Talk:Azithromycin - Wikipedia

Talk:Azithromycin

Active discussions

Antibiotics as a future part of cancer treatments?Edit

"Antibiotics that target mitochondria effectively eradicate cancer stem cells, across multiple tumor types: Treating cancer like an infectious disease" Some combination of cancer cell types, conditions, antibiotic and concentrations had very remarkable effects. Other were less effective, or not effective at all at lesser concentrations, while very effective at high concentrations. Some had linear effect depending on concentration.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4467100/

What is remarkable that it states that the study started because doctors noticed better survival rates at people with similar cancer states, who for any reason were also taking antibiotics. The very marked difference in effects when comparing the combinations also points out that for this to have a practical meaning is to know exactly the cancer cell type, as for the two/three breast cancer cells had a different response profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.43.243 (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Again please see WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect informationEdit

  • The article says that azithromycin contains phagocytes. This can't be true.
  • Pricing doesn't seem correct either as $4 for three 500mg pills is too low. It costs at least €10 in medium expensive European countries.
  • The brand names section does not mention any brands, but only other medicines that might be prescribed with azithromycin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.187.61 (talkcontribs) 14:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Incorrect informationEdit

I recently paid $3.00 for six 250 mg pills at a small-town pharmacy in the rural USA. John G Hasler (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

COVID-19 source reliable?Edit

The source stating azithromycin is effective against COVID-19 references an article in Int J Antimicrob Agents that doesn't actually exist. See DOI link here, says not found. I've never heard of "Mediterranee Infection". Are we sure this is a reliable source? 142.79.198.243 (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

→ There you go: International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents Special Issues: COVID-19 Therapeutic and Prevention  Note: The article in question, page 105949 isn't there at time being 84.249.25.224 (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 → I'm aware that the journal exists, thanks. I'm talking about the actual article, which as you said does not seem to exist. I don't understand what you mean by "at time being" - either an article is published or it's not. An article that isn't published isn't a reliable source. 142.79.198.243 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
   → Not "at time being" but "for time being", my bad. Names Gautret and Colson produce lots of published hits, also mentioning azithromycin in an unrelated way in another COVID-paper https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105932 and Méditerranée-Infection is mentioned in their papers and the new paper is mentioned in French-speaking front page of mediterranee-infection.com. So I would say the research has been done by (atleast previously)respected people and paper is real, but is not(atleast yet) published in peer review journal. For general good the paper may be worth mentioning in the wiki-article but wording should be up to date about unclear situation of the paper. Now the mentioning seem to be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.25.224 (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 
We need sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

ClinCalc validity?Edit

Doc James The ClinCalc data for 2017 show around 12 million prescriptions for azithromycin and the CDC data show around 42 million outpatient prescriptions. Can the ClinCalc data be trusted? We use it for prescription counts for many articles.

Previous year counts from the CDC for outpatient prescriptions show 52M (2011), 53M (2012), 47M (2013), 45M (2014), 46M (2015), 44M (2016) and they are also much higher than the counts shown in the ClinCalc data.

https://clincalc.com/DrugStats/Top300Drugs.aspx

https://clincalc.com/DrugStats/Drugs/Azithromycin

https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/community/programs-measurement/state-local-activities/outpatient-antibiotic-prescriptions-US-2017.html

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Clincalc says "The data source (MEPS prescribed medicines file) is released annually by the U.S. Government. This data release represents survey data from two years prior. The ClinCalc DrugStats Database sanitizes and standardizes this data, and is typically released within a few months of the MEPS release."
Well the CDC is "Estimates created using previous IQVIA methodology" so appears to be based on data from a private company.[1]
Different methodology gets different results. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Minor matterEdit

@Doc James: as busy as you are this is not very critical, but given the protected status of the article, I can only ask. (If you want to lift the protection, I for one would watch and protect from vandalism.

My observation—the appearing ref [6] Fischer, Jnos; Ganellin, C. Robin (2006). Analogue-based Drug Discovery. John Wiley & Sons. p. 498. ISBN 9783527607495, is misrepresented. The citation is to a table that only provides the structure of the drug, and no historical information on its discovery. That makes the very detailed material appearing before it subject to a {{cn|date = March 2020}}{{OR|date = March 20202}} tag. As well, when doing this edit, note, in that sentence,

"A team of researchers at the pharmaceutical company Pliva in Zagreb, SR Croatia, Yugoslavia, — Gabrijela Kobrehel, Gorjana Radobolja-Lazarevski, and Zrinka Tamburašev, led by Dr. Slobodan Đokić — discovered azithromycin in 1980.",

the amount of information looks susiciously like non-independent OR/editorializing from persons with a vested interest in recognition. At the very least, the "Dr." should come out, and the list of co-discoverers should go into a footnote, at least until it is supported by citation. In short, any discovery needs specific third-party sourcing from more than one secondary source, and this statement fails the test. I would leave it in bulk, but it needs to be reduced in detail, and it needs reliable sources. Sorry, the "le prof" in me gets angry about such scholarly sloppiness. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:18DE:22D5:EC7B:7892 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The protection was applied by User:Bradv not myself.
This book[2] listed it was patented in 1981 and that it was licensed in 1988.
Agree and adjusted. Let me know if that solves the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Azithromycin" page.