Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2005[edit]

I'm getting concerned that this article is becoming very reference-heavy. Much of the information now presented will be outdated at one point. Can we not rely on a few (4-5) references. For example, the link to Dr King's medical biochemistry page does not necessarily belong here - all statins act similarly, and a link to that page should be sufficient. JFW | T@lk 15:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • the King reference has been moved to Talk:Cholesterol along with the intake-related sentence.
  • MOA details deferred to Statin.
  • Removal of dietary changes sentence => Statin
  • Combined the Lancet oped items into a single numbered reference.

Do these changes in combination address part of your concerns? Courtland 14:34, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Great, great. I did some further fiddling. I'm still not sure if that list of FDA documents needs to be there at all, and I removed the remark that it was the result of Googling.
Perhaps my quesiness is due to my worries about Wikipedia becoming a platform for trial lawyers. With the FDA under scrutiny, cerivastatin withdrawn and the tort system hungry any new & powerful drug runs the risk of getting this treatment. Wikipedia is for balance, and at the moment there seems to be no indication that rosuvastatin is worse than other synthetic statins re. risk of myopathy.
Good article, though. JFW | T@lk 11:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The reason why I pulled together the FDA documents list was two fold. The first was in order to provide primary documents for people who are looking for some information to complement media coverage, which often embellishes on such documents. The second was that there is no such index elsewhere; the FDA does not provide (as far as I've found) a database organized such that a generic or trade name can be used as a query to retrieve an organized list of documents. I also didn't want to rely on AstraZeneca's own site as a source as I thought it would be better to consider the FDA as a (more) neutral party.
I can see your concern about legal resources. Do you know if Brittanica has run into this type of problem? I did think of the FDA document list as a seed for primary documents and it could be trimmed back to cut out some of the correspondence if the thought is that some of the back-and-forth is unencyclopedic (might be, yes). Other primary documents I was thinking about for inclusion here (not immediately) were things like peer reviewed publications related to study results; individual pubs could be replaced by meta-studies as (if) they emerge.
One thing that I'm concerned about, though, is the US-centricity of the article. Granted, drug companies do segregate the information that they provide on a market-by-market basis (due to legal reasons?) and I'm wondering if we should do the same or should try to provide a global view. I've not found a list of brand names used outside the US yet, but that would be useful to have. I know that some drugs have a dozen or more brand names for use in different countries (instances don't come to mind right now, unfortunately).
Thanks for the positive support. It's always appreciated :)
Courtland 14:37, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Anti overload[edit]

This article is still >60% criticism/anti-drug company. We should be listing the trials of efficacy by name and academic reference. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Down with the bad, up with the good[edit]

Someone should add something about the very dorky commericals with the guy on the escalator in the endless hallways. I think its actual a pretty well known actor who does the commerical. I laugh every time I see it, especially when he gets the serious look and says to talk to YOUR doctor about Crestor! -Husnock 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Debate & criticisms[edit]

Accepting the ethical view, that we should not emphasise on "the bad" side effects of some "good medicine" in order to encourage patients to use this medicine, does not mean that we should answer to each of these critics that harshly as been written hear! I quote from the original article: ""flawed and incorrect" and slammed the journal for making "such an outrageous critique of a serious, well-studied medicine."[5] These hard words are incorrect, because the critism was made for the lack of hard endpoints of the studies presenting Rosuvastatin! And this is still correct! Although I agree that it might not be necessary at this point to have hard end points to introduce a new medicine, that is presumbed to be a better one, but still, it is a good practice to criticise a study that does not have hard end points! The whole article seems to have a great marketing influence, and reading this section makes you believe that it is not serios in having the medicine criticised! This would mean a lose of credibility of the written critics! Critics are not always to be answered, you should sometimes accept a critic as it is! One must not ignore the financial aspects of this medicine! Even if it is a good therapy, we should not lose our healthy critism in order to avoid being fooled out by big companies aiming at making profit! This is not aimed at AstraZeneca, but at all the drug companies, that a cautious eye should be kept on them! I added a link to an article in the BMJ discussing this drug! Hope that AstraZeneca wont delete it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnokel (talkcontribs) 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have removed quite a lot of information; I will support my actions with arguments here:

  • The page repeatedly claims that renal function is better with rosuvastatin. I could not see the reference that was proudly being referred to. I have removed these claims pending better references.
  • The page went completely off the handle about myopathy versus other statins. The statin page deals with this, and the relative rarity of clinically relevant myopathy and rhabdomyolysis. If the FDA has examined all the data, and states that rosuva is not worse than other statins, need we say more about cerivastatin etc etc?
  • The page listed reams of FDA documents. We are already referring to the FDA site, and linking to the entire exchange between Public Citizen (which has a well-known anti-drug company agenda) and the FDA amounts to WP:WEIGHT, WP:DIRECTORY and other bad things.

Content can be reinserted when its relevance has been demonstrated and can be phrased neutrally and without adding unverifiable material. JFW | T@lk 07:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claims made by TV commercial[edit]

I just saw a commercial that said "Crestor" raises the good kind of cholesterol [and lowers the bad kind], but I saw nothing at all relating to this claim in the Wikipedia article. Instead, it only states how statins lower all cholesterol. Is there anything to this, or is it an empty claim? Shanoman (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crestor typically does have a slightly positive impact on HDL levels, though this is qujite low compared to, say, nicotinic acid. This is across all does ranges. For comparison, simvastatin is neutral to slightly positive, and atorvastatin (anecdotally) appears to be dose-dependant; low doses slightly lower HDL, while higher doses increase it similar to rosuvastatin. This has _not_ been validated in large-scale trials as a primary endpoint, and probably won't be, as the effect is much less than niacin or even the fenofibrates, like Tricor. Meponder (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Mark PonderReply[reply]

IUPAC Name[edit]

IUPAC Name is lacking stereochemistry. As drawn the stereo is listed as (3R,5S,6E)-7-[4-(4-fluorophenyl)-2-[methyl(methylsulfonyl)amino]-6-(propan-2-yl)pyrimidin-5-yl]-3,5-dihydroxyhept-6-enoic acid--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It'd be helpful to have the patent expiration date in this article. I know there have already been challenges, but I believe Crestor is due to go off patent in 2010 (maybe later if they file for the 6 month child extension). (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article does now mention patent expiry (in 2016). Also Allergan Receives FDA Approval and Launches First Generic Version of CRESTOR® (rosuvastatin). May 2016 says "Under the terms of the agreement reached with AstraZeneca on March 25, 2013, Allergan has launched its generic version of CRESTOR® 67 days prior to July 8, 2016, the expiration of pediatric exclusivity. " (Not clear who AZ made the agreement with; maybe the FDA ?) - Rod57 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More contras[edit]

A6Boyd (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Commonly prescribed cholesterol medications (namely Statins) are being blamed for reducing muscle strength and increasing the chance of falls.Reply[reply]

Crestor is blamed for lowering testosterone to hypogonadal levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No reference provided on testosterone, no mention in the article. Non-referenced information should be deleted, not encouraged.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Insurance coverage?[edit]

Is it "common" for insurance companies to not cover Crestor because no specific "benefits" versus other statins have been shown to their satisfaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is "common" for insurance companies to not cover anything "new" if they can avoid it. A mere 20 years ago, coronary bypass surgery was considered experimental and not covered by most insurance companies.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Common side effects on this page?[edit]

Absent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecar52 (talkcontribs) 03:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rosuvastatin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Molecular model error[edit]

I noticed this while discussing this drug with my grandmother: the rotating gif of the molecule is errant. Where there should be a fluorine atom on the phenyl moiety, there is a sulfur. This is deducible by both coloration and atomic radius. I would gladly make a new correct gif, but I don't know how to/have the software. I'll do some digging to see what it takes.

Thanks, Iudician (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PPACA zero cost[edit]

Mikalra Coverage of rosuvastatin at no cost is not required and it is not covered by some health plans. The coverage of low-dose statins is required and health plans can decide which of them to cover. That is discussed in the Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs citation you removed -- If a recommendation or guideline does not specify the frequency, method, treatment, or setting for the provision of that service, the plan or issuer can use reasonable medical management techniques to determine any coverage limitations. Please remove your text stating that the coverage of rosuvastatin is required. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mikalra More details can be found at 26 CFR 54.9815-2713(a)(4), 29 CFR 2590.715-2713(a)(4), and 45 CFR 147.130(a)(4). --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whywhenwhohow Thank you for engaging on this: your previous revision and reverts seemed baffling.The quote you cite doesn't seem to indicate that the insurer has the discretion to choose which drugs to cover within the class, either on its face or especially granted that these specifics are spelled out in the USPTFS guideline ("Initiate use of low- to moderate-dose statins", with "low- to moderate-dose statins" defined in the final Table to include rosuvastatin 5–10 mg). 26 CFR 54.9815-2713(a)(4) and the equivalent lines in 29 CFR 2590.715-2713 and 45 CFR 147.130 do say that "Nothing prevents a plan or issuer from using reasonable medical management techniques to determine the frequency, method, treatment, or setting for an item or service described in paragraph (a)(1) ", as per with the quote you give above[*], but which drugs to cover isn't addressed by frequency, method, or setting, and by "treatment" they can't mean which drug, since that is exactly what the drug and immunization sections cover. Can you point to anywhere specifying that if USPTFS recommends any of a menu of drugs, the insurer can choose to exclude any at its discretion? Does it seem plausible that an insurer would be able to claim compliance by e.g. to exclusively covering lovastatin without cost to the patient?
[*] Incidentally, though the quote is in any case in the bill, I'm not clear which FAQ you are saying I deleted: the only citation I deleted was the Cigna page "PPACA NO COST-SHARE PREVENTIVE MEDICATIONS," and it doesn't address this issue). Mikalra (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mikalra: As you can see in the diff for the page you deleted the citation to the UHC list of covered medications and the ACA FAQ. UHC only covers three statins at no cost under the program -- lovastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin. Coverage of the last two of those requires prior authorization. Rosuvastatin is not covered at no cost. -- Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right: I apologize. I'll restore your relevant edit. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. Mikalra (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The risk of myopathy may be increased in Asian Americans[edit]

... and what about Asian Australians, Asian New Zealanders, Asian Canadians or how about Asian Asians! This is an APPALLING examine of American centrism on WP. I can find nothing in the cited work that doesn't indicate that the risk of myopathy doesn't apply generally to those of Asian ancestry. Unless other editors object or there is some very specific reason not to refer to those who are of Asian ancestry, I'll shortly make this change. Ross Fraser (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]