Talk:Aprotinin

message: I need the title of the 1928 German paper, in German preferable. I'm also looking for the earliest mention of the amino acid sequence, which I've presently inserted without a cite. JFW | T@lk 07:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: reports production of a correctly folded form by E. coli. Is Trasylol actually still extracted from cow lung? JFW | T@lk 12:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recombinant 

message: This is a confusing sentence.  Perhaps, JFW, you could rewrite to be a bit more comprehensible?
"Anaphylaxis occurs at a rate of 1:200 in first-time use, but serology (antibodies against aprotinin) is not advocated to prevent anaphylaxis on reexposure due to metholodological problems[2]."
From this sentence, it appears that the writer means that serology is an antibody, and that it is not advocated to prevent anaphylaxis (although I don't think that is what you mean)... Wikipedia should be written for the general population, not medical professionals.   Even if the audience were medical professionals, the sentence is still awkward.jgwlaw 02:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite badly needed

message: Apart from the way this article has ended up in legal circles, it needs the two articles from todays NEJM to bring it up to date. This drug has a murky history, and I would lso include Dean Fergusson's paper in Clinical Trials (2005; 2: 218–232) on the ethical issues. 
Mgoodyear 23:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The drug does not have a "murky history". What has gone wrong is that the FDA and Bayer disagree on whether the safety data has been underreported. The Fergusson paper does document some important points, but whether that concerns aprotinin alone or whether this is something that permeates all clinical research has yet to be established. I'd personally rather use a drug that has been tested in larger numbers of patients, even if there has been some duplication. Yet, this should preferentially be in larger trials to make the data generalisable. Some chemotherapy regimens are used only in trial context (e.g. in The Netherlands all patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma are in clinical trials). JFW | T@lk 04:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: As discussed on my usertalk page with JFW, I believe that there are substantial sources of information involving the litigation surrounding this drug.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation heard arguments in March of 2008.  This hearing took place after Bayer requested that the Federal Court cases be consolidated in front of one judge. see: LexisNexus.  Thereafter, on April 7, 2008, the [Judicial_Panel_on_Multidistrict_Litigation] granted MDL [Multidistrict_litigation] status to the litigation surrounding this drug. See: JPML Order for MDL 1928. On the front line reviewing the millions of pages of documents to be produced by Bayer is a court appointed plaintiffs steering committee in MDL. All cases filed in Federal Court will be tranferred to Florida where they will be part of this consolidated effort to get to the bottom of what occurred. (MonheitLaw (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Circles

message: It looks like there is a parallel page called BPTI on the same protein. These should of course be merged. But what should the article be called. Personally I'm used to calling this protein BPTI, but I guess the more clinically interested would object to this... Thoughts anyone...? Kjaergaard 22:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with BPTI

message: Two trials: first and second, out this week, both showing increased mortality and renal impairment. Perhaps it is safe to say that aprotinin's days are well and truly numbered. JFW | T@lk 06:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: - and another one. Aprotinin is dead. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  was the trial that started its use in major surgery. JFW | T@lk 13:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEJM this week 

message: I concede that probably more total people care about the drug than about the actual protein, so the merge and title are OK, given the redirect.  But since BPTI is also very important to the history of scientific research on protein structure, I've added more facts and citations and an image, and rearranged the article somewhat to end with a section on BPTI as a protein. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite done, including scientific as well as clinical importance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aprotinin. 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/20110717091728/http://www.trasylol.com/Trasylol_11_05_07.pdf to http://www.trasylol.com/Trasylol_11_05_07.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201214751/http://www.nordicpharmagroup.com/art-4-4-38-the-nordic-group-acquires-rights-to-trasylol-from-bayer-healthcare.html to http://www.nordicpharmagroup.com/art-4-4-38-the-nordic-group-acquires-rights-to-trasylol-from-bayer-healthcare.html
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) 05:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified