![]() | 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 Omega-3 acid ethyl esters.
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Omega-3 acid ethyl esters article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the first time I've looked for Lovaza here, though I know this is not the normal way for Wikipedia to list medication or suppliments, it is what's here. I'll take a picture and work on adding some basic information here. It might be better as Omega-3-acid ethyl esters (LOVAZA) as it's noted in the GlaxoSmithKline information on it and is more normal for Wikipedia. -- Bcw142 ( talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: 38% + 47% + 17% = 102% (>100% due to rounding)
Question: Is rest all fish oil?
"Each 1-gram capsule of LOVAZA contains at least 900 mg of the ethyl esters of omega-3 fatty acids sourced from fish oils. These are predominantly a combination of ethyl esters of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA - approximately 465 mg) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA - approximately 375 mg)." Source: http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_lovaza.pdf (Section 11 Description)
Hence: ~37.5% DHA ethyl esters, ~46.5% EPA ethyl esters, >=~6% other Omega-3 (which equals >=90%) Hence: ~10% other fish oils (an assumption?)
Can someone explain the signicance of ethyl esters versus "natural forms"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.3.227 ( talk) 07:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Possible contextual discussion needed: The third sentence of this article (as of 22 OCT 2010) describes the process by which GlaxoSmithKline "transformed" a dietary supplement into a "pharmaceutical." Was there any controversy about this? That is to say, it seems to me that what GlaxoSmithKline appears to have achieved is to convince the FDA to approve an excluse right to market (purified) fish oil as a pharmaceutical (with all attendant potential financial gain) while others must market it as a dietary supplement. Does this fit within standard practice of the FDA? Could another company, for example, apply to the FDA to market St. John's Wort capsules as a "pharmaceutical" with exclusive rights? Eenwikilekter ( talk) 03:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Please accept the edits to this page (February 14, 2013). My name is Scott Stoffel, and I work at Abbott in Corporate Public Affairs, and the edits I am providing are all factual, based upon review of the page with Abbott Laboratories scientists who have expertise in this area. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to access my contact information, found here: http://abbott.com/news-media/contacts.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottStoffelAbbott ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) ScottStoffelAbbott ( talk) 20:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Because many popular fish oil supplements use ethyl esterification to avoid contaminates as well
[1], I changed:
in these respects it is considered a pharmaceutical: unlike unregulated extracts, there is no risk of contamination by methyl mercury, arsenic, or other pollutants that are often seen in the world's oceans.
to:
Due to the esterification process during manufacturing there is no risk of contamination by methyl mercury, arsenic, or other pollutants that are often seen in the world's oceans.
--
Dejitarob (
talk)
02:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
See discussions at Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid about making all these fish oil/omega-3 articles make sense across Wikipedia. Jytdog ( talk) 00:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs), thanks for doing some work on this. I think this article is a bit confusing for peopoe right now - it says this drug is "used to treat high blood triglycerides" but then says "Evidence does not support a benefit in decreasing the risk of heart disease". For the average reader, that's confusing - what clinical outcome is expected by treating high triglycerides? Is this used to prevent diseases from really high triglycerides such as pancreatitis and xanthomas? Separately, I'm sure you've heard a bit about all the buzz happening around the REDUCE-IT trial (" Amarin’s Vascepa nabs ADA backing to cut heart risks, even ahead of FDA review"), altho there's controversy around its "light liquid paraffin oil" placebo. Technically that's about ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid, but EPA is one of the ingredients discussed here, so the caveat about dosage and this particular ingredient may need to be noted. II | ( t - c) 17:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This "While use in pregnancy has not been well studied, some omega-3 fatty acids appear beneficial."
Provides a lot more information than "There are no controlled data in human pregnancy."
So restored the first.
How it is taken has nothing to do with its side effects so putting them together in one sentence does not make sense. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Ref says "Trygg Pharma"? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I cannot find where to correct the naming convention that appears exactly below the chemical structure image. Because the FDA recognizes spelling with TWO hyphens (one between “3” and “acid”), a hyphen must be added so that the chemical structure is entitled: “omega-3-acid ethyl esters”
Thnx! Gobucks821 ( talk) 16:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Please disregard: I fixed this by filling in an EMPTY field in the template. The correct name now appears as the title and description. :-) Gobucks821 ( talk) 16:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!!! Gobucks821 ( talk) 16:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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 Omega-3 acid ethyl esters.
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Omega-3 acid ethyl esters article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the first time I've looked for Lovaza here, though I know this is not the normal way for Wikipedia to list medication or suppliments, it is what's here. I'll take a picture and work on adding some basic information here. It might be better as Omega-3-acid ethyl esters (LOVAZA) as it's noted in the GlaxoSmithKline information on it and is more normal for Wikipedia. -- Bcw142 ( talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: 38% + 47% + 17% = 102% (>100% due to rounding)
Question: Is rest all fish oil?
"Each 1-gram capsule of LOVAZA contains at least 900 mg of the ethyl esters of omega-3 fatty acids sourced from fish oils. These are predominantly a combination of ethyl esters of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA - approximately 465 mg) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA - approximately 375 mg)." Source: http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_lovaza.pdf (Section 11 Description)
Hence: ~37.5% DHA ethyl esters, ~46.5% EPA ethyl esters, >=~6% other Omega-3 (which equals >=90%) Hence: ~10% other fish oils (an assumption?)
Can someone explain the signicance of ethyl esters versus "natural forms"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.3.227 ( talk) 07:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Possible contextual discussion needed: The third sentence of this article (as of 22 OCT 2010) describes the process by which GlaxoSmithKline "transformed" a dietary supplement into a "pharmaceutical." Was there any controversy about this? That is to say, it seems to me that what GlaxoSmithKline appears to have achieved is to convince the FDA to approve an excluse right to market (purified) fish oil as a pharmaceutical (with all attendant potential financial gain) while others must market it as a dietary supplement. Does this fit within standard practice of the FDA? Could another company, for example, apply to the FDA to market St. John's Wort capsules as a "pharmaceutical" with exclusive rights? Eenwikilekter ( talk) 03:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Please accept the edits to this page (February 14, 2013). My name is Scott Stoffel, and I work at Abbott in Corporate Public Affairs, and the edits I am providing are all factual, based upon review of the page with Abbott Laboratories scientists who have expertise in this area. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to access my contact information, found here: http://abbott.com/news-media/contacts.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottStoffelAbbott ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) ScottStoffelAbbott ( talk) 20:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Because many popular fish oil supplements use ethyl esterification to avoid contaminates as well
[1], I changed:
in these respects it is considered a pharmaceutical: unlike unregulated extracts, there is no risk of contamination by methyl mercury, arsenic, or other pollutants that are often seen in the world's oceans.
to:
Due to the esterification process during manufacturing there is no risk of contamination by methyl mercury, arsenic, or other pollutants that are often seen in the world's oceans.
--
Dejitarob (
talk)
02:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
See discussions at Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid about making all these fish oil/omega-3 articles make sense across Wikipedia. Jytdog ( talk) 00:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs), thanks for doing some work on this. I think this article is a bit confusing for peopoe right now - it says this drug is "used to treat high blood triglycerides" but then says "Evidence does not support a benefit in decreasing the risk of heart disease". For the average reader, that's confusing - what clinical outcome is expected by treating high triglycerides? Is this used to prevent diseases from really high triglycerides such as pancreatitis and xanthomas? Separately, I'm sure you've heard a bit about all the buzz happening around the REDUCE-IT trial (" Amarin’s Vascepa nabs ADA backing to cut heart risks, even ahead of FDA review"), altho there's controversy around its "light liquid paraffin oil" placebo. Technically that's about ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid, but EPA is one of the ingredients discussed here, so the caveat about dosage and this particular ingredient may need to be noted. II | ( t - c) 17:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This "While use in pregnancy has not been well studied, some omega-3 fatty acids appear beneficial."
Provides a lot more information than "There are no controlled data in human pregnancy."
So restored the first.
How it is taken has nothing to do with its side effects so putting them together in one sentence does not make sense. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Ref says "Trygg Pharma"? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I cannot find where to correct the naming convention that appears exactly below the chemical structure image. Because the FDA recognizes spelling with TWO hyphens (one between “3” and “acid”), a hyphen must be added so that the chemical structure is entitled: “omega-3-acid ethyl esters”
Thnx! Gobucks821 ( talk) 16:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Please disregard: I fixed this by filling in an EMPTY field in the template. The correct name now appears as the title and description. :-) Gobucks821 ( talk) 16:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!!! Gobucks821 ( talk) 16:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)