Talk:Orlistat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Orlistat has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 18, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Orlistat is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Interaction with THC / Cannabis

I heard things here and there about this interacting somehow with Cannabis.. can anyone confirm/elaborate on this?

[edit] dosing

We should post some info on the dose difference between alli (60mg) and xenical (120mg). Xenical eliminates up to 30% of fat, but how much does alli eliminate?

How about this? http://www.allireport.com/What.htm

"Glaxo's Steven L. Burton said studies showed that the over-the-counter dose of Xenical of 60 milligrams, taken thrice daily, enabled people to lose about 80 to 85 percent of the weight lost by those taking the prescription 120-milligram dose."


And this should be linked...it is a great article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118220650299739698.html

"The active ingredient in Alli is orlistat, which is found in a higher dose in the prescription diet drug Xenical. Alli blocks about 25% of the fat you eat; Xenical blocks one-third of the fat you ingest. For instance, a half-cup serving of Haagen-Dazs ice cream has about 320 calories and 19 grams of fat. Alli, which is taken with meals, would prevent the body from absorbing about 4.75 fat grams or about 43 calories. If you consume about 2,000 calories a day and eat about 30% fat, the fat-blocking benefits of Alli would translate to about 150 calories a day. A pound of weight loss equals 3,500 calories."

I've added some of this into the article, as well as the WSJ link. Thank you. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect for Alli

Now that it's available, shouldn't there be a redirect for Alli? I'd do it, but I don't know how. Pgrote 17:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is Alli (drug). Alli is a disambiguation page Fvasconcellos.  (t·c) 01:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link

the link for alternatives is just a direct link to a competing product —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.47.232 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 9 August 2006

Spamlink, now long gone. Fvasconcellos 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subsectioning

I've just expanded a recent addition to the "Availability" section with regard to orlistat's scheduling in Australia, and was wondering if anyone would object to subdividing this section into country-specific subsections (Australia and the U.S.) The "Availability" header could then be expanded a bit (perhaps to include UK/Canada information) and lead into the subsections. Also, I'm thinking of working on the article a bit more and pushing for GA—any suggestions? May we consider the Tele a reliable source? :D Fvasconcellos 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Looks good to me. Prose is fairly crisp, no noticeable MoS issues, reliable refs with biblio info is filled in. Stability may be an issue if there is a lot of news from the U.S. product hitting the shelves. Gimmetrow 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! And a GimmeBotified GA no less ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

Is it just me, or does this article read a bit like an endorsement? The fact that the drug may give you explosive diarrhea should be in the lede, and not the bit about 'physician-controlled diet' or whatever. It looks like a drug info insert, not a neutral treatment of an as-yet-unproven (on a large scale) drug, whose predecessors of the same kind made a lot of people unhappy (remember the uncontrollable grease-filled diarrhea part?!) Nhgrrl 19:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Drug inserts are regulated and approved by the FDA (in the United States), which is obligated to keep them factual, neutral and sourced. I think a drug article that reaches that standard is doing pretty well. "Uncontrollable grease-filled diarrhea" sounds unpleasant, if true feel free to add any appropriate references to the article, however personal opinions and anecodotal stories are not encyclopedic. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning fecal incontinence, a direct quote from the manufacturer telling people to take a change of clothes to work, and a possible cancer link? That's pretty "balanced" in my opinion. If other editors want a mention of side effects in the lead, I'll try to word something, but please keep in mind that unpleasant/embarrassing doesn't equal "life-threatening" or even "serious". The greatest problem of orlistat, IMHO, is people thinking it is a miracle drug. It is not, and I think the article does a fair job of noting efficacy and adverse effects without giving people an unrealistic notion either way :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning something that can be described as "anal leakage" is enough deterant for me. Anal leakage, but 5% more weight loss? No thanks...I would not consider the article overly-positive. Since it hasn't been on the market long, the negative things that i'm sure will come out (anyone remember Phen-fen the miracle drug?) haven't had time to be added yet. 74.223.3.210 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] miracle diet pill with side effect

Can we add this link somewhere in the article? http://angryaussie.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/miracle-diet-pill-with-teeny-tiny-side-effect/ --Sonjaaa 09:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I got a huge kick out of reading it, I'm afraid it fails WP:EL on quite a few respects :( Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decrease in side-effects

From the current entry's position on the long-term reduction in side-effects, is the efficacy of this drug due to its ability to reduce the absorbtion of fats, or in a decreased consumption of fats in order to avoid the drug's side-effects? Alvis 07:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Both. The direct effect is reduction in dietary fat absorption, however physicians and the drug manufacturer recommend reduction in consumption as well. I think the side effects probably act as a form of aversion therapy towards high fat consumption causing a voluntary decrease in fatty foods, but that's speculation on my part. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message Board

Can we add this link to the Wikipedia page for Orlistat http://allibuddies.proboards84.com? It's a message board for people who want or need support during their weight loss with the Alli pill. The Official Alli board monitors your threads and posts so it takes up to 24 hours for your topic to get posted and another 24 hours just to be able to read any replies that were sent.

If we want to connect with someone in our area to have support buddies you can't because they delete any email address or website that you post so that people can get in contact with you.

Many people need support and I want to give them a forum to do it on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.238.144.207 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome. Unfortunately, as a general rule, links to discussion forums are inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concise Consumer Information

Can we add this link to the page? Data source is from Cerner Multum.

Would it be possible to add a link to the data source instead? One should always try to use primary sources if possible. =Axlq 04:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I personally have no problem with Drugs.com, although I generally link to RxList instead. I do like the fact that Drugs.com offers links to PIs appropriate for several reader levels ("consumer"/"advanced consumer"/"professional" etc.) Thanks for asking on the Talk page rather than simply adding the link, and although there seems to be no untoward behavior on your part, I'd like to take this opportunity and provide you with a link to our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, which I presume will be appropriate :) Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calorific Benefit

Could I suggest we add something like the following somewhere because it shows the maths of the minimal benefits:

When taking Alli it is strongly recommended that you limit yourself to 15g fat for each of your 3 meals a day. This equals 45g (3x15g) of fat a day.
Alli prevents absorbtion of about 25% of the fat intake.
25% of 45g is 11.25g of fat.
11.25g x 9KCals per g of fat = 101.25KCals
So taking Alli only reduces your calorific intake by 101.25KCals a day.
To lose one pound of weight you need to consume 3500Kcals less than you consume.
To lose one pound of weight because of Alli will take 3500/101.25 = 34.56 days!
Walking at a moderate speed for just 20minutes everyday would use the same amount of KCalories and wouldn't have the embarrassing and socially disruptive side effects.

Finally, if over time someone using Alli loses weight to an equilibrium weight for their calorific intake and exercise level and then stops taking Alli, they will then be consuming an excess 100Kcals/day and will put the weight back on. In other words it isn't a sustainable weight loss unless people accept taking it for the rest of their life and accept the side effects for the rest of their life as well. The alternative is to make permenant lifestyle changes: just eat a little less and exercise a little more.

For Xenical it blocks 30% of fat absorption so the numbers are:
Xenical reduces 121.5KCalories/day
Time to lose one pound on Xenical: 28.8 days —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.95.62 (talk • contribs)

Interesting, but this is all original research. If you can give credible references for this data, on the other hand, feel free to integrate it into the article. --Bk0 (Talk) 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The above analysis completely ignores the caloric loss patients experience from running to the restroom several times each day. Also, I guarantee you that anyone suing this product takes drastic measures to reduce their fat intake, which multiplies the caloric benefits. How much does this stuff cost? That's less money for crisps and bacon. In short, this is like having a mean drill sergeant in your intestines. Scaring you into those size sevens. 70.112.220.223 (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)