Talk:H2 receptor antagonist

message: I can't find a reference in my collection for h2-receptor antags being inverse agonists - Rang, Dale, Ritter Pharmacology 4th ed say its an competitive antagonist, I asked a clinical pharmacist about it and she thought I was smoking crack. A lecturer in clinical pharmacology at [Westmead Hospital], Chris Liddle said in a lecture delivered this year (2006) that it is a competitive antagonist. So if anyone cannot show otherwise I propose we remove the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.150.93 (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inverse Agonist?

message: The latest medscape (2007/09/05) is carrying the following story:
"A study in the August Journal of the American Geriatrics Society found that long-term use of histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2As) for gastric acid reflux and gastric ulcers may increase the risk of cognitive impairment in later life in African Americans"
Should this information be added?
Dilkie 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without reading the paper i would say that i shouldn't be included in this article. Subjects like the potential to cause cognitive impairment are difficult to interpret. I think with something like receptor pharmacology it is best to wait until the theory reaches the text book to add it to wikipedia.Dylan2106 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  update risks 

message: I think there should be a bit more made of J Black's discovery of burimamide as a H2 competitive antagonist. The original paper, Definition and antagonism of histamine H 2 -receptors, J W Black et al Nature 1972 vol. 236 (5347) pp. 385-90 is a great read and really illustrates the practical application of Schild pharmacokinetic theory. Dylan2106 (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC
: this gives a account of the development of the first H2 antagonists if anyone is interested. The account starts at around page 62. --Dylan2106 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  burimamine 

message: Is it just me or does this article's information focus too heavily on cimetidine, especially in the "Adverse Drug Reactions" and "Drug Interactions" sections? These two sections alone mention cimetidine 5 times with only one mention of any other H2 antagonist. The entire article mentions cimetidine 12 times, Ranitidine 7 times, and famotidine once (not including lists). I came looking for specific information on the ADRs of famotidine and all I found was information on cimetidine. The article on famotidine also has no information in these areas and links to this article for details - details that aren't present here either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.104.144.250 (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Famotidine is associated with few ADRs. It is unique among H2 antagonists in that is has no effect on CYP and therefore has negligible potential for drug interactions (unlike the fearsome interactions of cimetidine). I'll add something to the famotidine article and try to improve this one. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Over emphasis on Cimetidine

message: Is anyone opposed to adding in the use of H2 antagonists as adjudicative therapies in Anaphylaxis and Allergic reaction under their indications?
198.254.16.200 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in Allergic Reaction 

message: I added this  and it's been removed twice.
Jytdog reverted, claims, in talk summary, "article specifically says that no association was found for this class of drugs" I don't find that the PMC3042441 article says anything like that. (Quote, please!) Rather, it says, "Meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials examining risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia in association with use of histamine2 receptor antagonists confirmed the findings of the observational studies (relative risk 1.22,...", so I reverted, saying it says so, and jet Jytdog reverted again with no explanation other than telling me to take it here to talk, and a link to an essay.  Jytdog: follow dispute resolution processes. Talk. As WP:DR requires. The WP:DR POLICY states, for example, "always explain your changes in the edit summary." and "If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself".  I've already explained my views on this edit thrice now.  --Elvey(t•c) 00:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes pneumonia 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: H2 antagonist →  – Google Scholar finds a lot more results for "H2 receptor antagonist" than for "H2 antagonist", and similarly for the plural forms. While H3 receptor antagonist is already named similarly, it looks like H1 antagonist would need to be moved as well. ~~~~User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 November 2021