Talk:Metformin

PCOS symptoms other than infertility

The subsection on PCOS itself was removed and there is only a section on infertility (which is all about infertility from PCOS). Metformin is used to treat other symptoms of PCOS per the office of womens health ref and others. I think we should rename this section to PCOS and discuss other symptoms as well. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Its use for infertility outside of PCOS is poor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

OK by me to have a PCOS section, although that compels other adjustments. Many obese patients with GDM or DM2 but without PCOS are treated with metformin during pregnancy, although this is not supported by the Dodd meta-analysis. How about a "metformin during pregnancy" section and a separate "metformin for enhancing female fertility section?" That would seem to be more intuitive for the reader. No strong feelings on this, though.Sbelknap (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That's still focusing on fertility. Metformin can also help with symptoms of PCOS that are completely unrelated to reproduction, such as weight, hirsutism, thin hair, acne, etc. Having a section simply on PCOS in general makes a lot more sense than looking at women as nothing but walking wombs. Critterkeeper (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis

• • Non-Diabetic Application**

I haven't edited Wiki in a LONG time, unaccustomed to the new format I find daunting, I don't want to screw things up. I DO want to add multiple sclerosis to the list of other ailments treated. Here are some citations:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32877653/#:~:text=In%20summary%2C%20we%20identify%20that,promoting%20oligodendrocyte%20regeneration%20and%20remyelination.

https://cdmrp.army.mil/msrp/research_highlights/21colognato_highlight

https://www.mssociety.org.uk/research/latest-research/latest-research-news-and-blogs/trial-shows-myelin-repair-humans-possible

2603:7080:A501:B92B:B84F:E80D:9CFF:7702 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

So far as I can see there's just been some animal research done, with the usual attendant hype. PMID:35269466, a not-great review article, mentions it. I'd be inclined to to include unless there are better sources. Alexbrn (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Study: Metformin use may increase risk of birth defects

Preconception Antidiabetic Drugs in Men and Birth Defects in Offspring

Annals of Internal Medicine

Background:

Diabetes reduces semen quality and increasingly occurs during reproductive years. Diabetes medications, such as metformin, have glucose-independent effects on the male reproductive system. Associations with birth defects in offspring are unknown.

Metformin-exposed offspring (n = 1451) had an elevated birth defect frequency (aOR, 1.40 [CI, 1.08 to 1.82]).

Offspring whose fathers filled a metformin prescription in the year before (n = 1751) or after (n = 2484) sperm development had reference birth defect frequencies (aORs, 0.88 [CI, 0.59 to 1.31] and 0.92 [CI, 0.68 to 1.26], respectively), as did unexposed siblings of exposed offspring (3.2%; exposed vs. unexposed OR, 1.54 [CI, 0.94 to 2.53]). Among metformin-exposed offspring, genital birth defects, all in boys, were more common (aOR, 3.39 [CI, 1.82 to 6.30]), while the proportion of male offspring was lower (49.4% vs. 51.4%, P = 0.073).

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-4389

https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-4389

- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:B005:9FA7:5D5D:9FB8 (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

2021 review

This 2021 review which looked at both observational and controlled trials of Metformin and health effects found that most of the evidence is of low quality. Although used to treat Type 2 diabetes there is no strong evidence that metformin has any other health benefit. The evidence for Metformin lowering mortality risk of CVD is only a weak association [1]. Much of the content in the "medical uses" section is outdated and fails WP:MEDRS. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Stale" sentence should not [still] be in the present tense

The version that this comment is about

This comment is about the Latest revision as of 10:55, 15 April 2023 version of this article.

The sentence that is stale

In the "Pharmacokinetics" sub-section of (the "Pharmacology" section of) [that version of] the article, the sentence [displayed as]

More lipophilic derivatives of metformin are presently under investigation with the aim of producing prodrugs with superior oral absorption than metformin.

is stale.

Choice of words, too (not just grammatical "tense")

Not only does that sentence still use the present tense, while referencing a reliable source from over 12 years ago ("date = February 2011"), but also ... that sentence uses the phrase "are presently under investigation", which seems to be indicating -- (perhaps incorrectly) -- that the pharmaceuticals (the "derivatives of metformin") that were "under investigation" as of "February 2011", are still "under investigation", now.

What should be done?

I am not sure what would be the best choice. One idea would be to use the past tense, together with some adverbial modifier /slash "explanation", such as [the prepositional phrase] "as of February 2011". Some other ideas might spring from ... having some knowledge of what the current status really is, of (the "investigation" into) those "lipophilic derivatives of metformin" that were "under investigation [...]", as of February 2011.

Any advice, or comments? -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Special meds..

... Like this one. IF there is a Nuclear War, what would happen if one can no longer get these meds? I'm not after med advice from Wikipedia at all, only asking what would happen if no one could get these meds due to a catastrophic event like a Nuclear War. 😘🥰😺 Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)