Talk:Evofosfamide
![]() | This article is rated Start-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 Evofosfamide.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
various problems
[edit]Collaboration - typo - eVofosfamide. Mechanism of prodrug activation - NADPH cytochrome P450 should presumably be NADPH cytochrome P450 reductase (but check if that is only a 2-electron reductase). Formulation - what is WFI? For clarity I suggest changing "DEHP" to "DEHP plasticizer" (but is this sentence too specialized to be worth including?) Clinical trials - is it worth including all this detail? A much briefer summary might be better. NCT01144455 - Interventions - TH-302 is listed twice. NCT00742963 - why is progression free survival different (6.7 or 6.5) for what appears to be the same group of subjects? NCT01440088 - typo - analyses haVE NCT01522872 - Interventions - TH-302 is listed twice; dexamethasone isn't listed. NCT01403619 - How can the study be recruiting if it has reported results?
Interventions only lists TH-302 & placebo but Results lists bevacizumab/TH-302 combionation therapy. Why does PFS differ (3.1 or 2.8)?
NCT01721941 - Intervention - Phase I is not a drug. Soft tissue sarcoma - delete , after Both.
delete trial after (TH-CR-403).
Metastatic pancreatic cancer - delete , after Both. Drug development risks - Given that "Merck will not apply for a license" this section should probably be deleted. Typo - payors dependS upon 69.72.92.70 (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The Drug development risks section may as well be deleted
[edit]It could as well apply to every drug in development - Adds almost nothing to this article - If the risks are different than other drugs then could just highlight the differences. Ironic that trial failure (as seems to have happened) was not identified as a risk. May as well delete entire section ? or reduce to 1 line if there is anything significant ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)