This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

PharmacologyMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. MedicineMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow theManual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any articleuse high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guidelineWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typicallyreview articles. Here are links topossibly useful sources of information aboutEmpagliflozin. PubMed providesreview articles from the past five years (limit tofree review articles) TheTRIP database providesclinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include:Centre for Reviews and Dissemination andCDC

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between4 March 2019 and29 March 2019. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Manuvenkat. Peer reviewers:DeeplyTangent.

Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to contravene WP:MEDRS: Specifically,"Based on Wikipedia guidelines, in vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in biomedical research, and are invaluable in elucidating mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that the reported findings necessarily hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to the reader."— Precedingunsigned comment added byOwleye769 (talk •contribs)

Also,"Use of small-scale, single studies make for weak evidence, and allow for easy cherry picking of data. Results of studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in sufficient context that readers can determine their reliability."Hence, the article is nominated for deletion.

The contributor of the potential Original research, Boghog, previously noted in his other edits that: "according to WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should be based primarily on secondary sources. One should avoid the use of primary sources, particularly if the subject has been covered in a secondary source. This is particularly important in the clinical setting since primary clinical studies frequently contradict each other and it is better if the results of these studies are compared and contrasted and put into a wider context in a review article. Boghog (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

I think that this makes sense.— Precedingunsigned comment added byOwleye769 (talk •contribs)

This is a investigational compound that has yet not been approved for sale. HenceWP:MEDRS does not apply. Furthermore, the restored citations and text only document that clinical trials are on going and do not state anything about the results, so againWP:MEDRS does not apply.Boghog (talk)13:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ireverted the addition of the AfD tag since it appears to be incomplete and perhaps ill-advised.Owleye769 (talk ·contribs), please take the time to follow the AfD instructions should you wish to proceed. It's probably better, though, to hash out your differences here. —Scientizzle14:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are4 PubMed references in response for a search for Empagliflozin. Casting awider net, two recent reviews, fromNature Reviews Drug Discovery &Nature Reviews Endocrinology have mentioned the clinical trials.[1][2] I see no reason why this article shouldn'texist and I don't really see anything promotional in the tone...this is a case for minor wordsmithing, not wholesale deletion. —Scientizzle14:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here fromWT:WikiProject Pharmacology. There, I had endorsed the creation of this page. As I see it, there are two issues here. The first is the one that I think Owleye is raising: thatWP:MEDRS does indeed say that we shouldn't mislead readers about clinical implications based on preliminary or preclinical data. However, I don't think that this page does that. If, hypothetically, the page said something like "Empagliflozin is going to cure (fill in the blank)", that would be unacceptable. It should be dealt with by removing such statements, but not necessarily by deleting the page. However, this page says only that the drug is being evaluated in clinical studies, not that those studies have yielded a particular conclusion. The other issue is whether Wikipedia should only have pages devoted to drugs that are approved for clinical use and actually in use by the general population, but not have pages on drugs that are still in the investigational stage. That's an interesting question, but my understanding of the notability guidelines as of this time is that there is no requirement that drugs be past the investigational stage. I think that this page passesWP:GNG (given that the sourcing is peer-reviewed, and therefore not self-published in the sense that Wikipedia considers it). As long as it passes GNG, it's unlikely to get deleted at AfD. --Tryptofish (talk)22:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FDA presumably gaveaccelerated approval so the 4 postmarketing studies are required to verify acceptable side-effects and long-term safety. What results have they yielded ? -Rod57 (talk)12:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As part of an elective at UCSF School of Medicine, I will be making some updates and revisions to this article. I applaud the work done by the initial authors and editors of this article, but there have been significant updates about this medication over the past few years, including from long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials that have been discussed in third party sources (ie literature reviews) that merit inclusion in this article. Below is an overview of my planned changes, which will take place over the coming three weeks. Any suggestions / feedback from the Wiki community would be greatly appreciated!

General goals include:

• Quality checking current citations in the article
• Updating the article to reflect expanded exploratory indications for empagliflozin
• Updating safety, tolerability, and side effect information in light of findings from multiple large outcomes studies
• Keeping the current header organizations and adding new sections.

Section-by-section goals include:

• UpdatingMedical Use to include more about cardiovascular indications.
• Adding aContraindications section
• Discussing the issue of euglycemic ketoacidosis associated with SGLT-2 inhibitors, which have been studied in multiple trials and commented on in multiple review articles
• Seeking or designing a graphic to include in theMechanism of Action section
• Updating theRegulatory status section
• Adding aResearch section that will reference ongoing studies in type 1 diabetes and chronic kidney disease

Sources that I plan to draw from include:Empagliflozin - A Review in Type 2 Diabetes,SGLT Inhibitors for Type 1 Diabetes (Review), and textbooks available via UCSF library.

Timeline:

• Week 1: Familiarize myself with Wikipedia editing process. Review MEDRS. Review existing citations.
• Week 2: Conduct literature review. Begin live edits.
• Week 3: Have full set of headings entered. Peer review by end of this week.
• Week 4: Implement suggestions from peer edits and any community edits / suggestions received on the talk page.

Manuvenkat (talk)20:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

• Concise and contains relevant basic information one would want to know at a glance.

Medical use section

• Sectioning is clear and excellently broken down into diabetes type and sequalae subcategories.

Contraindications section

• Could consider giving brief reason why ESRD and DKA are contraindications.

Euglycemic ketoacidosis

• Nice description. Consider stating why undiagnosed DKA is dangerous.

Graphic

• Would be great to make a mechanism of action graphic if possible, something like thishttps://www.seasidemedicalpractice.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/moa.png

Regulatory status

• When stating approved by FDA consider adding for use in US. Although this is implicit given FDA is US agency, may help non-US readers.

Research

• Consider adding only if you find that there are new and interesting uses being investigated, e.g. is this being used to assess anti aging?

Overall

• Great job! The page is very informative, well written, and easy to understand.

--DeeplyTangent (talk)16:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is this gobbledy word pronouced? I'm seeking which syllables are stressed after the first syllable.Tony(talk)01:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article talks about use in both Type I and Type II, but doesn't mention LADA. If that's just considered a variation on Type I, the article should mention it; otherwise, it should be mentioned separately.JDZeff (talk)19:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has received approval as a generic medication from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).[19] Howeverthe source lists Ertugliflozin and not empagliflozin.a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk)09:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the ref.a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk)16:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just after ref 14 in the main text, the sentence makes no sense. Needs an expert.Tony(talk)04:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall whether it was inScientific American or some other outlet: a RCT found that halving the 25 mg pills (12.5 mg per day) gives about the same benefit as the full pill. This was especially important for diabetics in developing countries like India. Does anyone know the ref?Tony(talk)07:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class pharmacology articles
• Mid-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages