User talk:Io io editor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Io io editor (talk | contribs) at 14:55, 4 March 2008 (→‎treatment of multiple sclerosis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hi Io io editor! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Antelan talk 23:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Natalizumab. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Corvus cornixtalk 23:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved text around, and added substantially to the the Natalizumab page.

io-io (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material placed on wrong page

I noticed that you are placing info regarding MS on the Crohn's disease page. Is this in error, or is there some reason that you think this is pertinent to that subject that I'm not following? Thanks, Antelan talk 01:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is about Safety (adverse event is called PML) and it is linked to the Drug natalizumab, but not to either MS or Crohn's, both of which natalizumab is approved to treat.

Therefore it is important that 21,000+ MS patients have been receiving natalizumab without evidence of the PML issue. The underlying disease does not matter in this case.io-io (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information would potentially be relevant on the natalizumab article, and I recommend that you move it there. It appears promotional in nature on the Crohn's page. Please consider removing it from that page. Antelan talk 01:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should understand that it is of equal practical relevance to MS and Crohn's, as the incidence of PML is linked to the drug, not to these diseases. The safety profile of the drug is its defining issue.io-io (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that information could go on the drug page. To put it on the Crohn's page makes it appear promotional. Do you see why it might strike me this way? Antelan talk 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. It would be unbalanced to describe that the Drug is "linked" (rather spuriously now) to the PML issue, without giving this actual in-practice update (which as I said is totally independent of the disease, Crohns or MS). If the update had beeen different, say several cases of PML in MS, then it would probably not have been approved for Crohn's (which it just was, last week).
2. Also the "link" to PML was found in combination-therapy only (when used with other drugs) - the actual practice has been in mono-therapy.
3. It is expected that use of the drug will stave off surgery (shortening of intestines, colostomies, etc) for a large number of Crohn's patients,,and hence its approval, and reasons why it achieved it, are very important.io-io (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the deal: I am concerned that you have a conflict of interest of some sort with regards to this drug. There are guidelines (WP:COI) on Wikipedia to help you edit, even on subjects with which you might have a conflict of interest. I can help you with this if you'd like. By the way, I mean this as a friendly gesture and not an accusation. If I'm wrong, please let me know. I look forward to working with you on this. Antelan talk 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't have a COI. I tried to explain the issue - it is one of gross imbalance. You say it has a certain appearance, but who is going to read this page, but doctors and patients, and they know the issues ? The problem was that before I added this, there were 5 lines on natalizumab as the newest therapy, and a further 5 lines why it was russian roulette to use, which is absurd, or otherwise the FDA would not have approved it. It reads more like media sensationalism than a reference encyclopedia. Perhaps these lines should be deleted. All I did was that I corrected 1 line and added 1 line describing actual usage in MS to date.
The other imbalance is that near the top of the page there are biological drugs mentioned (Remicade and Humira), and these have proven in practice to be at least as dangerous as natalizumab - however there is no mention of that, nor any citations provided as to their clinical reesults or practice.
However looking closer I see that there are links here to 2 other pages: "Main articles: Treatment of Crohn's disease and Biological therapy for inflammatory bowel disease" - and perhaps most of the material should be moved there, as both pages are out-of-date in this respect. If this is OK, I will do that in the next 48 hours.
In other respects the page is far short of perfect. For example, look at this whole section, it looks like some kind of sick joke: "Proprioceptive Therapy
An Alternative Therapy in the treatment of Crohn's Disease: Rothbart Proprioceptive Therapy[60] is claimed to reverse the anterior rotation of the hips, which in turn, is purported to decompress the intestines and colon. Waste products are then supposed to pass through the colon more quickly and efficiently. Since 1950, there is not a single peer-reviewed publication demonstrating any effect of this therapy in Crohn's Disease".
==>This sort of nonsense is surely offensive to Crohn's patients, and I suggest that you delete it.io-io (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion of page contents should take place on the Crohn's disease talk page. You might want to move that comment there to get feedback from interested editors. We can hash out our content disagreement there. With regards to COI, if you say that you have none, including no connection to any pharmaceutical company or distributor, then I'll take your word for it. Antelan talk 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the Crohn's disease talk page, which is twice as long as the Wiki page itself. In any case I proposed that the Proprioceptive Therapy section be deleted entirely.
Your message to me does not make it clear if the statement I added about natalizumab, complete with citation, addressed your central concern that it was about MS patients and not about Crohn's patients, although I have explained the safety profile at some length. I could put my suggestion out there on the Crohn's disease talk page about moving most of the natalizumab material to either the Treatment of Crohn's disease or Biological therapy for inflammatory bowel disease pages, although the sheer length of the talk page makes one wonder if they have enough such suggestions on their hands, and that it might be better either to just leave it (as it is now balanced), or just move it as I suggested.
io-io (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with drug PK's and PD's. I still do not believe that the extended commentary on this particular drug, especially in reference to MS, belongs on the Crohn's page. I think that talk page is a good place to discuss it; thanks for commenting there. I think we should continue this discussion at that talk page. Regards, Antelan talk 02:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that commentary on this particular drug may be extended, it already was before I editted the page, with fully-equal content devoted to a media-sensationalized safety "link" as to the drug's approval, efficacy, etc. However I do not agree with your continued focus on the MS issue, and the under-lying disease is completely independent of the adverse effect known as PML, a simple and logical explanation which, as you can read our discussion yesterday, only raised COI concerns with you. I have not much further time for this issue, as the amount of converstaion here exceeds my revision (one sentence, with citation !) by a hundred-fold. You may edit as you please, or raise the issue on the Talk page, but I would ask that you retain a sense of balance on the topic, as this was my sole original goal.io-io (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call re: the ratio of content length; apologies. I appreciate your edits and apologize for my blunt questions re: COI. (Thank you for the reply, by the way; as promised, I do believe you, for what that's worth.) I look forward to working with you on medically-related articles in the future, and I hope that this discussion hasn't soured you to me or to Wikipedia in general. Sincere regards, Antelan talk 03:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your politeness, sorry if I sounded snippy. You mentioned PK and PD studies, which I found bizaree. I see where you raise the issue on the Discussion page, and I will add further explanation there (original safety signal was in MS patients), and wait for input. If none by say the weekend, I will move large amounts of the safety issue to the Treatment page as I had proposed.io-io (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

treatment of multiple sclerosis

We are not the ones to judge quality of articles. Multiple Sclerosis is a leading journal and the article you are precisely mentioning is not a bad article, and thats the reason why it has been accepted, even if it does not have control group (is impossible to find a 20 years follow up with control group, it would not be even ethical). --Garrondo (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from your holiday. After some research, and still some more to do for some of the minor scores, here is the "RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS" table I was proposing to add. I would welcome your comments before doing so. Thank You.io-io (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF DISEASE-MODIFYING TREATMENTS FOR MS
Approved Therapy (Medical Name) Approved Therapy (Brand Name) Safety Limits Long-Term Use? Dosing Schedule Shown to Reduce Lesions Advantage (2 years) in Lesion Reduction Shown to Reduce Relapses Advantage (2 years) in Relapse Reduction Shown to Limit Disability Progression Advantage (2 years) in Disability Progression
glatiramer acetate[1][2] Copaxone No 1 x Daily sub-C Injection YES v Placebo YES 29% v Placebo NO n/a
interferon beta-1a[3] Avonex No 1 x Week i-Muscular Injection YES YES 29% v Placebo YES 37% v Placebo
interferon beta-1a[4] Rebif No 3 x Week sub-C Injection YES 80% v Placebo YES 27% (22mg) v Placebo YES v Placebo
interferon beta-1b[5][6] Betaseron No 1 x 2Days sub-C Injection YES 80% v Placebo YES 34% (8.0miu) v Placebo NO n/a
mitoxantrone[7] Novantrone Yes 1 x 3 Months Infusion YES v Placebo YES v Placebo YES v Placebo
natalizumab[8][9] Tysabri No 1 x Monthly IV Infusion YES 96% v Placebo YES 68% v Placebo YES 54% v Placebo
Wow...you have done a great work. It´s a great improvement to the article. I only have some minor improvements:
  • I don`t like the colur use, specially the blue for letters, since they seem internal links. I would rather prefer black as in all articles. Yellow might also be too strong
  • I would add internal links to medications, type of injections, and any other word difficult to understand
  • I would also writte completely sub-cutaneous, since just sub-c would not be understood by some non medical readers.
  • I would eliminate the "?" after safety limits... In no other title you have added it.
  • I suppuse v is versus. Im not english, but, is it not better understood as vs?
  • Interferon 1-b is betaseron in US, but betaferon in all Europe, both names should appear.
  • Add all the refs with diberris tool: http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ to continue with the format used in the article

I think thats all for the moment. Tell me what you think about my suggestions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrondo (talk • contribs) 08:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garrondo, I think all your suggestions are good ones. I am grateful that this meets with your approval (also I wonder if you treat many MS patients ?). Yes the colour was an experiment, because I had the Wiki tutorial page open, it is much too "loud". Now the internal links, is that done with a subscript or superscript ? By the way, feel free to edit here (in fact I am going to move this to the Treatment of MS Discussion Page, as others may have input). Also, I am still looking for some key numbers, particularly with Novantrone, as you can see. Perhaps the FDA site will have them. I will get back to this, thanks again for your generous praise.io-io (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crohn's disease

I was just wondering if you would be interested in returning to this article. I have been trying to work the article so people understand what Crohn's is. I've only been really active the past few days do to severe Crohn flare ups. I would really appreciate the help if you are interested in the article still. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalizumab

Hi,

You had posted on Talk:Natalizumab a comment about vandalism relating to the deletion of the 'brief summary' sections. I had initially removed, then substantially re-wrote the Natalizumab page to be more in keeping with the manual of style. Wikipedia pages should be written in a summary style, without the use of extensive quotations. If you believe I have removed information that should be on the page, feel free to replace it, written with the appropriate tone and sourcing, but I would recommend not using direct quotes. It may be a violation of copyright (though if attributed it may not be a problem) but it is not standard with much of the rest of the wikipedia pages, and is in most cases unnecessary. Please feel free to post me a message here, on my talk page or on talk:N. WLU (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply for you. WLU (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7617181?dopt=Abstract
  2. ^ http://www.themcfox.com/multiple-sclerosis/ms-drugs/copaxone/copaxone-effectiveness.htm
  3. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8602746?dopt=Abstract
  4. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9820297?dopt=Abstract
  5. ^ http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/4/655
  6. ^ http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/4/662
  7. ^ http://www.expertopin.com/doi/abs/10.1517/14656566.8.8.1103
  8. ^ Polman CH, O'Connor PW, Havrdova E; et al. (2006). "A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis". N. Engl. J. Med. 354 (9): 899–910. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa044397. PMID 16510744. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/tysabri/H-603-PI-en.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Io_io_editor&oldid=195806327"