Talk:Aspirin/Archive 1

message: Can someone pharmaceutically qualified check the formula details in the box, such as those altered to "methylsalicylic acid", etc.? I wish people put a sign-on name to an edit. Dieter Simon 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Methylsalicylic acid

message: There's something about the logic of the article that's a little hard to follow. The early sections imply that aspirin was originally discovered as a derivative of salicylic acid, which had somewhat the same pharmacological uses. Later on, though, it claims that aspirin works by acetylating COX:
: This happens because cyclooxygenase, an enzyme which participates in the production of  prostaglandins and thromboxanes, is irreversibly inhibited when aspirin acetylates it.
Now, obviously salicylic acid doesn't acetylate anything; it has no acetyl group. So why would salicylic acid have the same effects? Please explain. --Trovatore 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Action of salicylic acid?

message: To answer the question posed in an edit summary, a number of sources specify decomposition upon heating.  Here's an example of an MSDS :  Edgar181 01:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boiling point/decomposition 

message: There was a standing request in the natural sciences portion of Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_Sciences#Chemical_compounds.  I dont know if this request was for analytical or in vitro testing, and I didnt think that it would be appropriate to add a new article on the subject.  The request has been present for over a month,so I thought I try to fulfill it here.  If you have suggestions on how to better handle this request, let me know. rmosler 10:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test for ASA 

message: The current SMILES string used in this artice is CC(=O)OC1=CC=CC=C1C(=O)O. However, the article about this molucale representations says aromatic rings should be in lower case. Furthermore, I'm not really an expert, but I'd say renthesis ahould be used either in the label, the second 1, or in the acidic radical. That said, perhaps CC(=O)c1ccccc1(C(=O)O) is a better representation. jοτομικρόν (talk, email) 20:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the SMILES string to include information on aromaticity.  It wasn't really wrong originally, but this way is a bit more precise. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMILES 

message: Is there any way to make sense of the section under the header "Aspirin"?  From the text of the article one can't tell who or where "Sterling" came from.  Also, shouldn't that portion of history under the header "Aspirin" be combined with the section entitled "Discovery".  The two sections tend to overlap.  24.186.214.2 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might try a better introduction of Sterling Co.  Someone took a senence from somewhere and didn't introduce the Sterling company properly.Gaviidae 11:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: update: I made a Sterling page but it sucks and needs work.  Help.  Gaviidae 17:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section called "Aspirin"

message: I'd like to point out that the Lewis structure and the space filling structure on the Aspirin page have slightly different configs. The O and OH is swapped. --Russoc4 20:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecular Structure 

message: Does ASA really cause increased menstrual bleeding?  I can't find a reference for this, and actually it doesn't make much sense.  The amount of menstrual bleeding should no be affected by any blood thinners, and (in fact) current menstruation is not even a contraindication for thrombolytic therapy.  Maybe take out that line or a proper reference. Ksheka 12:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may actually make an interesting section.  If anyone wants to take a shot at it, here are some references:  
  
Ksheka 12:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menstruating women? 

message: I checked the references about the number of fatal cases of aspirin overdoses, and the vast majorit are suicide cases, which I added. This made me doubt the statement in the beginning about the several hunderd fatal overdoses occussing annualy, as this is hard to extrapolate from the 52 american cases, given the fact that suicide rates and preferred methods vary greatly across countries. Furthermore, I don't think intentional fatalities an unintentional ones should be counted together when discussing side effects of a drug. Unless someone adds a reference for the worldwide number of unintentional fatalities, I'm going to remove that sentence. 194.94.96.194 12:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done194.94.96.194 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatal cases

message: Shouldn't this article mention picric acid, or be linked to the picric acid article, since pure ASA is crucial in the production of picric acid, and is quite often extracted by hobbyists or teachers for demonstrations? 65.103.218.97 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picric Acid 

message: A pronunciation of acetylsalicylic acid would be nice. --Bookinvestor 04:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not very IPA-fluent—could someone check the following?  Fvasconcellos 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that is an acurate IPA transciption —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Right Honourable (talk • contribs) 02:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: the section 'toxicity of low dose aspirin' should be called something like 'danger of low dose aspirin'The Right Honourable 02:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  toxicity is not the right term 

message: Since platelets have no DNA, they are unable to synthesize new COX once aspirin has irreversibly inhibited the enzyme, an important difference with reversible inhibitors.
If Ibuprofen is a reversable inhibitor, how is that? if it affects both COX1 & 2, does it not affect COX1 the same way as aspirin?  Even the answers further up don't quite get me. Gaviidae 12:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question COX

message: You can take it for rheumatic pain, sciatica, lumbago, headaches, period pain, dental pain and many other things.  But how does it know which bit hurts and where it should go? :) -- SteveCrook 00:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aspirin is very clever

message: What is a 'centrally mediated vision disturbance'? Njál 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability 

message: Aspirin is meant to reduce platelet activation to be of benefit in secondary prevention of strokes and heart attacks. If platelets remain activated (in laboratory assays), the result is termed "aspirin resistance". Until recently it was controversial whether this translates to poorer outcomes in patients. This meta-analysis indicates that people whose platelets remain activated are worse off.
Enter the routine ordering of aspirin resistance tests on everyone who has CVAs or MIs despite aspirin treatment. Hmm. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspirin resistance 

message: Free full text of Vane's short 2003 review. A very interesting read. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The mechanism of action of aspirin" 

message: As has been pointed above, aspirin has a different mechanism of action than salicylic acid, which is related to its acetyl group. Should these two compounds share the same page? Paul gene 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, they don't? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what this (ASPIRIN) article says: " Aspirin acts as an acetylating agent where an acetyl group is covalently attached to a serine residue in the active site of the COX enzyme." And there is no acetyl group in salicylic acid. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspirin#Action_of_salicylic_acid.3F It is good that salicylic acid has its own page, so we can move all the ancient history there. Paul gene 14:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: These all are very good points. I do not really know anything about the aspirin pharmacokinetics, e.g. how much of it is decomposed in the body to salicylic acid. I am still not sure how relevant the history of salicylates is to the history of aspirin. Would the history of khat be relevant in bupropion or, even closer, diethylpropion (Tenuate) article? (Diethylpropion is partially metabolized to cathinone, the active principle of khat.) On the other hand, histories of fluoxetine and sertraline do begin with the histories of structurally related compounds. The said fluoxetine and sertraline precursors, however, do not have their own pages. Paul gene 11:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And I do not suggest excluding the history of salycilates, I suggest linking to it. The history of aspirin could begin with "Salicylates have been used since antiquity  [link to the moved history in the salicylic  acid article]. The French chemist Charles Frederic Gerhardt ....." Then, an introductory sentence would be needed after Kraut and before Hoffmann about the increased medicinal use of salicylic acid in 1870-1900, and how Bayer began working on pro-drugs of salicylic acid to decrease the gastrointestinal side effects. Paul gene 11:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move salicylic acid to a separate page? 

message: Coughing says coughing is a side affect of aspirin? Is this correct on this page? (and if so, why does it cause coughing?) Caffm8 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coughing 

message: Initially aspirin had many problems - shouldn't this be included in the history section? See here, page 456/7. Thoughts? Malick78 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History - initial side-effects

message: am i incorrect to say that aspirin is contraindicated in children under the age of 16 according to the BNF not under 12 as stated on this page? 
Liamoh (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct (BNF 53 (2007)). Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. - Neparis (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reyes syndrome 

message: I know it's there, i.e. Doctor Who where he says a tablet of aspirin could kill him.
DarkestMoonlight (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspirin in fiction? 

message: An editor has suggested during this article's peer review that the section about aspirin's mechanism of action could potentially be split into it's own article.   Personally, I think that with a little more content and a few more sources, this section could indeed stand as it's own article, which would help to shorten Aspirin somewhat by just using a summary.  What do other editors think about this idea? CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanism of action of aspirin article? 

message: Paul gene reverted the update of the history section with the explanation:  "Replaced unbalanced version of history based on Bayer promotions with the conventional one. Discuss before reverting."
'
That version was the intro from history of aspirin, which I think is a fairly balanced and concise overview of the history.  It is not based on Bayer promotions, and only coincides with them to the extent that they are accurate.  It mentions Bayer in only two sentences, and notes that before academic work in synthesizing aspirin existed before Bayer turned the drug into a world-wide commercial success.  Here is that version:
----
The history of aspirin and the medical use of it and related substances stretches back to antiquity, though pure aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid or ASA) has only been manufactured and marketed since 1899.  Medicines made from willow and other salicylate-rich plants date back at least to 3000 BC, and were part of the pharmacopoeia of Western medicine in Classical antiquity and the Middle Ages.  Willow bark extract became recognized for its specific effects on fever, pain and inflammation in the mid-eighteenth century.  By the nineteenth century pharmacists were experimenting with and prescribing a variety of chemicals related to salicylic acid, the active component of willow extract.
In 1853, chemist Charles Frédéric Gerhardt reacted acetyl chloride with sodium salicylate to produce acetylsalicylic acid for the first time; in the second half of the nineteenth century, other academic chemists established the compound's chemical structure and devised more efficient methods of synthesis.  In 1897, scientists at the drug and dye firm Bayer began investigating acetylsalicylic acid as a less-irritating replacement for standard common salicylate medicines.  By 1899, Bayer had dubbed this drug Aspirin and was selling it around the world.  Aspirin's popularity grew over the first half of the twentieth century, spurred by its effectiveness in the wake of Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, and aspirin's profitability led to fierce competition and the proliferation of aspirin brands and products.
Aspirin's popularity declined after the development of acetaminophen in 1956 and ibuprofen in 1962.  In the 1960s and 1970s, John Vane and others discovered the basic mechanism of aspirin's effects, while clinical trials and other studies from the 1960s to the 1980s established aspirin's efficacy as an anti-clotting agent that reduces the risk of clotting diseases.  Aspirin sales revived considerably in the last decades of the twentieth century, and remain strong in the twenty-first, thanks to widespread use as a preventive treatment for heart attacks and strokes.
----
The earlier version was, in my view, extremely unbalanced, focusing almost solely on the synthesis of aspirin and neglecting its broader social, commercial and clinical history.  If there are specific suggestions for how the above version is improperly balanced, I'm eager to hear them so that the history of aspirin intro can be improved.  I'm resubstituting this material here; let's work to make it an acceptable and broad historical overview.--ragesoss (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the version of Aspirin history Ragesoss is suggesting, is that unfortunately it is based on Bayer promotional materials and more than 100-year-old science. Point-by-point
*Why mention that Bayer synthesized pure ASA? - because it is in Bayer promotion materials that Bayer was first to do that. Neither German authorities nor the UK courts of the time found any merits in this claim (the US court disagreed). It is generally accepted among chemists that von Gilm and Kraut prepared pure acetylsalycilic acid earlier.
*Aspirin is less-irritating than salicylic acid or sodium salicylate. - Also a century-old Bayer claim. Is there any contemporary evidence that aspirin is less-irritating than salicylic acid or sodium salicylate?
*Should other salicylates be mentioned in such detail? Bayer scientists a century ago believed aspirin to be a prodrug of salicylic acid. It is not so, and the mechanism of action of aspirin is different and is due to its acetyl group.
*It is unfair to chemists to exclude the history of aspirin preparation and determination of its structure in favor of commercial details. Paul Gene (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I argued much the same points in September of 2007 (see the Discussion History of that time) and seem to convince the other editors. Thus, you changed a discussed at length and accepted version of the article. Paul Gene (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul gene, thanks.  The secondary sources I've found (in particular, Aspirin Wars by Mann and Plummer and Aspirin by Jeffreys) both claim that aspirin is less irritating.  Is there a more reliable source that claims the contrary?  Neither of these sources is particularly kind to Bayer in general (and both side pretty much accept Eichengrun's account of the Bayer synthesis, contra Bayer's standard legend).  Neither mentions von Gilm; are there secondary sources we can use that confirm vol Gilm's synthesis of pure ASA?  If that is in fact widely accepted, then that section can be reworded; the key thing that Bayer did, after all, was effectively build aspirin's reputation (as a less-irritating salicylate and as a clinically effective drug) and market it effectively, and whether or not they were the first to obtain pure ASA is a secondary concern.  I will try to rework it to address your concerns; a reliable secondary source on von Gilm and non-irritation would be greatly appreciated.--ragesoss (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I've revised the second paragraph; hopefully it's more to your liking.  It no longer mentions purity, which you are right about being beside the point, and it mentions Gerhardt's work specifically.  It also presents the "less-irritating" bit from the perspective of the Bayer scientists, without definitively claiming that aspirin is in fact less irritating.  The amount of coverage of salicylates is appropriate, in my view; both of the history of aspirin books I mentioned devote a substantial portion of their coverage to the prehistory of aspirin, as do most other sources I've seen.  As for discussion of the business aspects short-changing the chemists, both aspects need to be covered (as well as the research on mechanism and clinical effectiveness, both of which are also crucial aspects of aspirin's history).  The social side of a drug is no less significant than the chemical side, especially a drug that has been used in as many ways as aspirin over such a long period.--ragesoss (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, you revision is very reasonable. Salicylates should be mentioned to provide the background as to why Bayer was looking for their replacement. I just think that it is disproportionately long in this version of the article. The aspirin history is shrouded in many myths and you want to be careful not to trust all the claims in the secondary sources. Jeffries book is particularly full of inventions. Even other, more academic sources, make mistakes. For example, Hippocratic Corpus has no mentions of willow concoctions as a pain killer. This claim appears first in a 1930s review on antique medicine, but I was not able to obtain that source. Paul Gene (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please.  The survey will end on April 30.
* Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
* If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
* Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? 
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style.  Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: A relevant discussion on false references we had with  CrazyChemGuy on my talk page:
:Hi, you have removed several references from Aspirin as being false or not relevant in the way they are cited. I do wonder if on some of them, such as [1], the reference does in fact support the material - even if it is not mentioned in the abstract, the full text of the article may still have information that supports the sentence, could it not? Personally, I have not read the article in question, nor have I read several other of the articles you removed as citations, but do you think maybe one should be a little careful when removing such sourced information? I realize some people do do this, but I doubt that many editors would intentionally introduce sources that are not relevant to the material. I'm not saying you've done anything wrong; I'm just curious if you have double checked all of these references. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have checked a full text if it were a well and competently written article. It is not. I checked, however, the full text for the reference you mentioned. And no, the full text does not support that nonsense. 103 out of 160 people had GI symptoms, not 160. In any case this study cannot be used to establish the frequency of GI symptoms that can be specifically attributed to aspirin. To do that it had to be randomized and, ideally, blinded. Second, using citations, which are at best tangential to the material they purport to prove, is a common phenomenon on WP. I would not guess what its causes are. To make everybody's life easier, the WP guidelines generally recommend that in the onus of finding a proof is on the person who inserts information into the article. Cheers, Paul Gene (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  False references 

message: The pH of the small intestine is alkaline, (very), and not acidic. Aspirin is very soluble in the duodenum. GrahamColmTalk 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct.  It seems I screwed that up when I wrote the secton - an IP changed acidity to pH, which is what I meant to type, but I reverted the edit without paying much attention .  Thanks for pointing this error out - I've edited the pharmacokinetics section to fix this error. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pharmacokinetics 

message: If this is the case, a specific section should be created and completed.68.97.87.243 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some medical literature describes ASA use as an ant-inflammatory agent 

message: Hi, I've noticed the lead mentions the endogenous production of salicylates in the body and while I find it a fascinating tid-bit I do not think it belongs in the lead for two reasons; firstly, from what I've gathered from the article it references it doesn't seem to refer specifically to aspirin as one of the salicylates produced endogenously. Secondly, the article referenced isn't a review article and is hence not a secondary source, consequently it is not one of the preferred sources set forth by WP:MEDMOS. Fuse809 (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: …without statement of how it was generated to make clear what it means and how the conformation (pose) appearing was generated—this is simply bad chemistry/science exposition. Please (i) state how the structure generation was performed (in a figure legend, see also next), (ii) check to make sure the conformation has some physical validity (e.g., that it is a physically reasonable MM2, QM, or MD calc-generated representative minimum), and (iii) make sure that the pose is further relevant to one or more article points, and that these are clearly explained (e.g., the near coplanarity of the trio of atoms of the carboxylate group with the aromatic ring says what? the fact that the C1-C2-O-Cacyl dihedral places the acetoxy in a plane nearly orthogonal to the ring says what?).
Otherwise, simply consider removing the cartoon.  (A moving molecule untethered to method, physical principle, and a pedagogic point is no more good science than colored vessels on the telley or big screen, with tubes running and gasses bubbling in ways that have nothing to do with acceptable, standard ochem practices. Please!)  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rotating cartoon 

message: Please add information to the article about optimum storage, label expiration dates in various countries, actual potency declination rates and degradation byproducts.
* articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/04/02/drug-expiration-part-one.aspx.
:Drugs Frequently Potent Past Expiration 
:By Laurie P. Cohen
:The Wall Street Journal March 29, 2000
Consider aspirin. Bayer AG puts two-year or three-year dates on aspirin and says that it should be discarded after that. Chris Allen, a vice president at the Bayer unit that makes aspirin, says the dating is "pretty conservative"; when Bayer has tested four-year-old aspirin, it remained 100 percent effective, he says.
So why doesn't Bayer set a four-year expiration date? Because the company often changes packaging, and it undertakes "continuous improvement programs," Mr. Allen says. Each change triggers a need for more expiration-date testing, he says, and testing each time for a four-year life would be impractical.
Bayer has never tested aspirin beyond four years, Mr. Allen says. But Jens Carstensen has. Dr. Carstensen, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin's pharmacy school, who wrote what is considered the main text on drug stability, says, "I did a study of different aspirins, and after five years, Bayer was still excellent. Aspirin, if made correctly, is very stable."
* scopeblog.stanford.edu/2012/10/08/study-expiration-dates-have-nothing-to-do-with-shelf-life-of-drugs/
:Study: Expiration dates have nothing to do with shelf life of drugs
:Margarita Gallardo on October 8th, 2012 
But a new study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine may get me thinking, “Not so fast!” ...
Researchers from the University of California-San Francisco analyzed eight prescription drugs that were between 28 and 40 years beyond the expiration date indicated on the bottle and found that most of the medications retained their potency. CNN.com reports:
Overall, the eight drugs included 14 different active ingredients, including aspirin, codeine and hydrocodone. In 86% of cases, the study found, the amount of active ingredient present in the drugs was at least 90% of the amount indicated on the label.
The study only found that two ingredients – aspirin and amphetamine – consistently fell below the 90% threshold.
-96.233.23.207 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  storage / shelf-life 

message: There is a huge lack of chemical data, but i dont know how we modify/add it in the banner section.
Basic information like the pKa = 3,5 is mentionned in the text but not in the banner section, the place where it should be.
We can see lots of these information on this reliable website(aldrich) : http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/a5376?lang=en®ion=CA
Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graslt95 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical data? 

message: I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia pronunciation key, so I wish someone who is 
good with it would fix the pronunciation guide for acetylsalicylic acid.
What they have listed is  (/əˌsiːtəlˌsælɨˈsɪlɨk/ ə-SEE-təl-SAL-i-SIL-ik)
which looks to me like the most common mispronunciation, which sounds
like "a cetyl salicylic acid", possibly an incorrect name for "cetyl salicylate."
"Acetylsalicylic" is a compound of "acetyl", pronounced "ass-a-TEEL", 
and "salicylic", which is shown pronounced correctly.  The pronunciation
of "acetyl" doesn't change when it is used as a compound with "salicylic,"
just like it doesn't change when it's used as a compound with morphine
in "3-acetylmorphine."  Someone please edit the pronunciation guide
so that it's the correct way of saying "ass-a-TEEL" -SAL-i-SIL-ik.
Thank you.
OldOrganicProf (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation of acetylsalicylic 

message: Is it the same as salicylic acid?--李4 (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Unable to find a high quality source and removed. Pubmed has nothing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone was evidently reaching for the word salicin. Evidently acetylsalicylic acid, salicylic acid, and salicin are related through metabolism, but which is a metabolite of which and when is more organic chemistry than I am ready for tonight. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "salicylin" in the lead? 

message: I'm not comfortable with the sourcing in the following content, added in  this dif:
In a high quality trial of people suspected of having a major heart attack ("ST-segment Elevation MI"), aspirin saved the life of 1 in 42 by reducing the 30-day death rate from 11.8% to 9.4%. There was no difference in major bleeding (need for blood transfusion or brain bleeding), but there was a small increase in minor bleeding amounting to roughly 1 in every 167 people given aspirin.http://www.thennt.com/nnt/aspirin-for-major-heart-attack/
 
Thoughts?Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes need to be formatted better. We have this ref that agrees  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just the formatting.  What do you think of that source per MEDRS?  I haven't seen it before. Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes supposedly they are getting them published in a journal going forwards. It is sort of a secondary source. I am on the fence. The conclusions that it is supporting differ little from the other ref I posted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  sourcing 

message: This is not exactly true: "However, in 2015, the United States Preventive Services Task Force revised its guidelines to recommend aspirin for the goal of reducing the risk of colorectal cancer."
User:Castncoot the guideline is in draft. That means it is not an official position yet. Here is the time line . Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: USPSTF

message: "with glucuronic acid it forms salicyl acyl and phenolic glucuronide." why are there two benzene rings in the products while there's only one in the reactants?--李4 (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pharmodynamics 

message: Substituted at 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Please can someone add an explanation of "dispersible aspirin"; a commonly-available form? The word "dispersible" does not appear in the article at present. I have just redirected Dispersible aspirin to this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See  and . SpinningSpark 17:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispersible aspirin 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Aspirin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110818181049/http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=A2093 to http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=A2093
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I searched for literature and it seems like 75/82mg gives the same antiplatelet power as higher doses like 200mg.
But what about 50mg? In some countries 50mg is available.
This study does mention 40mg: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1412574
ee1518 (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: we don't discuss dosing per WP:NOTHOWTO and we don't give medical advice.  Also this Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  50 mg vs 75 or 82 mg Baby Aspirin 

message: If one has a low Platelet Count, is there any cardiovascular benefit of taking Baby Aspirin? If platelet count is high, is baby aspirin highly recommended?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platelet#Measurement
"The normal range (99% of population analyzed) for platelets in healthy Caucasians is 150,000 to 400,000 per cubic millimeter or 150–400 × 109 per liter. The normal range has been confirmed to be the same in the elderly and Spanish populations. Men as a group have slightly higher mean values than women".
ee1518 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: that's a medical question to discuss with a doctor. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baby Aspirin and Platelet Count? 

message: I removed this section as I found no discussion of this in monographs or reviews (with the exception of a mention in one monograph of a possible effect on TRH tests).  Seems UNDUE and the sourcing is not good enough. Thoughts? 
Aspirin, like other medications affecting prostaglandin synthesis, has effects on the pituitary gland, which indirectly affects a number of other hormones and physiological functions. Aspirin should not be taken before growth hormone stimulation tests, as pre-treatment with aspirin abolished growth hormone release, but enhanced prolactin release in response to the Arginine growth hormone stimulation test. Additionally, aspirin can lower lower TSH levels (leading to reduced T3 and T4) due to an attenuated TSH release in response to TRH.
Aspirin reduces the effects of vasopressin
 and increases those of naloxone
 upon the secretion of ACTH and cortisol by the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis), which has been suggested to occur through an interaction with endogenous prostaglandins and their role in regulating the HPA axis.
- 11:52, 10 June 2015‎ Jytdog (according to talk page history)
: Seems a shame to remove it. What don't you like about the sourcing ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aspirin. 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/20131203042143/http://www.theheart.org/fr/documents/satellite_programs/prevention/791993/biography/sleight.html to http://www.theheart.org/fr/documents/satellite_programs/prevention/791993/biography/sleight.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aspirin. 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/20090411071437/http://www.pharmacopoeia.co.uk/pdf/2009_index.pdf to http://www.pharmacopoeia.co.uk/pdf/2009_index.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: FDA
"The FDA has reviewed the available data and does not believe the evidence supports the general use of aspirin for primary prevention of a heart attack or stroke.  In fact, there are serious risks associated with the use of aspirin, including increased risk of bleeding in the stomach and brain, in situations where the benefit of aspirin for primary prevention has not been established."
Is our article strong enough on this. I'll leave this to those dealing with this article but thought this was somewhat stronger wording than our article indicates. I have no further input on this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDA on aspirin 

message: Drilling through the references leads to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC301910/ , which states: "Both persist for the life-span of the aspirin-treated platelet." Platelet singular.  So platelets in general within one person are suppressed; an individual platelet is blocked.  I've edited the article accordingly.  As it read before, it could be interpreted as "a dose of aspirin could change platelet function for a subject permanently".  Chumpih (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irreversibly blocks platelets 

message: doi:10.1111/bjh.14520 JFW | T@lk 12:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical review 

message: The caption under the photo in the "Dosage" section says this:
:The 5-grain aspirin. The usage guidance label on a bottle of aspirin indicates that the dosage is "325 mg (5 gr)".
It says no such thing as far as I can tell. It only says that the tablet contains 325 mg. In fact, under "Dosage" there is no actual mention of dosage. Dynasteria (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It says adults should take 1 or 2 tablets. My bottle also contains pills of 325 mg, and says adults should take 1 to 2 tablets. 325 mg is very close to five grains, and the reason 325 mg is used is that traditionally they were five grains. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dosage 

message: Yesterday I added the sentences "This is not the only mechanism by which aspirin works. Some of its effects are like those of salicylic acid, which does not have the same influence on prostaglandins and thromboxanes because it is not an acetylating agent (see below)." This has now been deleted by User:Jytdog on the grounds that it is "unsourced". Now obviously I could find a source for the fact that there is at least one other mechanism of action (it's mentioned further down in the article), and a source for the fact that aspirin has some effects that are like those of salicylic acid (also mentioned in Wikipedia). But I object to having to support every single sentence with references, even if everybody acknowledges the fact! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes sources are not optional; especially after material is challenged. If you care about this please find a MEDRS source and cite it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing the fact that aspirin has other mechanisms than acetylating COX

message: Per here  a number of people were involved and mentioning one in the lead IMO is not appropriate as it is controversial. Should go in the body of the article first.
The term "acetylspiraeic acid" is not in the ref in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Felix Hoffmann

message: I've tagged as needing a better source as to what MHRA does or doesn't recommend re aspirin usage by under 16yr olds. I suspect also that 'recommend' is not right word. MHRA licences medicines with specific indications and usage - better wording, if backed by source, is probably along lines of "In the UK aspirin containing products are not licensed for use by under 16 except where specifically indicated" (one product's SPC mentions Kawasaki’s disease). GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed it.Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reyes syndrome and MHRA 

message: This text "Aspirin is also used long-term in lower doses to help prevent heart attacks"
Is not really correct. We use 160 mg of ASA post MI. Some people take 325 OD for prevention as it is cheaper than 81mg.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Change

message: The IUPAC name is hidden. This is the international standard, and whilst I concede that Aspirin is the common name, the IUPAC name should not be "hidden". We shouldn't have to click "show" to see it's IUPAC name, "2-acetoxybenzoic acid". The international community worked very hard to get standardisation with the IUPAC naming system so it should be used :) 132.234.206.221 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUPAC name hidden 

message: It's obvious that the name Aspirin comes from the Greek word "aspro" which means "white", as in white pill. In Australia it was even sold as "Aspro".118.211.253.149 (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Aspro" was a trade name under which aspirin was marketed in the UK.  For the etymology of aspirin, the OED says: " German (C. Witthauer 1899, in Die Heilkunde Apr.), shortened form of A cetylirte Spir säure (i.e. acetylated spiræic acid) + -in suffix.".  White pills were on the market long before aspirin was discovered.  Dbfirs 08:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name origin 

message: *"Medication used to treat pain, fever, and inflammation"
One of the primary uses is heart disease. Much less so "fever" do to risks in kids. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have updated this in Wikidata as well. - Wiki-uk (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Short description

message: It seems strange to see U.S. labeling as "81 mg" when most drug dosages are multiples of 5. The 81 mg is 1/4th of the higher 325 mg dose. What is the reason that the formulation itself is not simply 80 (or 85) mg for marketing purposes? Did that question arise when the low dose was introduced? Who determined the factor of 1/4? Jmar67 (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  81 mg dose in the U.S. 

message: The Dosage section sounds from its name as if it will advise readers on what constitutes a safe and effective dosage.
It does neither one.
For that reason, this article should have no section labeled "dosage" until such time as someone both a) knowledgeable and b) competent is both willing and able to fill in the missing information.
Otherwise — as is currently the case — readers will come to this article believing that they have read what they need to know about dosage.
But they have not, since the article in its current state says NEITHER what is safe nor what is effective.
Dosage information is too important to be left in the hands of persons who are neither knowledgeable nor competent to write up what they know clearly.128.119.202.110 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is careful to avoid recommending any dosage.  It reports the sizes of tablets manufactured.  Actual dosage will be as prescribed by a doctor, or as self-administered, following advice on the packet.  Nothing in the article can be taken as advice on dosage.  I agree that Wikipedia should not give such advice, and it doesn't.  If you think the heading is misleading, then perhaps we could change it to dosage units.  Dbfirs 05:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely dangerous article 

message: "It is generally not recommended in people without other health problems, including those over the age of 70. (source: 41)"
Double negation in this sentence makes it uncertain what it supposed to convey. aka: clarification needed. Does it try to say that aspirin is used in treatment of people with stroke only if they have some UNSPECIFIED additional health problem except those above 70 years age for they get aspirin without the unspecified additional health problem (because being that old is in itself regarded as a health issue)?
89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyedited the sentence. The AHA guideline here, section 4.6 on aspirin (table summary and section entitled, Recommendation-Specific Supportive Text, part 2) says "there is also no justification for the routine administration of low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of ASCVD among adults at low estimated ASCVD risk." --Zefr (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  medical use - heart attacks and strokes subsect. 

message: had this humongous mistake: microbleeds the size of "5-10 mm". since theres no way a "bleed" in the brain could be called "micro" i deleted the horrendously wrong size indication, but i dont have a source for the correct size so i just left it as "small" as the cited source says. 
the deleted size indication is probably unsourced (i didnt find in the linked source a size indication, but check it out for yourself) and very  likely a typo and instead of mm (millimeter) should have used micrometer. so i deleted the dumb part. probably anyone in the cranial MRI community already knows what size of black dots in the image they used to call microbleeds. if you find a source please add the info to the article.
89.134.199.32 (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted your edit because the statement is sourced and that is what the source says. Anyone in the MRI cranial community could offer their opinion, but that would be considered original research and we don't allow that. CV9933 (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  section Other adverse effects 

message: In the section Prostaglandins and thromboxanes should the sentence
Thromboxanes are responsible for the aggregation of platelets that form blood clots. Heart attacks are caused primarily by blood clots, and low doses of aspirin are seen as an effective medical intervention to prevent a second acute myocardial infarction.[34]
be moved to be part of the previous paragraph?
DGerman (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  move sentence in Prostaglandins and thromboxanes 

message: This article uses the term "chemoprotective agent" for aspirin at the top of the 3rd paragraph.
I cannot quickly find any evidence (via the Wikipedia aspirin page or the first Google search results for "aspirin chemotherapy") that aspirin reduces harmful side-effects of chemotherapy, which is what Wikipedia itself gives in its description for "chemoprotective agent".  I saw info (on the aforementioned Google search) that aspirin can increase the sensitivity of colorectal cancer and breast cancer to chemo, but this is not the same thing as decreasing the chemo sensitivity of healthy cells.  Wikipedia says on the aspirin page that aspirin can prevent (reduce incidence of) cancer, but this is not the same thing either.
I recommend deleting the term "chemoprotective agent" from the beginning of the aspirin article; it has a specific meaning that does not appear to be satisfied by aspirin.
PS: I found a primary source (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22493984/) that does use the term "chemoprotective" to mean "protects against cancer", but this is still inconsistent, at a minimum, with the description given for the term in Wikipedia.
Boatman4 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I agree with you and I have removed the term. JimRenge (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspirin as "chemoprotective agent" - incorrect term? 

message: There is an interesting story about the discovery of aspirin. There are hundreds of articles, books and programmes about how the ancients used willow bark as a pain killer since ancient times, the implication being that they had essentially discovered aspirin. But this doesn't seem to be true. The German scientists who discovered aspirin weren't even trying to make a new form of painkiller, they were simply trying to make new drugs out of a variety of organic chemicals.
If you look at any old herbal or medical book, it makes no mention of willow bark as a painkiller at all. Instead, the 'ancients' seem to have been quite well-informed, and used burnt willow bark for treating skin disorders, as we use salicylic acid today. But given that no-one ever publishes a book saying "did you know, there isn't really any aspirin in willow bark," this is very hard to reference. So the question is, do we want Wikipedia to report the truth, or the popular myth? How do you approach such an issue? I notice that if I change "Hippocrates used willow as a painkiller" (which is false, as far as I can see) to "Hippocrates doesn't mention willow" (which seems to be true, as you can search the whole of Hippocrates online), I get my change reverted, because an unreferenced claim from  a modern journal trumps original research. Any suggestions? E Wusk (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:VNT. EEng 09:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is the issue. There is plenty of verifiability here. If someone makes a claim that Hippocrates wrote something, one can check it. It's far more checkable than, say the results of the recent US election, and Wikipedia goes with the truth there, rather than the far more numerous false claims. Question is, how do you make a decision to go with something that is verifiably true, but not so popular?E Wusk (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient history