Mevalonate inhibition was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 June 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Statin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
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 articles
Given the shared pathogenic mechanisms of Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease, particularly hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia (doi:10.3389/fendo.2018.00002), controversy is raised over the efficacy of prescribing statins to patients at risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without first assessing for insulin resistance.
I note that the part of this sentence that says "controversy is raised [...]" is not referenced. The consensus (based on the available data) says that the benefits of statins outweigh the risk in this regard.[1] I am also unsure how "assess[ment] for insulin resistance" would be conducted - with fasting blood sugar, HbA1c or a euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic clamp.
Examples of "alternative therapies" and "unproven medical therapies"[edit]
Hi dear contributors,
Let's look at the following sentence :
'An unintended effect of the academic statin controversy has been the spread of scientifically questionable alternative therapies. Cardiologist Steven Nissen at Cleveland Clinic commented "We are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of our patients to Web sites..." promoting unproven medical therapies.'
I believe this declaration could be improved by stating exactly which alternative therapies are we talking about. The source given only tells us about : ezetimibe and unproven dietary supplements. Instead of generalizing, can we talk only about ezetimibe as being "not as effective" as it is stated in the article. And by the way, this source is a medical blog describing itself as a "useful and reliable source for new and important information about cardiovascular medicine and, occasionally, more general health, medicine, and science topics." but is not a well-established peer-reviewed scientific journal. The author may have written previously in The Lancet, but his articles on his blog seems to be no longer reviewed by peers.
Statin Effects on Aggression: Mood, Personality, and Behaviour Changes During Treatment with Statins[edit]
Hello, I don't see anything about Statins' effects on behaviour:
"...lower cholesterol can cause behavioural changes in both men and women... Several studies have supported a potential link between irritability and statins, including a randomised controlled trial... It found that the drug increased aggression in post-menopausal women... In 2018, a study uncovered the same effect in fish. Giving statins to Nile tilapia made them more confrontational and – crucially – altered the levels of serotonin in their brains."
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article overall presents an admirably detailed, even comprehensive account of this family of drugs.
I note that there are some very short subsections in 'Medical uses': 'Women' is indeed a single sentence. Perhaps we could at least merge the 'Women' and 'Children' subsections. I can see that the many subheadings have a useful function but they do make the article very bitty.
Again in 'Adverse effects', 'Neuropathy' is one very short sentence.
The Stalin hatnote is ridiculous, let's remove it.
It's not quite clear which language variant is in use; it seems to be British English, in which case I believe we should say Cyclosporin not Ciclosporin, for example: I'm sure there are several other items that need ENGVAR fixes. Would be handy to add a British English tag at the top of the article.
I found the use of English comfortable and not too technical, but then I have a Biology training. The first paragraph of the lead is good, plain, direct, and simple, but very short. It might be appropriate to say a little more up there to summarize more of the article, or of its context, in a simple way. You could, for instance, say that high cholesterol, a fatty substance found in the blood, contributes to heart disease, or something cuddly of that sort.
The claim about the 'Patient compliance' paragraph in the lead doesn't seem to be reflected in the article body. Since the lead is meant only as a summary, either move this and the refs out of the lead, or add materials giving extra details in the body.
The claim about atorvastatin in the lead says "best-selling" while the (mis)matching claim in the body says "largest-selling" (an odd phrase). Best match em'up.
The lead is fully cited ... which is non-standard for Wikipedia. If it's what you do for all drug articles, that's fine. Otherwise we should probably move the refs out of the lead.
There is a slight impression of English-speaking bias with mentions of United States and English groups in 'Primary prevention'. Reinforcing this, two European societies get a brief look in ... at the very end of the section! Perhaps there are some simple additions you could make to the article to globalise it a little; I appreciate that much work and many groups are what the French bizarrely call "Anglo-Saxon" (Westu Theoden Hal!), but it should be possible to find something from other countries.
The text in File:HMG-CoA reductase pathway.svg is amazingly difficult to read; I think it's mainly the choice of a Serif typeface, but the green and brown lettering (even though bigger) looks really fuzzy. Maybe the grey background isn't helping either: it seems to be a translation of a transparent SVG background, so it'd help if that was simply set to white.
In the Statin pathway image, titles are cropped by the image border, and also tangle with the double-line grey frame around the top section of the pathway.
All the images are on Commons and plausibly licensed.
I tried quite a few spot-checks and they all seem to verify the claims made.
I've marked 'citation needed' for the 'Increasing LDL uptake' section, and another in 'History'.
There is a 'needs update' tag in 'Cognitive effects'.
There is a claim in 'Decreasing of specific protein prenylation' with 6 citations. Why? It'd be better to find a review article that covers the whole claim.
There is a claim in 'Cancer' with 5 citations. As above.
There is a claim in 'Available forms' with 7 citations. As above; since the claim is very simple, you can probably just pick one of the 7 and ditch the rest.
More over-citation occurs in the list of generics at the end of 'History'. Again, please slim down the citations here.
This is a fine article very nearly ready for GA. The mainly small issues above, especially those on Sources, just need attention first. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, big obstacle. This is a drive-by nomination, basically all nom has done is to add one citation. Sorry but will have to fail this now, I should have checked and deleted the nomination. I hope the comments will be useful to another nominator who has actually worked substantially on the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
