Talk:Varenicline

message: I'd appreciate a link to the official statement regarding the use of phase 3 human test studies being the minimum quality standard for citation in medical articles on wikipedia.  In my opinion, citation of an article released by the National Institute of Health of the United States Federal Government should constitute notable and reliable enough information to meet inclusion standards.  
--Linkinlogs 00:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of alcohol dependance 

message: Technology appraisal: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA123 JFW | T@lk 08:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NICE 

message: It would be nice if someone could explain in layman terms how this drug works, what it does, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.229.197 (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may not understand the above description because I am not a layman. But the effects of nicotine are a bit more complex than that. It is true that one effect of chronic nicotine treatment is the increase of high affinity binding sites in the brain. This is different to "growing receptors". We do not know what it means actually. For a long time, it has been assumed to be an increase of alpha4beta2 nicotinic receptors. Then other explanations came up, like a shift between different isoforms of receptors, an effect on receptor folding etc. But in any case, this is not, as far as I am aware, involved in nicotine addiction. Or let's say not in nicotine dependence. I just could not understand what "When nicotine is withheld, these receptors begin to get agitated, sending out the message "time to light up" means.Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Not at all. Varenicline is a nicotinic agonist. It imitates nicotine effect. Yes it is "dulling the message that says it's time to light another cigarette" exactly like nicotine would do. It does not cause the receptors to go away. Even if it would, it would not lessen the desire to smoke a great deal. Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Varenicline works exactly like nicotine, and we could perfectly do patches and inhalers of varenicline. The difference between varenicline and nicotine, is that the former affects only some nicotinic receptors, and affect them partially. Since nicotine has many effects on the brain, positive and negative, it is better.Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The reason is first that tobacco is not just nicotine. For instance, tobacco smoke contains inhibitors of monoamine oxidase, that certainly participate to addiction and explain that chewed tobacco is far less addictive than smoked one. Second, tobacco smoking is more than a pharmacological addiction. Social and environmental cues are very important (otherwise noone would start to smoke. The first effect of tobacco smoke is to make you puke. One start to smoke mainly to comply with social rules). Third although varenicline is better than nicotine, it missed its target. It does not target the right receptors. For various reasons, that would be far to complicated to explain here (but that have to do mainly with social structure of scientific research, including stiffness of the opinion, power of simplistic explanations, lack of understanding of basic pharmacology by molecular biologists, but also with the slowness of drug development) most of the current clinical trials are targeting alpha4beta2 receptors, while the scientific community is now focussing on alpha7, alpha6beta2beta3 and alpha4alpha6beta2beta3 receptors. Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Add... 

message: I removed this because the NIH information provided is about nicotine withdrawal symptoms in general and not a comment on, or a refutation of, the reported Chantix side effects. While the link between the two may be both obvious and notable, it seems like editorializing or using the page as a forum for debate to imply the NIH findings are related to Chantix and not to nicotine withdrawal in general. The possible link to withdrawal symptoms is already mentioned, as are other potential reasons for the high number of incident reports. Relevancy would not be in question if a link were provided to an actual NIH study of Chantix as opposed to a website simply citing NIH bullet points. The Editor's note that accompanies this change notes that the article "requires investigation of nicotine withdrawal as potential cause of psychosis in varenicline users, as consistent with NiH findings." Absolutely true if the NIH conducted a study to this effect in re: the subject at hand, but no citation is provided to such an investigation. Homerduo (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIH entry in side effects 

message: Chantix costs about $100 a month, and it worked for me, but it is NOT convered by the Aetna prescription plan.
One would think an effective medication to stop smoking should be covered, but why not?
A: Perhaps some actuary at Aetna figured out that it's more cost-effective for smokers to die sooner than for non-smokers to die many years later from "natural" causes.
70.138.247.210 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny. Yes, Bill, that must be the reason. It can't be that managed care plans maximize profits by avoiding full payment for proprietary drugs, especially new ones. David Spector 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chantix NOT covered by Aetna prescription plan 

message: I have removed the link to these because the statement in the article is not backed by the actual studies. The first study makes only a passing mention to psychiatric side effects (at least in the abstract) noting that they are "unproven." The second, more importantly, shows a moderate incidence of psychiatric side effects (something like 1.1%), with two participants in the study attempting suicide during its course. The studies are interesting and should be mentioned, but not in a way that contradicts or distorts their findings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.134.174 (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 studies linked in article 

message: I have added a caution box that is almost certain to be removed, probably by representatives from Pfizer looking to control their product's PR. Unfortunately, so many news articles and magazine articles have been written about how horrid this drug is, that they cannot hide it anymore anyway, and it might as well be here on Wikipedia where everyone can look at. I am sick and tired of the lies and deceit that are allowed to stand barely challenged simply because the outfit that sponsors it has money and influence. This drug has made normal people go absolutely nuts and kill people. Additionally, it can't even really help most of its users achieve the thing it's marketed to achieve. It should have been declared all-around banned across the world years ago, but it's still around, probably chiefly because Pfizer considers its bottom line more important than human lives. Disgusting. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kikodawgzzz, I have indeed removed the caution box, although I assure you I don't work for Pfizer :) This issue has actually been discussed in depth, and the reasons behind the decision not to use this sort of thing in articles are presented here and discussed here and here. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the dangers of this drug 

message: Someone should create a subsection which identifies violent behavior as a potential side effect, as two clinical studies have shown the correlation. Potentially could include the numerous violent crime cases in recent years that implicate Varenicline.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.10.122 (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence as a side effect 

message: : Thanks responding to my request  Jfdwolff! Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for edit to update drugbox