This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pharmacology 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

In light of the recent events, this article needs a rename, it's showing up in Google News and it the title is not particularly useful or relevant to most readers. 74.101.149.211 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, you don't seem to know how the site works. This is not a newspaper. Aethyta (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the real world Aethyta, the world where the crowd tells wikipedia what it is, and not the opinion of a small number of editors who imagine that they've been on wikipedia longer than every single IP address :) 74.101.149.211 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect has been placed to find this article. The current title is not easily accessible. Ekem (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now suggests that the drug was in a "third phase" testing. My understanding is that testing was still in Phase 1. Can this be clarified? Thanks.Ekem (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearified now: third stage (if that is the technical term) of Phase 1.Ekem (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that "Few details of the preclinical testing of this molecule have been made public". It would be good to know what had been published. A Pubmed search on "BIA 10-2474" has zero hits. A search of clinicaltrials.gov re BIA 10-2474 has zero hits. Perhaps the agent has another name? Ekem (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is likely an EudraCT application - the EU has different standards about how that is saved. -- Callinus (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to see for the public if the study had been registered at EudraCT?Ekem (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Phase 1 studies registered in EudraCT are not public: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/help/content/eudract/faq.htm --Biologos (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a reliable reference for BIA 10-2474 definitely being the drug tested in the Rennes trial? The company website just states "an experimental molecule" and the Science news item used as the reference in the lead states "French officials haven't announced which drug ... Speculation on the Internet focuses on a compound named BIA 10-2474". Espresso Addict (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Science indicates that the drug is BIA 10-2474, but it has not been confirmed by Bial, see [1]Ekem (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The French Newspaper that published the "leaked" recruitment form is also mentioned on a nature.com news article. Bial only has two phase one drugs in its pipeline and the other one is for pulmonary arterial hypertension - so unless Bial comes out with a statement that this is wrong it's probably the right one. The French regulator will reveal more details but they seem to be waiting a fair while to reveal more. -- Callinus (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had added 3 FAAH inhibitor links (even if stub pages only) because they have the most direct connection to this page. The edit was reverted earlier today by a new IP with the edit summary "-- not relevant here, given the whole paragraph on clinical-stage FAAH inhibitors".

I think this is a strange explanation for deletion. I had added the FAAH inhibitors precisely because I felt that the two other links of non FAAFH drugs were of remote relevance connected only because of "bad adverse events"! unlike the IP I didnt censor /delete them:

• TGN1412, a drug trialed in 2006 in London, with serious adverse events producing lasting injuries
• Fialuridine nucleoside analogue to treat Hepatitis B, fatality rate 5 out of 15 patients,

I restored the FAAH inhibitor links. If anybody disagrees ( including teh IP whom I welcomed on his talkpage) , please discuss or flag them please.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was the IP who deleted the links. The reason why I thought (and still think) that it's irrelevant to highlight the FAAH inhibitors you chose (4-nonylphenylboronic acid and AA-serotonin) is because there are literally thousands of FAAH inhibitors that have been described and studied in the literature. IDFP is even less relevant since it's a non-specific serine hydrolase inhibitor that barely shows any selectivity for FAAH over other hydrolases. here is a review of the many classes of FAAH inhibitor that have been studied. Anyway, perhaps there should be a separate page for FAAH inhibitors that highlight the chemical diversity that's been discovered, but there isn't yet. Personally, I think the important bit that's relevant to the BIA-10-2474 article is the fact that several other FAAH inhibitors have gone into humans. Linking to a few random examples of academic FAAH inhibitors seems arbitrary and distracting to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.26.253.209 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be fair here. I think it's OK to leave links to other FAAH inhibitors if you can justify why those particular inhibitors were chosen. Why 4-NPBA and AA-5-HT? If there's no good answer, I suggest removing or simply linking to the 'Inhibitors' section of the FAAH page. That page also references two articles (#13 and #14) that do a good job of reviewing FAAH pharmacology, in addition to the one I linked above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.26.253.209 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing. I did justify why I included them, why repeat?.

BTW Feel free to start pages on the "thousands of FAAH inhibitors" and the "several other FAAH inhibitors have gone into humans' and link tehm here. And if you find any more FAAH inhibitors on WP link them here too. Your accusation of "Linking to a few random examples of academic FAAH inhibitors seems arbitrary and distracting to me" sounds ignorant (and arrogant).--Wuerzele (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you said here that you are 66.27.122.63 (from Herndon,VA) and I welcomed already in Bellevue, WA- you get around a lot ....!

why dont you register?

Do you work for the pharmaceutical industry?

--Wuerzele (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there are certainly thousands of FAAH inhibitors known, just as with BIA 10-2474 they generally have only patent references and nothing published in the scientific literature, so it is difficult to find suitable references to write wikipedia pages for them. With all this recent interest in the class it seems worthwhile to write a bit more on the subject at least. Meodipt (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not right. There are hundreds of papers in the literature describing FAAH inhibitors and med-chem around various series. Several reviews in the last few years have gone into great detail. I have no problem writing more on the subject, but the highlighted examples should be chosen from amongst the most well-studied inhibitors. From what I can tell, there is exactly one paper describing the boronic acid inhibitor (4-nonylphenylboronic acid) whereas there are over 300 papers describing URB597. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.179.125.82 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "connected only because of "bad adverse events" not exactly - the TGN1412 trial changed dosing procedures for clinical trials in the EU - The UK Duff report ([2]) had impacts in the EMEA Guidelines ([3]). The Fialuridine case was argued in the media (2016) to be an example of transparency by the NIH after adverse events. -- Callinus (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is only one paper describing 4-nonylphenylboronic acid, exactly the same number of papers as have been published about MK-4409, which is a fairly high profile compound from a large pharmaceutical company, well advanced through clinical trials. I think that has been one of the main criticisms of the pharmaceutical industry here, that these compounds are being taken to clinical trials with so little information publicly available about them. V158866 for instance the structure has not even been confirmed by Vernalis, yet it is further through trials than BIA 10-2474 had got to. If there are examples of other well studied FAAH inhibitors that you think should have wikipedia pages, then by all means write pages for them, but for many such compounds the literature references just aren't there. Meodipt (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]