Talk:Angiotensin II receptor blocker

Pharmacology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

additional side effects

ARB's have been shown to be teratogenic. http://www.fda.gov/hearthealth/treatments/medications/arbs.html under "pregnancy" category.

66.7.132.30 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Mko[reply]

call it ARB

shouldn't this article really be changed to Angiotensin Receptor Blocker ? All the world seems to use that term.

Kenmcl2 (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The Internation Union of Pharmacologists uses 'antagonists' for G-protein coupled receptors like the angiotensin receptor. See, for example, their page for the AT1 receptor. Major textbooks of Pharmacology, like Rang,^[1] use antagonists similarly, reserving 'blocker' for ion channels. Klbrain (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the MESH term, D27.505.519.162, is "Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists", however I note that subterms are:

D27.505.519.162.500...........................................Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers

D27.505.519.162.750...........................................Angiotensin II Type 2 Receptor Blockers

Crazy world. So, I suppose that as the current page, despite not being labelled as subtype-specific, actually focusses on the more clinically important type 1 receptors antagonists, that the term blocker is tolerable, even if I might recommend 'antagonist'. ... Klbrain (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ritter, J.M. Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (8th ed.). Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 9780702053627.

eprosartan

Eprosartan has to be added (with his link); a wikipedia page of it already exists: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Eprosartan

Comparison of Pharmacokinetics

The table comparing the drug pharmacokinetics needs looking at or referencing. Most of them are mostly excreted unchanged with little hepatic metabolism, or as I understand it from the MIMS database (database of drug information provided by manufacturer). The numbers aren't the wrong way around either, they're completely different.

On an additional note in regards to an earlier comment, 'Angiotensin II receptor antagonist' is the more correct term for the class of drug. 'Angiotensin receptor blocker' is a bit of a colloquialism like 'beta blocker', which should technically be 'beta-adrenergic receptor antagonist'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.42.137 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer risk

This addition is troubling. The cited meta-analysis found "(7.2%vs 6.0%, risk ratio [RR] 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15; p=0.016)". A difference this small in a meta-analysis is nearly lost in the experimental error even if the methodology was perfect in all the original studies. Any flaws in methodology could wipe them out. But the real problem is that it looks at one particular endpoint (cancer) while ignoring others (whether stroke, cardiac events, or even lightning strike). The relevant comparison is for all types of M&M, not just one. On a random basis over the ensemble of outcomes, some risks appear to go up while others appear to go down. We can't tell if this RR is anything more than that random effect.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky note idea

I was moving from Wikipedia article to article trying to figure out what effects the different antihypertension drugs have (just the basic types, not specific drug names) and came across "These substances are AT1-receptor antagonists; that is, they block the activation of [angiotensin II AT1 receptors.]" When I clicked the link, I was taken to a general article about all the angiotensin receptors and I had to remember that I was trying to figure out what a blocker of type 2 angiotensin would be doing to it. It's easy to lose track of what you're trying to figure out, especially in a medical series of articles, and when the articles hand you a jargon and don't explain it right there. Since I have to click through, maybe you could help me out with a handy script that pops up a sticky note saying "From angiotensin II blocker article. Sentence: These substances are AT1-receptor antagonists; that is, they block the activation of angiotensin II AT1 receptors. [Back to article]" Or put it at the top or bottom, or side of each page? That would majorly help me keep it straight. Well consider it please. Thanks. -Confused 24.225.67.129 (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should Candesartan be added to three bulleted lists?

I noticed that Candesartan is not included in the any of the three bulleted lists on this page.

Is there a reason for this, or can Candesartan be added by someone who knows the relevant figures/percentages?

Daveco333 (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should angiotensin II receptor stimulators have an article?

I mention this as a non-expert, not qualified to edit or add anything. A recent article says that "Antihypertensive medications that stimulate rather than inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors can lower the rate of dementia among new users of these medications, new research suggests". ^[1] Without suggesting that this particular point needs to be addressed in advance of reviews, should Angiotensin II receptor stimulators not have an article? Maybe it already does, under another name?

^ Anderson, Pauline (10 January 2023). "Some BP Meds Tied to Significantly Lower Risk for Dementia". Medscape., also doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.49370

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Ritter, J.M. Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (8th ed.). Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 9780702053627.

[2] Anderson, Pauline (10 January 2023). "Some BP Meds Tied to Significantly Lower Risk for Dementia". Medscape., also doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.49370

[1]

[1]