Talk:Rosuvastatin

message: 87.81.0.17 15:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

message: This article is still >60% criticism/anti-drug company. We should be listing the trials of efficacy by name and academic reference. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti overload 

message: Someone should add something about the very dorky commericals with the guy on the escalator in the endless hallways.  I think its actual a pretty well known actor who does the commerical.  I laugh every time I see it, especially when he gets the serious look and says to talk to YOUR doctor about Crestor! -Husnock 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Down with the bad, up with the good

message: Accepting the ethical view, that we should not emphasise on "the bad" side effects of some "good medicine" in order to encourage patients to use this medicine, does not mean that we should answer to each of these critics that harshly as been written hear!
I quote from the original article: ""flawed and incorrect" and slammed the journal for making "such an outrageous critique of a serious, well-studied medicine."[5]
 These hard words are incorrect, because the critism was made for the lack of hard endpoints of the studies presenting Rosuvastatin! And this is still correct! Although I agree that it might not be necessary at this point to have hard end points to introduce a new medicine, that is presumbed to be a better one, but still, it is a good practice to criticise a study that does not have hard end points!
The whole article seems to have a great marketing influence, and reading this section makes you believe that it is not serios in having the medicine criticised! This would mean a lose of credibility of the written critics! Critics are not always to be answered, you should sometimes accept a critic as it is!
One must not ignore the financial aspects of this medicine! Even if it is a good therapy, we should not lose our healthy critism in order to avoid being fooled out by big companies aiming at making profit! This is not aimed at AstraZeneca, but at all the drug companies, that a cautious eye should be kept on them!
I added a link to an article in the BMJ discussing this drug! Hope that AstraZeneca wont delete it!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnokel (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate & criticisms 

message: I have removed quite a lot of information; I will support my actions with arguments here:
* The page repeatedly claims that renal function is better with rosuvastatin. I could not see the reference that was proudly being referred to. I have removed these claims pending better references.
* The page went completely off the handle about myopathy versus other statins. The statin page deals with this, and the relative rarity of clinically relevant myopathy and rhabdomyolysis. If the FDA has examined all the data, and states that rosuva is not worse than other statins, need we say more about cerivastatin etc etc?
* The page listed reams of FDA documents. We are already referring to the FDA site, and linking to the entire exchange between Public Citizen (which has a well-known anti-drug company agenda) and the FDA amounts to WP:WEIGHT, WP:DIRECTORY and other bad things.
Content can be reinserted when its relevance has been demonstrated and can be phrased neutrally and without adding unverifiable material. JFW | T@lk 07:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slashing 

message: I just saw a commercial that said "Crestor" raises the good kind of cholesterol  [and lowers the bad kind], but I saw nothing at all relating to this claim in the Wikipedia article.  Instead, it only states how statins lower all cholesterol. Is there anything to this, or is it an empty claim? Shanoman (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims made by TV commercial

message: IUPAC Name is lacking stereochemistry. As drawn the stereo is listed as
(3R,5S,6E)-7-[4-(4-fluorophenyl)-2-[methyl(methylsulfonyl)amino]-6-(propan-2-yl)pyrimidin-5-yl]-3,5-dihydroxyhept-6-enoic acid--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUPAC Name 

message: It'd be helpful to have the patent expiration date in this article. I know there have already been challenges, but I believe Crestor is due to go off patent in 2010 (maybe later if they file for the 6 month child extension).152.133.7.130 (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Article does now mention patent expiry (in 2016). Also Allergan Receives FDA Approval and Launches First Generic Version of CRESTOR® (rosuvastatin). May 2016 says "Under the terms of the agreement reached with AstraZeneca on March 25, 2013, Allergan has launched its generic version of CRESTOR® 67 days prior to July 8, 2016, the expiration of pediatric exclusivity. " (Not clear who AZ made the agreement with; maybe the FDA ?) - Rod57 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent 

message: A6Boyd (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No reference provided on testosterone, no mention in the article. Non-referenced information should be deleted, not encouraged.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More contras 

message: Is it "common" for insurance companies to not cover Crestor because no specific "benefits" versus other statins have been shown to their satisfaction?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.142.231 (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "common" for insurance companies to not cover anything "new" if they can avoid it. A mere 20 years ago, coronary bypass surgery was considered experimental and not covered by most insurance companies.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insurance coverage? 

message: Absent?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecar52 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common side effects on this page? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rosuvastatin. 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/20120425221202/http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100701/BUSINESS/7010316/1003/RSS01 to http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100701/BUSINESS/7010316/1003/RSS01
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed this while discussing this drug with my grandmother: the rotating gif of the molecule is errant. Where there should be a fluorine atom on the phenyl moiety, there is a sulfur. This is deducible by both coloration and atomic radius. I would gladly make a new correct gif, but I don't know how to/have the software. I'll do some digging to see what it takes. 
Thanks,
Iudician (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecular model error 

message: ... and what about Asian Australians, Asian New Zealanders, Asian Canadians or how about Asian Asians! This is an APPALLING examine of American centrism on WP. I can find nothing in the cited work that doesn't indicate that the risk of myopathy doesn't apply generally to those of Asian ancestry. Unless other editors object or there is some very specific reason not to refer to those who are of Asian ancestry, I'll shortly make this change.
Ross Fraser (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The risk of myopathy may be increased in Asian Americans