Talk:Canagliflozin
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Canagliflozin.
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JMatt5, Jknguye6, Tnguy1081, Nikki9308.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Article is unbalanced
[edit]This article is very unbalanced. It is very strange for an article like this to devote almost 3/4 of the text to potential side effects, while hardly even mentioning any potential benefits. It clearly must have a positive risk/benefit ratio because it has been approved by the FDA for treatment of type II diabetes, but the article is skewed to make the reader think otherwise. Moretto (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Added a bit about benefits. The side effects section is still somewhat misleading as it uses primary sources and what J&J told investors, which often isn't really relevant medically. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Contraindications Section is incorrect.
[edit]The sodium-glucose transport protein inhibitor canagliflozin does not become ineffective with type I diabetes nor is there a reason it should. There are likely numerous reasons the USFDA hasn't approved it for type I treatment but the fact remains that it is quite effective in type 1 treatment. Many endocrinologists have already begun prescribing it with great success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slartimacfast (talk • contribs) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- A reference is needed for that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
What text in the source supports the text in question?
[edit]- Added "Other sources recommend Canagliflozin as a preferred treatment for those not adequately controlled on metformin." with 3 references. Physicians have differing opinions and I thought it right to include both.Daveburstein (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
"Other sources recommend Canagliflozin as a preferred treatment for those not adequately controlled on metformin.[1][2]"
The ref does not even mention canagliflozin? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lee G, Oh SW, Hwang SS, Yoon JW, Kang S, Joh HK, Kwon H, Kim J, Park D (2017-05-25). "Comparative effectiveness of oral antidiabetic drugs in preventing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity: A network meta-analysis". PLOS ONE. 12 (5): e0177646. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1277646L. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177646. PMC 5444626. PMID 28542373.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ "Medscape Log In". login.medscape.com. Retrieved 2019-04-15.
As a longevity drug
[edit]"Canagliflozin (Cana), a clinically important anti-diabetes drug, leads to a 14% increase in median lifespan and a 9% increase in the 90th percentile age when given to genetically heterogeneous male mice from 7 months of age, but does not increase lifespan in female mice. Canagliflozin retards age-related lesions in heart, kidney, liver, and ... pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35974129/ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35974129/" Should this be mentioned at text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treonsverdery (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)