Talk:Exenatide

Metformin is inexpensive, has low side effects (one side effect is weight loss) and may delay the onset of type 2 diabetes. D Vadbunker, RN 17:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, this comment was (in part) on topic. D Vadbunker, RN (talk · contribs) explained their edit to the article. They added the phrase 'except for metformin', which is still there 2 years and hundreds of edits later. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article reads like the drug company's marketing. Which doctors think it is good or minimise the adverse effects compared to apparent benefits. Ongoing work for long acting versions - where are the sources for this - without independant verifiable sources, the information should be removed.

The GI side effect profile is awful. Recent overview of published paper: Malozowski S (2007). "Exenatide in combination therapy: small study, big market, and many unanswered questions". Ann. Intern. Med. 146 (7): 527–8. PMID 17404355. - makes some scathing points about the study design and interpretaton and notes "A 26% dropout rate is rarely observed in short-term clinical studies of antidiabetic drugs".

This drug does not appear in UK NICE guidelines and its role in real clinical practice has yet to be established. The article therefore seems very speculative on how great or useful its role will be. David Ruben ^Talk 00:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm medical student. Tried to remove some of the bias in this article and make it more accurate. Original article had awkward phrasing about how this drug actually acts; that is now corrected as well. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.11.96 (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2007

I don't know if this is appropriate or not, but since the article seems neutral to me and since the above poster said he had removed some of the bias in the article I removed the NPOV tag. I don't really know if that takes some type of consensus or not, but I'm going to remove it and if I shouldn't have then I'm sure that someone else will put it back.

In terms of the neutrality of the article, I don't think this in any way sounds just like the manufacturers point of view and this article does seem objective to me. Further, I think the person who tagged it NPOV should have given some indication of what he found to be non-neutral.

Itsme2003 13:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Itsme2003 - it turns out that Davidruben (talk · contribs), who placed the NPOV tag in April 2007, did write a comment, but someone else carelessly deleted it before you and I got a chance to read it. I restored it above. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Recent (Oct 07) FDA Warning should be given more prominence, at the moment it is relatively well hidden. FDA recommends all doctors discuss with their patients the risk of pancreatitis with Byetta. I have included this information. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 11:39, 18 October 2007 (talk) 211.30.178.233

Added well-sourced, readable, practical instructions. Moved warnings to top. I did not change any of the scientific information, but moved the practical information (uses, warnings, technique) to the top. I believe a significant share of the audience for this article are looking for patient information in a form they can understand. They could easily be deterred by jargon laden science. Those looking for precise scientific details can scroll down; I haven't changed the scientific substance of the article, merely moved it to a lower section under "Chemistry and Pharmacology."

I'll return tomorrow and clean thing up after a night's sleep. Improvements and suggestion welcome. Dave Burstein daveb at dslprime.com. (I will also add a section on Byetta and weight loss, staying close to well-documented science.) db

DaveBurstein (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for you contributions, but Wikipedia articles should never be written from a second-person perspective—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and can't have instructional content. I have reworded most of your additions accordingly. Please don't let this discourage you from contributing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The BBC website is reporting a study based on a " new formulation" of Exenatide so that injections are only needed once a week instead of twice a day, also with fewer side effects. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7603676.stm This also links to the lancet but you may have to log in and then do a search to find the article. Soarhead77 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now mentioned in "Future research" section. Rod57 (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some content needs moving to a more appropriate section. If no one else does it I'll have a go one day. Rod57 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The introduction of this article describes Exenatide as being administered "30 to 60 minutes before the first and last meal of the day" with a footnote pointing to the Byetta (Exenatide) package insert:

http://pi.lilly.com/us/byetta-pi.pdf

The Dosage and Administration section of this package insert describes Byetta (Exenatide) as administered "anytime within the 60-minute period before the morning and evening meals". This section does not refer to a 30-minute period. The only references to 30 minutes within the package insert occur in under the "12 CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY" section (12.3 Pharmacokinetics) where the package insert describes the impact of Byetta (Exenatide) on certain other medications taken within 30 minutes of the Byetta (Exenatide) dose.

For this reason I believe that the Introduction of the article should be corrected to refer to administration 60 minutes before the first and last meal of the day. If no one else take care of this, and I don't encounter any feedback to the contrary, I will go ahead and make the change myself in a week or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reclarke (talk • contribs) 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Gene therapies section is about disease not exenatide. Maybe move to type 2 diabetes ? - Rod57 (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's also about the cost to users of Exenatide, so may become relevant when considering options. By all means add this information to the type 2 diabetes article if necessary. yoyo (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Did some members of FDA or EMA vote for or AGAINST Bydureon, and if yes, why?

Any information about mortality vs. using only Metformin? ee1518 (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just read this article, which hints that Parkinson's disease can be stopped by Exenatide. It's probably too early to add this to the article; however, it is something that may be watched closely in coming months.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

It had been noted 4-Aug (incorrectly) in Medical Uses section (with Guardian ref), and deleted the same day. All probably based on this Lancet article, and reported on in New Scientist 12 Aug 2017. Could mention in a new Research section (the old one having been deleted) ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exenatide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820232725/http://pi.lilly.com/us/byetta-pi.pdf to http://pi.lilly.com/us/byetta-pi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply