed MS per se, but in "First Clinical Event Suggestive of MS" patients - neither correspond well to the designation of "highly active patients".
The combination trials are not listed, but without citation it appears equally likely that the "very good effect" may have been the effect not of glatiramer acetate but of the combination drug, as for example new MS candidates are often tested with glatiramer acetate, but also with glatiramer acetate as the control (examples are: Estriol, Tovaxin). In such trials, the effect of glatiramer acetate cannot be measured at all.
Also, what is meant by "a very good effect" to MS patients ? The use of this term is not appropriate to a reference encyclopedia for this drug, particularily as glatiramer acetate's clinical results have been modest compared to other MS disease-modying therapies - see below.
In particular, according to the Cohrane review of Copaxone, an effect in disability progression in MS has never been demonstrated for the drug, a fact which differentiates glatiramer acetate from most other MS disease-modying therapies, but omitted entirely from the Efficacy section. I hesitate to add this fact to the section, as it appears some bias has gone into writing what is there already, especially judging by the final paragraph.
io-io (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: As no-one has responded to the Disputed Content tag since placed 2 weeks ago, I have deleted what were clearly idustry marketing statements and added regulatory data, with citations. I have also now removed the Disputed Content tag. io-io (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Content - 2008 

message: "Administration of glatiramer shifts the population of T cells from pro-inflammatory Th1 cells to regulatory Th2 cells that suppress the inflammatory response." Either they're regulatory or they're th2...--GustenNyberg (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor issue about regulatory t-cells

message: My son has been diagnosed with MS and the medicine prescribed is Glatiramer however: he is not financially capable to purchase the Drug at the prescribed cost even with the assistance of his insurance company. Can you tell me if this drug is accessable in europe at a cheaper cost, my business travel at times takes me to the UK as well as other European countries. And do we need a Prescription to attain it outside the US.
Thank you Dominic Modafferi Sr65.14.45.53 (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: This site: [Israel] has an article from an Israeli newspaper about this medicine.Agre22 (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article from an Israeli newspaper

message: There is a self contradiction in the side effects section: "...side effects may include a lump at the injection site (injection site reaction) in approximately 30% of users, and aches, fever, chills (flu-like symptoms) in approximately 10% of users. Copaxone is the only disease modifying drug that does not cause flu like symptoms in patients." Either there are flu-like symptoms or there are not. Also, in the MediGuard site, it is stated that there are 8% users reporting on FLU-Like symptoms.ערן78 (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self contradiction in Side Effects section 

message: What's wrong with this article page? I don't see any [edit] boxes for each section. --Nbauman (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I figured it out. Subheads require a space after the first "==" and before the second "==". --Nbauman (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [edit] boxes? 

message: In the info box it has a formula and a molecular weight of 623 but in the lead it says it is a random mix of polypeptides and in Mechanism of action it says "a random polymer (average molecular mass 6.4 kD) " - What does the formula correspond to (it's approx 5 residues) ? A 6.4 kD polypeptide would have about 40-50 residues ? How is this mix produced - is it just partly hydrolysed myelin ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradictory data on molecular weight