Talk:Fluvoxamine

Elimination half-life. 12-13 hours for single dose, 22 hours for repeated dosing

Elimination half-life 12–13 hours (single dose), 22 hours (repeated dosing)[2]

Does this mean, that if one takes Fluvoxamine once daily for example for 5 days, and then stops taking completely, it takes 22 hours for Fluvoxamine blood concentration to drop by 50% from peak value?

The PDF-source referenced by Wikipedia says:

"AUSTRALIAN PRODUCT INFORMATION LUVOX® Fluvoxamine maleate tablets DATE OF REVISION 11/01/2022

Maximum plasma levels occur within 3-8 hours of dosing. Steady state levels are usually achieved within one week. The mean plasma half-life is approximately 12-13 hours after a single dose and approximately 22 hours following repeated dosing. In vitro binding of fluvoxamine to human plasma proteins is 80%, and the volume of distribution is estimated to be 20 L/kg".

How can it take "one week" or was the 5 days just rounded up just in case? Could this explain it, from the same PDF:

"Metabolism The pharmacokinetics of fluvoxamine is linear between single oral doses of 25-100 mg. During multiple dosing in the range of 100-300 mg per day, the higher doses produced disproportionally higher plasma concentrations than predicted from data obtained with the lower dose".

--91.159.191.233 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sentence under society and culture

The sentence under the "Society and Culture" section about the Columbine shooter needs to be removed. Not only is it irrelevant to the drug's usage and effects, but it is problematic in that it may cause readers to assume things about the medication's effects. Putting that it is used by a person with such a vastly negative connotation attached to them could cause people to believe the drug may have caused violent behavior. GianniLaurentiis (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

To further this, many psychiatric medications are used by celebrities, actors, and other notable people alike. Other medications don't have lists of their famous users. Why this one? GianniLaurentiis (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment here, it seems we do list notable users in at least one other case (fluoxetine). Now I personally do not think that these are equivalent examples, and I'm a bit doubtful that the example in this article is actually fully compliant with Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:N).

However, I do not feel that I have a strong enough policy-based argument to clearly support/justify removal at this time. Unless/until that changes, I'm not comfortable with removing it myself.

I would encourage you to look for a basis supporting removal with clear and firm grounding in Wikipedia policy. If you do find one, then I suggest proceeding per WP:BOLD.

If you're unable to find anything, then I strongly suggest bringing this to WT:MED next. Garzfoth (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The sentence, and citation will be removed as the additional information linking the shooter to the medication is not notable as to what the medication accomplishes. The inclusion of the sentence does not accurately show what the medication's effects may be and could potentially be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GianniLaurentiis (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

Please remember sourcing for WP:BMI should be to WP:MEDRS sources. Primary sources and low-quality journals are to be avoided. Bon courage (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and for editing the section for it to be OK! Can you please give a list of low-quality journals that are to be avoided as you mentioned? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really, but you can check WP:CITEWATCH and avoid anything non MEDLINE-indexed as a starting point. Bon courage (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

ACTIV-6

Dear @Bon courage:

Hope you're doing well.

I see you've reverted my edit, which added details about ACTIV-6. It's a large randomized clinical trial that explored fluvoxamine's efficacy at treating COVID-19. I added information about it not because I want to make a point whether fluvoxamine works or not. It's only meant to document the fact that such a large RCT indeed took place and what its results were. Perhaps a large body of literature later comes out that can be sufficiently powerful to make the point that fluvoxamine works or doesn't, but for now, I'm only detailing this RCT, which is super relevant to fluvoxamine's effects on COVID-19.

WP:MEDRS states the following:

Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis).

It's also important that information about ACTIV-6 was added underneath the section Research directions.

Plenty of WIkipedia articles use primary journal articles. Please reference Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic, Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic, Lirentelimab, Sensodyne, Patella, Nicotine patch, etc. Removing my citation should also mean gutting many articles of valuable information about related clinical trials.

Thank you. FlantasyFlan (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of other articles have problems (although Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic does not, so far as I am aware). However, articles are based on the WP:PAGs not what happens in other articles. We already have good secondary sources on this topic. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Just because there are primary sources elsewhere in Wikipedia doesn't mean they're the best thing to use. I have found a secondary source and will use it to cite ACTIV-6. Thanks again, @Bon courage. FlantasyFlan (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. MedPage Today is not MEDRS either, but since the information conveyed in not exceptional it will probably do as a placeholder. Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)