Jump to content

Talk:Niacin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Post-RM discussion

[edit]

Late comment I am the person who started this mess (though in my very stubborn opinion, I still believe that I cleared it). I can see that Mdewman6 correctly sees that "vitamin B3" and "nicotinic acid" are distinct, so I would like to once again outline the mess and explain my view on the "ideal situation". I hope this is not seen as an attempt at a Last Word -- I welcome everyone to throw question at me so we can, maybe, get it fixed once and for all. And I hope I'm not counting as adding further edits, because this is outside of the green box!

  • The vitamin sense (vitamin B3 (Q30715691)) is unambiguously specified with "vitamin B3", but a quick look at how food is labeled in regulations and, well, cereal boxes will show that "niacin" would be the more proper, WP:COMMONNAME choice. Indeed, the word "niacin" was specifically coined from "nicotinic acid vitamin".
  • The one specific compound sense (nicotinic acid (Q134658)) would be unambiguously specified by, as A455bcd9 notes, "nicotinic acid". Among the possible forms of the vitamin, this substance is the only one that acts as a lipid-modifying medication. The trouble is that American medicine have decided to also use the name niacin for this substance, even in the context of the lipid-modifying medicine. And we all know how influential American terminological decisions are.

My ideal state for the pages is therefore:

I executed the split partly because I judged, from the many discussions around Archive 2, that people do realize these two are distinct things and find the intermingling confusing. Nicotinic acid was unavailable for move, hence the pretty screwed-up parentheticals.--Artoria2e5 🌉 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I would be okay with moving niacin to nicotinic acid and moving niacin (disambiguation) to niacin. But regardless, if the status quo is unsatisfactory, go ahead and start another RM, but make sure to include all necessary moves in a single request (see WP:EXPLICIT), so we have one discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this.
Rename this article to "nicotinic acid", as this is the INN for the substance, and there is no confusion about it. In the article we can just mention that niacin is the USAN name for "nicotinic acid".
Move Niacin (disambiguation) to Niacin.
And I think the "Vitamin B3" article should be keep with that name to avoid confusion, and explain in the lede that it is also referred as Niacin.
-- Arthurfragoso (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niacin definition disagreement between institutions

[edit]

I noticed in Brazil that there were some supplements that had niacin in the nutritional table, but in the ingredients it says it is actually nicotinamide.

I was sure that niacin meant nicotinic acid, so I emailed a big supplement company here. They replied to me pointing to a food/supplement labeling legislation that in summary says that niacin can refer to either nicotinic acid or nicotinamide:

  • ANVISA (2021-10-15). Instrução Normativa - IN Nº 28, de 26 de julho de 2018 (Com emendas) [Regulatory Instruction - No. 28, of 26 July 2018 (with amendments)] (PDF) (Report) (in Brazilian Portuguese). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2024-12-12. Retrieved 2024-12-12.

Brazil usually just mirror those kind of standards from US, so what does the FDA says?

"(...) This results in the following order for vitamins and minerals: Vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, folate and folic acid, vitamin B12, (...) The (b)(2)-dietary ingredients shall be listed according to the nomenclature specified in § 101.9 or in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B)(2) of this section." 21 CFR 101

"The term niacin refers to nicotinamide (nicotinic acid amide-NAD), nicotinic acid (pyridine-3-carboxylic acid), and derivatives that exhibit the biological activity of nicotinamide."

The last document also mention some curious things:

  • "niacin" (...) "had its unit of measure established in the 1989 RDA as “Niacin Equivalent”"
  • "While the unit of measurement for the RDI for niacin is listed as Niacin Equivalents (i.e., mg NE) in § 101.9(c)(8)(iv), only the amount “mg” will continue to be declared in labeling."
  • NE = Niacin Equivalents, 1 mg NE = 1 mg niacin = 60 mg tryptophan (see § 101.9(c)(8)(iv) (footnote 5))
  • "Furthermore, the amino acid tryptophan is available for conversion to NAD once protein synthesis needs are met and thus can contribute to meeting the RDA for niacin (Ref. 1). The tryptophan-to-niacin inter-conversion was considered previously in setting the RDA for niacin (Ref. 4). Therefore, the RDA for niacin is expressed in Niacin Equivalents (NE), allowing for the conversion of tryptophan to niacin (mean value of 60 mg tryptophan is equivalent to 1 mg of niacin)"
  • mg NE = mg niacin + (mg tryptophan ÷ 60)

Okay, so maybe the FDA could be wrong? What academic papers say? Doing a quick search, I find that there are papers aligned with the FDA saying that niacin refers to both nicotinic acid and nicotinamide.[1][2][3][4][5]

And there are also papers aligned with the current wikipedia article, saying that niacin refers only to nicotinic acid, but not to nicotinamide.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

So then I find out that niacin is the USAN name of nicotinic acid, so it is the term used in some chemists websites.[15][16]

  • Niacin (nye’ a sin). USP. C6H5NO2. 123.11. [Nicotinic Acid is INN and JAN.] (1) 3-Pyridinecarboxylic acid; (2) Nicotinic acid. CAS-59-67-6. Antihyperlipidemic; vitamin (enzyme co-factor). Niacor (Upsher Smith); Niaspan (KOS); Nicolar (Sanofi Aventis); Wampocap (Medpointe)
  • Niacinamide (nye" a sin’ a mide). USP. C6H6N2O. 122.12.[Nicotinamide is INN and JAN.] (1) 3-Pyridinecarbox-amide; (2) Nicotinamide. CAS-98-92-0. Vitamin (enzyme co-factor).

-- from "2007 USP Dictionary of USAN and International Drug Names"

But nutritionists refer to Vit B3 as niacin, as we can see in the documents by nutritional institutions:


What a mess! Different institutions using a different definition!

We should improve this article to try to explain this messy confusion.

-- Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NIH-ODS fact sheet - which represents the authoritative 1998 Institute of Medicine monograph (followed by many countries), explains it clearly as "Niacin (also known as vitamin B3) is one of the water-soluble B vitamins. Niacin is the generic name for nicotinic acid (pyridine-3-carboxylic acid), nicotinamide (niacinamide or pyridine-3-carboxamide), and related derivatives, such as nicotinamide riboside." This seems adequately stated in the lede where I updated and reapplied the NIH ref. Zefr (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adequately stated? The lede says "Niacin, also known as nicotinic acid". -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More appropriate for the Definition section than the Lead. David notMD (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except this does not work because in the drug context, FDA approves nicotinic acid preparations for altering blood lipids under the name "niacin". See, for example, NIASPAN label. Does the FDA disagree with the FDA, or... perhaps it's just two different senses of a word (in Am.E)? Artoria2e5 🌉 13:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 December 2024

[edit]

Niacin → Nicotinic acid – As per MOS:MED, substances should use the International Nonproprietary Name (nicotinic acid). Niacin is the United States Adopted Name for nicotinic acid, and it is also an ambiguous term because nutritional institutions use it to refer to all forms of B3 vitamins (nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, nicotinamide riboside). I think Niacin should be a redirect to Vitamin B3, but as there are potential disagreements, it can be a redirect to Niacin (disambiguation) for now and further discussed. We can at least fix the title for this "nicotinic acid" page now, as it is should be easier as it is based on MOS:MED. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my previous comments. I also support retargeting niacin to vitamin B3, as that is likely what most people are seeking when using the term, given the nutritional context. I don't think it would be best to send users directly to the dab page. Hatnotes can be expanded to link between both article and the dab. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Niacin has been a Good Article since 2020 and gets more than three times the views compared to Vitamin B3. At present, the Niacin article starts "Niacin, also known as nicotinic acid,..." and the Infobox makes clear that Nicotinic acid is used by INN, BAN and JAN. If that needs to be elaborated on in the body of the article then the Definition section can be an appropriate place. David notMD (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I bought supplements with niacin in the "Nutrition Facts" thinking I was consuming nicotinic acid, only to then find information outside wikipedia that niacin can also mean nicotinamide. My supplements all had nicotinamide. You can check the FDA documents showing that supplements have to show Niacin in the Nutrition Facts even when containing nicotinamide.
    Keeping Niacin pointing to this article will make more people make the same mistake. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FDA info on the Nutrition Facts -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In 2022 Niacin was moved to Vitamin B3 by a non-admin after a brief discussion on the Talk page of Vitamin B3. I hope we do not have a repeat of that. Niacin was later restored as an article, leaving Vitamin B3 as an article. Recently a referenced section "Niacin term" was added to Vitamin B3. Per my 'Oppose', perhaps the same content could be added to the Definition section in Niacin. David notMD (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As I've been saying for a long time, "niacin" in the nutritional sphere refers to "vitamin B3" (i.e. all those related compounds/vitamers), and in the US pharmaceutical sphere refers specifically to "nicotinic acid", commonly given in a high dose. Using an unambiguous term would be an improvement. This is echoed by the "Niacin definition disagreement between institutions" topic above, and by... yep, that "Post-RM discussion" section of mine. PS: I was that non-admin. --Artoria2e5 🌉 13:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Niacin" is the common name for the nutritional grouping in almost all national forms of English, and is also the common name for the drug that causes flushing in US English. The name "nicotinic acid" is the common name in non-US countries for the flushing drug. "Vitamin B3" is... well, actually a less ideal name than "niacin" because it's the common name nowhere (same way we don't use the B numbers for folic acid and biotin). The only reason it's being use is that it's totally unambiguous. --Artoria2e5 🌉 11:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Niacin" is what is used on fortified food and dietary supplement labels in the US, Canada, UK and Australia/New Zealand. Given this is English language Wikipedia, "Niacin" is proper. David notMD (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that "niacin" in fortified foods refers to nicotinamide, not nicotinic acid! So wikipedia is on a disinformation campaign maintain the page as it currently is! -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nicotinic acid" can always be "Niacin",
    but
    "Niacin" is not always "Nicotinic acid".
    99% of the time Niacin is referring to the definition of Vitamin B3, that is, usually it is nicotinamide, but it can also be nicotinic acid or nicotinamide riboside.
    The most times when Niacin is really referring to Nicotinic acid is when they say it is the "Flush Niacin". -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nicotinic acid is what I think of as niacin (the flush seems a part of knowing you are using the real thing). To redirect niacin to B3 seems incorrect and would redefine the common name for nicotinic acid. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it can redirect to Niacin (disambiguation) -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought Niacin was always referring to the Flush Niacin (nicotinic acid), but reality showed me that most nutritional institutions are using it with the meaning of Vitamin B3, and mostly using Nicotinamide so they don't risk their customers to get a flush reaction. Just look for any regular multivitamin supplement, they will all show Niacin in the "Nutrition Facts", but if you look in the Ingredients, it will say: Nicotinamide (or Niacinamide if in US)
If it was only one institution or country that was using the term "wrong", we could just ignore or message that institution. But they are doing this for decades, as I mentioned in Talk:Niacin#Niacin definition disagreement between institutions. So we have to try to make readers understand and navigate this mess that we are in. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Niacin' should stay as the title of this page for full accuracy. The disamb page should list this page, in either case or RM consensus, as the first item and not B-3 (many readers do not navigate further than reading the first entry). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did make a disambig page when I tried the move in 2022. Didn't sell many people on it. Somehow ontology isn't our strong suit on this website. Artoria2e5 🌉 11:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See how the FDA mandates the label to be: 21 CFR 101.36(e)(11)
"Niacin (as Niacinamide)" in some examples, and or just Niacin in the "Supplement Facts", and then written Niacinamide in the Ingredients just bellow.
-- Arthurfragoso (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
""Niacin" is what is used on fortified food and dietary supplement labels in the US, Canada, UK and Australia/New Zealand. Given this is English language Wikipedia, "Niacin" is proper."
This statement is not discussing the issue I'm pointing.
I agree with you that most countries in the world use the word Niacin in the supplements label. But they do not mean the Niacin in this article. This article is about the "Flush Niacin" (Nicotinic acid to be more precise).
The Niacin in the label of all those countries means Vitamin B3.
"The term niacin refers to nicotinamide (nicotinic acid amide-NAD), nicotinic acid (pyridine-3-carboxylic acid), and derivatives that exhibit the biological activity of nicotinamide." - FDA
This is in disagreement with the lede of this article that says:
"Niacin, also known as nicotinic acid"
Do you see how does the statements differ?
I disagree with : "Niacin, also known as Nicotinic acid"
But it would be less wrong if it was: "Nicotinic acid, also known as Niacin"
Seems similar, but there is a difference.
It would bring even less confusion if it was stated: "Nicotinic acid (INN, BAN UK) or Niacin (USAN US)"
But if someone here really want to have an article named Niacin, it would be the Vitamin B3., We can rename that. Because all the things that are being brought here refers to that. Most supplements and food additives uses Nicotinamide (Niacinamide), and not the Flush Niacin (Nicotinic acid).
So, if people read the Niacin in the food label, they go to Wikipedia and reads that it is the Flush Niacin (Nicotinic acid). They are being lied to. Because it is most probably Nicotinamide. So the article in Vitamin B3 fits better this definition.
You can say to me: "Oh, lets just explain this in this Flush Niacin article." But if we do, we are transforming this article to be what the Vitamin B3 article currently is. It will be much more work and it will not make any sense. At least I don't see the sense in this.
I know that originally the term Niacin was meant to be just for the Flush Niacin, but the reality is that the term was diluted during decades, and today all the big institution use it as a broad term in their documents, as I pointed in many references before. The industries just use nicotinamide and label it as Niacin because it is what the regulations tell them to do.
I hope this made things a bit more clear. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh. Actually the "niacin" word originally was meant for the vitamin group -- it's short for "nicotinic acid vitamin" and was coined because doctors didn't want people to think that cigarettes contain a vitamin. The flush name is a later confusion by Americans. --Artoria2e5 🌉 11:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This fascinating and relevant information belongs in the article named "niacin". Can you provide a source? Andrewa (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa it's in Vitamin B3#History Arthurfragoso (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that the content referring to the food sources and daily recommendations on this page should only belong to the vitamin page. Yes, I moved that content in 2022 too. Artoria2e5 🌉 11:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But I would wait for the close of this move request. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A US supplement label showing the amount of niacin (Vitamin B3), and specifying to be niacinamide in the ingredient section.
The arguments saying that English speaking countries use the word Niacin is a distortion of the facts. They do in fact use the word niacin, but it is WP:COMMONNAME for Vitamin B3 and not Nicotinic acid. The only country I found proof to use Niacin to refer to Nicotinic acid is the US, as it is in the USP dictionary of USAN. I even showed the correct term approved for use in UK is Nicotinic Acid. (Martindale 2011, the BAN at the top refers to British Approved Name)
Oh, and acetaminophen is the official word in much more countries (United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Colombia and Venezuela, (according to the article)), but their page title is paracetamol that is the INN, and so agreeing with MOS:MED. — Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niacin has been the name of the article since it was created in 2002. Thus, a common name of long standing. David notMD (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We should have an article on Niacin, it's a good topic, and another on Vitamin B3 which is another good topic. If we need an article on Nicotinic acid or other related topics, we should create them. Andrewa (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa There is the substance C₆H₅NO₂ represented by CAS 59-67-6. Are you saying we should have two article for this substance, each article with a different name? Niacin and Nicotinic Acid?
    What should the name of the article that represent C₆H₅NO₂ be? Arthurfragoso (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are making several assumptions here. The most important being that Niacin simply means CAS 59-67-6. It's not that simple.
    So no, if we are to have an article called Niacin, as I think we should, then this is not the same topic as CAS 59-67-6 or C₆H₅NO₂. It should refer to that compound, and if there is a separate article on CAS 59-67-6 then the article called Niacin should link to that article. Or CAS 59-67-6 could be dealt with in a section of the article called Niacin, with redirects to that section as appropriate. Not my preferred option but it would be OK.
    I think that Vitamin B3 deserves its own article, but again it could be a section of the Niacin article. I doubt very much that having this topic merely as a section of another article is appropriate either. But we could try it. I think that the history of Vitamin B3 and its current status in nutrition worldwide give plenty of material for a separate article.
    So no, we should not have two articles on the substance itself. We could even have only one covering all the topics mentioned above. But there's no way that this one broadly scoped article could be called CAS 59-67-6 or C₆H₅NO₂ or Nicotinic Acid, in my opinion. And I think it's better to split it somehow, but not into two or more duplicate articles. They each should have their own scope to match their names. Is that any clearer? Andrewa (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa Thanks! Finally it seems we are going somewhere. Usually each compound has it own separate article. I have seen less relevant compounds being grouped in a a single article, and each having it's own drugbox/chembox. But most compound has it's own dedicated article, a entry in wikidata (for CAS 59-67-6 is nicotinic acid (Q134658) and it points to this article). In the past, this article was named "Niacin (substance)", and Vitamin B3 was "Niacin (nutrient)". There is also the dab page created recently.
    I have no objection to what you have said.
    What I claim is that 90% of the edit-history of this "Niacin (substance)" article is about CAS 59-67-6.
    The article with a closer broad definition of Niacin is the Vitamin B3, that previously was named "Niacin (nutrient)". I would be completely ok in renaming that article to Niacin. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed this before... you say Usually each compound has it own separate article... No. Not each compound has its own article. An obvious example is the isomers of glucose. Andrewa (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, that's why I used the word "usually". Usually ≠ always. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa this article is about C₆H₅NO₂ represented by CAS 59-67-6. If you see this article history, you will see this was always about 59-67-6. [18] [19] Arthurfragoso (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked at the article history, and this is quite simply wrong. The two references you give are to the compound CAS 59-67-6, of course.
    But the name Niacin has other important meanings, and if you looked more closely at the article and its history, you'd see that these have often been mentioned before and still are... The current article says in part Severe deficiency of niacin in the diet causes the disease pellagra (my emphasis). But pellagra is caused by a deficiency in all vitamers of vitamin B3, not just CAS 59-67-6. You can be quite healthy without CAS 59-67-6. So niacin in this context means much more than CAS 59-67-6.
    But I think I now see what is going on here. There is I suspect an opinion among some, perhaps many, chemists that the term niacin should be a synonym of CAS 59-67-6. Is that possible, do you think? Comments on that welcome.
    This agenda, if it exists as I suspect, may be a good thing, or not, but either way Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. Andrewa (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa Yes. We are getting to the same page. This confusion happened because the USP USAN dictionary specifically say that Niacin is CAS 59-67-6, but all nutritional institutions say Niacin is a broad term for all the vitamers. There are things in this article that says otherwise, like the one you mentioned, but this is because of this confusion in the terminology. From what I understand, the past of this article was based on the definition of the USP USAN. Arthurfragoso (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, on the matter of what Niacin means, these sources you cite are neither secondary sources nor reliable. They are pushing a controversial POV. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa what source you say are unreliable? The USP USAN? I posted many sources in this talk page. Today I'm on mobile only, so it gets a bit more difficult to communicate.
    But I'm with you in the Niacin meaning broadly all the vitamers. But as this article currently is, it seems using the USAN meaning. (I had to make many edits to explicit say what is Nicotinic acid, and what was not, if you see the recent edit history. Arthurfragoso (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the matter of what the Wikipedia article should be called, yes, USP USAN is neither a reliable source nor a secondary source. Its rulings are similar to official names. Andrewa (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa this article is on Nicotinic acid, it just have the incorrect name. I can copy this article and create another with the Nicotinic acid title, but if I do this, I will be breaking rules, as this would not preserve the article history. Why can't it be the other way around? Make this article be "Nicotinic acid" and name a different article as "Niacin"? If something is wrong should we keep that thing wrong because it has always been a good wrong article? The article is good, but the title is deceiving. This article can be part of the blame for why I bought the wrong supplements. And I learned my lessons that en Wikipedia is less reliable than I initially thought. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are demonstrating the very opposite. But agree that Wikipedia is not perfect. And nor are other sources, just BTW. See User:Andrewa/if the rocket's gonna crash and other essays to which it links. Andrewa (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa
    Where it refers to CAS 59-67-6:
    • First sentence in lede.
    • Article short description
    • Parts mentioning it as a prescription medicine
    • Drugbox / Chembox
    • As lipid-modifying medication
    • Adverse effects
    • Pharmacology
    • Research
    Where it refers to the broad definition of Niacin:
    • Vitamin deficiency
    • Measuring vitamin status
    • Dietary recommendations
    • Sources
    Mixed:
    • Pharmacokinetics
    • Production (I made edits to make it clear, but still mixed)
    Arthurfragoso (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying for example that As lipid-modifying medication refers only to CAS 59-67-6? It doesn't seem to say that at all. Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa Yes! That's exactly what I'm saying! CAS 59-67-6 (Nicotinic acid) is know for the lipid-modifying properties and for the flush reaction. The others who are in favor of doing this move probably also knows this. Take your time to verify. The problem is that in the US it is reffered sometimes as Niacin in the definition by USAN. But as Artoria2e5 mentioned [20], the FDA had to be more clear and say it is specific to Nicotinic acid.
    Nicotinamide doesn't have the lipid-modifying properties, nor does it has the flush side effects. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then if it does refer only to this particular chemical compound (which was my question) it's very badly expressed, isn't it? How should it be fixed?
    We are a general encyclopedia, not a pharmacopoeia. Our information should of course be accurate (and verifiable) but it should also be accessible to a general readership.
    What you have said in reply may be true (or not) but it does not address my question at all. Andrewa (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is how the future article could look like after moving: User:Arthurfragoso/Draft:Nicotinic acid
    But it would take much more work, ad I need to verify reference by reference if they are indeed pointing to CAS 59-67-6, and also the ideal wording for things like "niacin therapy" that uses high dose nicotinic acid. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks a very good start to me. My only immediate objection would be if the bolding of Niacin indicates the intention to redirect Niacin to that article. If that occurs (and of course I don't think it should) we'd need a hatnote pointing to the Vitamin B3 article. In any case a hatnote is a good idea, I'd suggest a For template hatnote (assuming that there is no such redirect) pointing to the Vitamin B3 article. Andrewa (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would not be a wikilink. It is to refer to compound that have different names in different countries. Just like the pages: paracetamol (acetaminophen), metamizole (dipyrone), pethidine (meperidine).
    Yes, and I agree with the hatnotes. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what would not be a wikilink? And I am also puzzled by your claim that the three drugs you list have different names in different countries. That is true but another important reason for these different names is that they are distributed by different companies. The one with which I am most familiar is paracetamol whose article lists Tylenol, Panadol, others as Trade names and the linked article Drug nomenclature reads in part Many drugs have multiple trade names, reflecting marketing in different countries, manufacture by different companies, or both. I have bought it in several countries, and always by the same name. So your statement is oversimplified at best. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My background is in pharmacology and I know quite a few more examples.
    I really thank you for taking the time and helping to break down the disagreements about this article.
    Yes, my statement was oversimplified as I thought I would not have to go in much details. I was trying to reply to what you said was your only objection. To keep it short, I made some updates to the draft, I included the hatnotes and made 3 examples of the lede: User:Arthurfragoso/Draft:Nicotinic acid
    In short, I have no strong opinions in how the lede should be written. My main concern is the title of the article that has an ambiguous meaning.
    I'm not against the name "Niacin". In fact, I really like it, but it would be more appropriate for a different article. (And I don't want to repeat myself too much, the closer already has lots to read :/ ) -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa Lipid-lowering effects with pharmacologic doses of nicotinic acid -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That page is headed Niacin and states Dietary precursors of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), including nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, and nicotinamide riboside, are collectively referred to as niacin or vitamin B3. (my emphasis)
    Your point being? Andrewa (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was on mobile, I just got back to my desktop.
    That article says "For over half a century, pharmacologic doses of nicotinic acid, but not nicotinamide, have been known to reduce serum cholesterol". -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/niacin that you are citing, not our article. This just for the benefit of others reading this page.
    This indicates to me that our article is woefully misleading on this point. Actually I think it still needs quite a lot of work, see the new section here Prescription niacin for a start. Andrewa (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (vote already above) If there is concern that some content at nicotinic acid should be at vitamin B3 or vice versa, then WP:SECTIONMOVE and WP:CWW are things- move the content around in a way that reflects the subject and scope of each article.
The bottom line is we should have an article about the specific compound (nicotinic acid) and the vitamin; the question is what readers should reach when they type in "niacin".
I feel bad for the closer having to weed through this long discussion. Clearly niacin can refer to two things: all vitamers known as vitamin B3 and the specific compound also known as nicotinic acid. To a chemist, I feel like nicotinic acid is more the common name for the specific compound, and avoids confusion with other vitamers. Is there a primary topic? I'm not sure; I would think its use in nutrition would win out in terms of usage. Probably there is no clear primary topic and niacin should just be disambiguated, i.e. niacin (disambiguation) should be moved to niacin, but that's not WP:EXPLICITly part of this discussion. I support the move proposed. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A DAB at Niacin seems an obvious solution. If that is the outcome then the move Niacin → Nicotinic acid makes sense too, and it can be discussed and supported here; WP:EXPLICIT is not relevant. It is for nominating an RM. There is no reason that new related proposals cannot be discussed as part of this RM, seeking consensus for them here, but it's normal and IMO essential to put heads-ups at all affected talk pages.
However the DAB currently at Niacin (disambiguation) itself needs serious work, compare it to MOS:DAB#Individual entries for a start. Andrewa (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:NOTOTHERPAGES follows from WP:EXPLICIT, but in this case since the other page is a dab, if consensus forms that there is no ptopic for niacin, then the dab page can be moved by default, per WP:RMCI. I'll leave a notice at Talk:Niacin (disambiguation), though anyone interested in the dab page is presumably already watching this page. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Above, there is a statement "In the past, this article was named "Niacin (substance)", and Vitamin B3 was "Niacin (nutrient)". That move was done without reaching consensus on the Talk page (I opposed it then and oppose any name change now). I restored the earlier version as one article Niacin. David notMD (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prescription niacin

[edit]

The article currently uses the phrase prescription niacin seven times.

I (as a general reader on the subject) assumed that this just meant, niacin in a form (any form) that is commonly the subject of a medical prescription. But now I'm not so sure. Is it perhaps intended to mean specifically CAS 59-67-6? I think this should be clarified. Prescription niacin looks like a well-defined term, but this seems doubtful. Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Niacin&oldid=1265544846"