Talk:Esomeprazole: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 22:33, 8 July 2024

Pharmacology High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Esomeprazole.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Contraindications?

Please add a section on contraindications Leningrad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What

What I have drawn is, actually, the correct structure of S-omeprazole. The S designation of this molecule is with respect to its structure in vivo - where the sulfinyl moiety is ionised, and there is an additional hydrogen substituent off the chiral sulfur. Under these circumstances the stereochemistry is clearly S. So whilst, technically, this drawing may be R, it actually does represent the structure of S-omeprazole.Techelf 11:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree. Omeprazole is the compound we have in the Nexium bottle. The formula here represents R-omaprazole, therefore it should be fixed. You might make a mistake when redrawing the formula, you pribably did functional group/molecule rotations and have forgotten to follow this motion and change the stereo bond type. Try to imagine the molecule in 3D-space :). If I'm wrong (I'm almost sure I'm not) please give me some reasonable explanation. Regards, Mykhal 14:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concede the point and have revised the drawing accordingly. I had initially (wrongly) supposed that the orientation of the substituents off the chiral sulfur was of a trigonal planar configuration; therefore I had assumed that the orientation of the oxygen substituent would not make a difference. In retrospect, I've realised that the sulfur substituents have a tetrahedral configuration; so you are right about the oxygen substituent being inverted - well spotted. Techelf 06:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I know, this is not obvious, that on the sulfur atom is lone electron pair which is the fourth "substituent" with lowest priority.. Mykhal 08:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

drugbank info

The following information from the DrugBank should be incorporated (not copied!) into this article:
"Esomeprazole is a compound that inhibits gastric acid secretion and is indicated in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the healing of erosive esophagitis, and H. pylori eradication to reduce the risk of duodenal ulcer recurrence. Esomeprazole belongs to a new class of antisecretory compounds, the substituted benzimidazoles, that do not exhibit anticholinergic or H2 histamine antagonistic properties, but that suppress gastric acid secretion by specific inhibition of the H+/K+ ATPase enzyme system at the secretory surface of the gastric parietal cell. Because this enzyme system is regarded as the acid (proton) pump within the gastric mucosa, Esomeprazole has been characterized as a gastric acid-pump inhibitor, in that it blocks the final step of acid production. This effect is dose-related and leads to inhibition of both basal and stimulated acid secretion irrespective of the stimulus." [1]

I'll probably do it myself eventually, if no one else does. Fuzzform 02:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be in the PPI article, not here. --Elvey (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

With all of the citations that I provided -- please provide a rationale as to why you keep reverting text which enhances this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisgaffneymd (talk • contribs)

I have replied on your talk page. Fvasconcellos 00:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction with other drugs, e.g. SSRIs?

I have noticed that Esomeprazole shares metabolic mechanisms with other drugs such as Clonazepam, and SSRIs like Escitalopram and Citalopram. Can someone look up if there is expected to be heightened serum levels of these drugs while on Esomeprazole due to their shared hepatic clearance mechanisms? If so, I think this should be included in this article. Please include with a source. --1000Faces (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Interactions section includes a paragraph on omeprazole. Esomeprazole is a newer generation, therefore the omeprazole paragraph should either be substatiated for relevance or deleted.

Parzivalamfortas 11:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

Dosage equivalency with omeprazole?

Is there any literature which cites the dosage equivalency of omeprazole to Esomeprazole? For example, if someone were to switch from 40mg of Esomeprazole, should they switch to 10, 20, 40, or 80mg of omeprazole? If there is data in the literature on this, I think it should be mentioned here. It is touched upon during the Controversy segment, but lacks conclusive statements. --1000Faces (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're more or less the same thing biochemically, so they're equipotent; the main difference between them is price and patent protection; see the NBC correspondent's comment quoted below. --Elvey (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that clearly states they are equipotent? If so, we need to add that to the article. yoyo (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor metabolizers?

The Prilosec article states that: "In theory, by using pure esomeprazole the effect on the proton pump will be equal in all patients, eliminating the poor metabolizer effect." Can this be explained here with citations? It has been mentioned in this article that overcoming individual differences was a reason for developing this drug, but is this what is meant? More clarity is needed. --1000Faces (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 2005 study directly comparing esomeprazole 40mg and osemprazole 20mg as part of triple therapy for H. pylori eradication. The authors' main conclusion was as follows -

"Esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily for triple therapy may improve the H. pylori eradication compared to omeprazole-based therapy, but only for homologous extensive metabolizers of CYP2C19."

The paper is Sheu et al. 2005 Aliment Pharmacol Ther v21, pp.283-88 (doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02281.x), but it is probably behind a paywall. Bonza9683 23:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonza9683 (talk • contribs)

i found the paper here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02418.x/full Qwh (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

80mg comparison

However, a more proper comparison would be with an 80 mg dose of omeprazole because this would contain approximately the same amount of the active enantiomer. However, there are also indications, as shown above, that for omeprazole, both the (R) and (S) enantiomers have the same therapeutic effect. In that case the comparison is valid after all.

If someone can find a source that points this out, it would be useful to have in the article. As it stands now however it's not cited. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chemicals Structural Diagram is incorrect.

Hey All,

Sorry I am in a rush and am unwell so cannot make the amendment myself but the structural diagram for Esomeprazole is clearly wrong. The fact that the molecule has 3 oxygen atoms but only two are present in the figure is a stark example of just one of the couple of mistakes I witnessed. If someone with more knowledge and experience than myself could please rectify the issue that would be great.

Thanks, Cyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynicle (talk • contribs) 10:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was exactly the incorrect structure that motivated me to register as a Wiki contributor :) I fixed this while I was on holiday in Italy. At the time I didn't even realise articles had talk pages like this to identify such issues. I'm pretty busy with research so I don't have time to contribute much, but I enjoy adding stubs (with structure and basic cited details) for medicinal molecules that might be generally interesting to the community.

BaeyerDrewson (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE

This article seems largely duplicative of the PPI article. The bulk of the redundant info should be removed. There also seems to be little mention of the mainstream view of Nexium (Nexium = Prilosec + deceptive marketing), as exemplified by the comments of Robert Bazell, NBC's chief science and health correspondent:

Almost all drugs exist in an equal combination of two mirror images of the same molecule called isomers. Nexium is nothing more than one of the two mirror images that make up Prilosec. AstraZeneca carried out clinical trials comparing Prilosec and Nexium. The most charitable interpretation of the results is that at equal doses Nexium is 3 percent better at relieving symptoms.

The results were so weak that the FDA case officer assigned to review the data concluded that AstraZeneca’s contention that Nexium represented a “significant clinical advance” over Prilosec was “not supported by data.” The top management of the FDA approved Nexium anyway in 2001.

Prilosec now costs about $30 a month. Nexium costs about $200.

If anyone doubts the influence of drug company ads on patients and physicians — consider all those wasted billions of dollars for a pill that sells for more than six times as much as another drug that does the same thing, made by the same company.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249591/ns/health-second_opinion/t/costly-side-effects-nexiums-ad-blitz/

Ref. 16 (News Medical)

The website this citation links to appears to use material from the Wikipedia article (it acknowledges this). Isn't this circular referencing? What is the original data from www.news-medical.net that is incorporated into the Wiki page? Bonza9683 16:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

largely redundant Intro

The Intro part reads to a large part like an advertisement of the two producing companies, let's put the relevant stuff here, let's have the pharma industry make their own ads and pay for them, okay? If nobody disagrees until the next week, I'll just do the edit in the intro...--Triple5 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy Category of Esomeprazole

Hi, I am confused about the USFDA Pregnancy Category of Esomeprazole. Some places state it as Category C while others are stating it as Category B (^[1], ^[2]). I think that a section on this topic would be helpful to many. However, I would prefer not to edit myself as I may not be most suited to edit. I hope editors of this page will consider adding a section on this.

Thank you.

References

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.211.215.248 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced manufacturing process

the following is unsourced - moved here per PRESERVE

The granules are manufactured in a fluidized bed system with small sugar spheres as the starting material. The sugar spheres are sequentially spray-coated with a suspension containing esomeprazole, a protective layer to prevent degradation of the drug in manufacturing, an enteric coating, and an outer layer to reduce granule aggregation. The granules are mixed with other inactive excipients and compressed into tablets. Finally, the tablets are film-coated to improve the stability and appearance of the preparation. -- Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Esomeprazole. 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:

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) 15:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esomeprazole. 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/20070202143327/http://www.astrazeneca.com/sites/7/imagebank/typeArticleparam511562/astrazeneca-2004-annual-report.pdf to http://www.astrazeneca.com/sites/7/imagebank/typearticleparam511562/astrazeneca-2004-annual-report.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) 12:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hatnote

User:Acyclic please explain your objection to the hatnote. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained it in my most recent edit summary: "The problem is that it's really not notable enough or even similar enough for mention here". Who cares about some random cult that doesn't even have the same spelling as Nexium? Its mention is unencyclopedic for this article. --Acyclic (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should start a cult named PRLSC while I'm at it for top mention in the omeprazole page. --Acyclic (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People who only hear the name without seeing how it's spelled may come to Wikipedia searching for info on it, and there's a good chance they'd end up on this page. Lizard (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it's useful at the moment; NXIVM received over 200,000 views yesterday as the group is receiving heavy publicity right now. I'd have no objections to removing the hatnote in a few months once the hoopla has died down. Lizard (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acyclic, if you do start such a cult and it gets major media coverage, we would make such a hatnote. You haven't. NXIVM did. It is totally appropriate to have the hatnote. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name NXIVM is just too different from Nexium, so the argument for the hatnote is weak. Anyhow, the NXIVM article still has a lot of page hits, so I'll wait the hits subside. --Acyclic (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onomatopoeia

This line from the second paragraph of the intro:

"Esomeprazole is the (S)-(−)-enantiomer (or less specifically the S-isomer) of omeprazole."

Has the following footnote:

"The name thus is an onomatopoeia, as it can also be read as Es + omeprazole"

It doesn't really make any sense. Neither omeprazole nor esomeprazole are describing a sound, regardless of the latter's prefix. 70.20.28.112 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and removed the footnote. At best, it's folk etymology based on a misunderstanding of onomatopoeia. 70.20.28.112 (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2007.00302.x/full

[2] ttp://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/022101s004,021153s034,021957s007,021689s015lbl.pdf

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{WikiProject Pharmacology|class=B|importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
-{{WPMED|class=B|importance=High}}
+{{WikiProject Pharmacology|importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=High}}
+}}
+{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
+==Contraindications?==
+Please add a section on contraindications    [[User:Leningrad|Leningrad]] ([[User talk:Leningrad|talk]])  <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 16:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 ==What==
 What I have drawn is, actually, the correct structure of ''S''-omeprazole. The ''S'' designation of this molecule is with respect to its structure ''in vivo'' - where the sulfinyl moiety is ionised, and there is an additional hydrogen substituent off the chiral sulfur. Under these circumstances the stereochemistry is clearly ''S''. So whilst, technically, this drawing may be ''R'', it actually does represent the structure of ''S''-omeprazole.[[User:Techelf|Techelf]] 11:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
@@ Line 7: / Line 14: @@
 ::Thank you. I know, this is not obvious, that on the sulfur atom is lone electron pair which is the fourth "substituent" with lowest priority.. [[User:Mykhal|Mykhal]] 08:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
+==drugbank info==
-----
 The following information from the DrugBank should be incorporated (not copied!) into this article:<br>
@@ Line 14: / Line 21: @@
 I'll probably do it myself eventually, if no one else does. [[User:Fuzzform|Fuzzform]] 02:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
+:Should be in the PPI article, not here.  --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 09:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
-== AstraZeneca is teh Evil ==
-Esomeprazole, given the brand name Nexium is a product of the larger corporation AstraZeneca.  Nexium is one of twelve other key products that AstraZeneca produces.  AstraZeneca’s corporate headquarters is run out of London, England along with a U.S. headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware.  AstraZeneca is a major corporation which supports 64,000 employees worldwide with 12,000 from the United States.  Thus, making AstraZeneca an influential part of the U.S. economy.  To prove this point, in 2005 alone, AstraZeneca made 23.9 billion dollars in sales. (AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, http://www.astrazeneca-us.com/content/aboutUs/keyFacts.asp)   The reason for the success of AstraZeneca is due to its quality workers, research, and production.  A number of awards have even been given out to AstraZeneca, including its product of the year achievement and Top 50 Employer award. (AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, http://www.astrazeneca-us.com/content/aboutUs/awards.asp) These two awards are an example of the efficiency and quality of work that AstraZeneca runs on.
-	There are several other businesses which depend on AstraZeneca.  These include Contact Information Centers, Research and Development Facilities, Supply Sites, and Business Centers. (http://www.astrazeneca-us.com/content/aboutUs/usLocations.asp) All of these businesses undoubtedly have even smaller businesses depending on them.  As mentioned earlier, several thousands of Americans depend on AstraZeneca for work.  Overall, AstraZeneca is a corporation that supports and is depended on by a lot of other small business and individuals.  It is another example of one of the many corporations that makes the U.S. economy work.
-Sources:
-AstraZeneca LP http://www.astrazeneca-us.com/content/aboutUs/keyFacts.asp
-AstraZeneca LP http://www.astrazeneca-us.com/content/aboutUs/awards.asp
-AstraZeneca LP http://www.astrazeneca-us.com/content/aboutUs/usLocations.asp <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JKsung|JKsung]] ([[User talk:JKsung|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JKsung|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
-:What exactly is the point of this, other than [[Wikipedia:Spam|advertising]] AstraZeneca? I am glad you added it to the talk page instead of the article though, and certainly hope you are not intending to do so. If no editors object, I will remove this comment within 24 hours. [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]] 23:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 == Reverting edits ==
@@ Line 36: / Line 32: @@
 I have noticed that Esomeprazole shares metabolic mechanisms with other drugs such as [[Clonazepam]], and [[SSRI]]s like [[Escitalopram]] and [[Citalopram]]. Can someone look up if there is expected to be heightened serum levels of these drugs while on Esomeprazole due to their shared hepatic clearance mechanisms? If so, I think this should be included in this article. Please include with a source. --[[User:1000Faces|1000Faces]] ([[User talk:1000Faces|talk]]) 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 :Done. [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]]<small>&nbsp;([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]])</small> 18:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
+The Interactions section includes a paragraph on omeprazole. Esomeprazole is a newer generation, therefore the omeprazole paragraph should either be substatiated for relevance or deleted.
+Parzivalamfortas 11:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Parzivalamfortas|Parzivalamfortas]] ([[User talk:Parzivalamfortas#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Parzivalamfortas|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 == Dosage equivalency with omeprazole? ==
 Is there any literature which cites the dosage equivalency of [[omeprazole]] to Esomeprazole?  For example, if someone were to switch from 40mg of Esomeprazole, should they switch to 10, 20, 40, or 80mg of omeprazole? If there is data in the literature on this, I think it should be mentioned here. It is touched upon during the Controversy segment, but lacks conclusive statements. --[[User:1000Faces|1000Faces]] ([[User talk:1000Faces|talk]]) 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
+:They're more or less the same thing biochemically, so they're equipotent; the main difference between them is price and patent protection; see the NBC correspondent's comment quoted below. --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 09:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
+::Do you have a source that clearly states they are equipotent?  If so, we need to add that to the article.  [[User:Yahya Abdal-Aziz|yoyo]] ([[User talk:Yahya Abdal-Aziz|talk]]) 01:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 == Poor metabolizers? ==
 The [[Prilosec]] article states that: "In theory, by using pure esomeprazole the effect on the proton pump will be equal in all patients, eliminating the poor metabolizer effect." Can this be explained here with citations? It has been mentioned in this article that overcoming individual differences was a reason for developing this drug, but is this what is meant? More clarity is needed. --[[User:1000Faces|1000Faces]] ([[User talk:1000Faces|talk]]) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
+:There is a 2005 study directly comparing esomeprazole 40mg and osemprazole 20mg as part of triple therapy for H. pylori eradication. The authors' main conclusion was as follows -
+::"Esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily for triple therapy may improve the H. pylori eradication compared to omeprazole-based therapy, '''but only for homologous extensive metabolizers of CYP2C19'''."
+:The paper is Sheu et al. 2005 Aliment Pharmacol Ther v21, pp.283-88 (doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02281.x), but it is probably behind a paywall. Bonza9683 23:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bonza9683|Bonza9683]] ([[User talk:Bonza9683|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bonza9683|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+i found the paper here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02418.x/full [[User:Qwh|Qwh]] ([[User talk:Qwh|talk]]) 11:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 == 80mg comparison ==
@@ Line 49: / Line 58: @@
 :However, a more proper comparison would be with an 80&nbsp;mg dose of omeprazole because this would contain approximately the same amount of the active enantiomer. However, there are also indications, as shown above, that for omeprazole, both the (R) and (S) enantiomers have the same therapeutic effect. In that case the comparison is valid after all.
 If someone can find a source that points this out, it would be useful to have in the article.  As it stands now however it's not cited. [[User:Hbdragon88|hbdragon88]] ([[User talk:Hbdragon88|talk]]) 01:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
+== The Chemicals Structural Diagram is incorrect. ==
+Hey All,
+Sorry I am in a rush and am unwell so cannot make the amendment myself but the structural diagram for Esomeprazole is clearly wrong. The fact that the molecule has 3 oxygen atoms but only two are present in the figure is a stark example of just one of the couple of mistakes I witnessed. If someone with more knowledge and experience than myself could please rectify the issue that would be great.
+Thanks,
+Cyn  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cynicle|Cynicle]] ([[User talk:Cynicle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cynicle|contribs]]) 10:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:This was exactly the incorrect structure that motivated me to register as a Wiki contributor :) I fixed this while I was on holiday in Italy. At the time I didn't even realise articles had talk pages like this to identify such issues. I'm pretty busy with research so I don't have time to contribute much, but I enjoy adding stubs (with structure and basic cited details) for medicinal molecules that might be generally interesting to the community.
+[[User:BaeyerDrewson|BaeyerDrewson]] ([[User talk:BaeyerDrewson|talk]]) 01:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
+==UNDUE==
+This article seems largely duplicative of the PPI article.  The bulk of the redundant info should be removed.  There also seems to be little mention of the mainstream view of Nexium (Nexium = Prilosec + deceptive marketing), as exemplified  by the comments of  Robert Bazell, NBC's chief science and health correspondent:
+:'''Almost all drugs exist in an equal combination of two mirror images of the same molecule called isomers. Nexium is nothing more than one of the two mirror images that make up Prilosec. AstraZeneca carried out clinical trials comparing Prilosec and Nexium. The most charitable interpretation of the results is that at equal doses Nexium is 3 percent better at relieving symptoms.
+:The results were so weak that the FDA case officer assigned to review the data concluded that AstraZeneca’s contention that Nexium represented  a “significant clinical advance” over Prilosec was “not supported by data.” The top management of the FDA approved Nexium anyway in 2001.
+:Prilosec now costs about $30 a month. Nexium costs about $200.
+:If anyone doubts the influence of drug company ads on patients and physicians — consider all those wasted billions of dollars for a pill that sells for more than six times as much as another drug that does the same thing, made by the same company.
+Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249591/ns/health-second_opinion/t/costly-side-effects-nexiums-ad-blitz/'''
+== Ref. 16 (News Medical) ==
+The website this citation links to appears to use material from the Wikipedia article (it acknowledges this). Isn't this circular referencing? What is the original data from www.news-medical.net that is incorporated into the Wiki page? Bonza9683 16:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
+== largely redundant Intro ==
+The Intro part reads to a large part like an advertisement of the two producing companies, let's put the relevant stuff here, let's have the pharma industry make their own ads and pay for them, okay? If nobody disagrees until the next week, I'll just do the edit in the intro...--[[User:Triple5|Triple5]] ([[User talk:Triple5|talk]]) 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
+== Pregnancy Category of Esomeprazole ==
+Hi, I am confused about the USFDA Pregnancy Category of Esomeprazole. Some places state it as Category C while others are stating it as Category B (<ref>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2007.00302.x/full</ref>, <ref>http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/022101s004,021153s034,021957s007,021689s015lbl.pdf</ref>). I think that a section on this topic would be helpful to many. However, I would prefer not to edit myself as I may not be most suited to edit. I hope editors of this page will consider adding a section on this.
+Thank you.
+{{reflist-talk}}
+-- <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/180.211.215.248|180.211.215.248]] ([[User talk:180.211.215.248|talk]]) 16:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== unsourced manufacturing process ==
+the following is unsourced - moved here per PRESERVE
+The granules are manufactured in a [[fluidized bed]] system with small sugar spheres as the starting material. The sugar spheres are sequentially spray-coated with a [[Suspension (chemistry)|suspension]] containing esomeprazole, a protective layer to prevent degradation of the drug in manufacturing, an enteric coating, and an outer layer to reduce granule aggregation. The granules are mixed with other inactive [[excipient]]s and compressed into tablets. Finally, the tablets are film-coated to improve the stability and appearance of the preparation.
+-- [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 16:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
+== External links modified ==
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
+I have just modified 3 external links on [[Esomeprazole]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=802033416 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
+*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Pharmacy/PPIcdiff.html
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040728120928/http://www.astrazeneca.com/sites/7/imagebank/typearticleparam503063/AstraZeneca%20Annual%20Report%202003.pdf to http://www.astrazeneca.com/sites/7/imagebank/typearticleparam503063/AstraZeneca%20Annual%20Report%202003.pdf
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030608161027/http://www.astrazeneca.com/annualrep2002/pdf/694617_Report_front.pdf to http://www2.astrazeneca.com/annualrep2002/pdf/694617_Report_front.pdf
+*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www2.astrazeneca.com/annualrep2001/pdf/first.pdf
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429061717/http://www.esomep.com/ to http://www.esomep.com/
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
+Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 15:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
+== External links modified ==
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
+I have just modified one external link on [[Esomeprazole]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/815535938|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202143327/http://www.astrazeneca.com/sites/7/imagebank/typeArticleparam511562/astrazeneca-2004-annual-report.pdf to http://www.astrazeneca.com/sites/7/imagebank/typearticleparam511562/astrazeneca-2004-annual-report.pdf
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
+Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 12:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
+== hatnote ==
+[[User:Acyclic]] please explain your objection to the hatnote. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
+:I already explained it in my most recent edit summary: "The problem is that it's really not notable enough or even similar enough for mention here". Who cares about some random cult that doesn't even have the same spelling as Nexium? Its mention is unencyclopedic for this article. --[[User:Acyclic|Acyclic]] ([[User talk:Acyclic|talk]]) 21:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
+:Maybe I should start a cult named PRLSC while I'm at it for top mention in the [[omeprazole]] page. --[[User:Acyclic|Acyclic]] ([[User talk:Acyclic|talk]]) 21:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
+::People who only hear the name without seeing how it's spelled may come to Wikipedia searching for info on it, and there's a good chance they'd end up on this page. [[User:Lizard the Wizard|<span style="color: #008000;">Lizard</span>]] ([[User talk:Lizard the Wizard|talk]]) 22:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
+::At the very least, it's useful at the moment; [[NXIVM]] received over [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=NXIVM 200,000 views] yesterday as the group is receiving heavy publicity right now. I'd have no objections to removing the hatnote in a few months once the hoopla has died down. [[User:Lizard the Wizard|<span style="color: #008000;">Lizard</span>]] ([[User talk:Lizard the Wizard|talk]]) 22:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
+::Acyclic, if you ''do'' start such a cult and it gets major media coverage, we would make such a hatnote. You haven't.  [[NXIVM]] did. It is totally appropriate to have the hatnote. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
+:::The name NXIVM is just too different from Nexium, so the argument for the hatnote is weak. Anyhow, the NXIVM article still has a lot of page hits, so I'll wait the hits subside. --[[User:Acyclic|Acyclic]] ([[User talk:Acyclic|talk]]) 02:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
+== Onomatopoeia ==
+This line from the second paragraph of the intro:
+"Esomeprazole is the (S)-(−)-enantiomer (or less specifically the S-isomer) of omeprazole."
+Has the following footnote:
+"The name thus is an onomatopoeia, as it can also be read as Es + omeprazole"
+It doesn't really make any sense. Neither omeprazole nor esomeprazole are describing a sound, regardless of the latter's prefix. [[Special:Contributions/70.20.28.112|70.20.28.112]] ([[User talk:70.20.28.112|talk]]) 16:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
+:Went ahead and removed the footnote. At best, it's folk etymology based on a misunderstanding of onomatopoeia. [[Special:Contributions/70.20.28.112|70.20.28.112]] ([[User talk:70.20.28.112|talk]]) 22:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)