Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XW10508

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Phase II trials are ongoing/just completed, so this drug is not (yet) abandoned. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 06:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XW10508

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in independent sources. This article cites three databases and a press release. My BEFORE search only found more of the same. A PROD was disputed by Graeme Bartlett, who argues that [1] contains independent coverage. This report from a market research firm is neither significant coverage nor independent: The subject is mentioned only one time, as an example of a new resistant depression drug, within a paragraph that copies its description of the subject straight from a press release [2]. Thus, I believe there is still no coverage that is either independent or significant, so the subject is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 16:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toadspike [Talk] 16:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only paragraph of the source cited by Graeme to mention the subject is:

Growing development of novel therapeutics used for the treatment of resistant depression by market players to launch their novel products is anticipated to boost the market growth during the forecast period. For instance, XWPharma Ltd. announced dosing of subjects in its first-in-human study evaluating XW10508 in September 2021. It is the company’s novel, patented, glutamatergic NMDA antagonist and AMPA activator in development as an oral, once-daily therapy used to treat treatment-resistant depression and chronic pain. Thus, this factor significantly increases the market growth. (emphasis mine)

The press release describes the subject as:

XWPharma Ltd. today announced dosing of subjects in its first-in-human study evaluating XW10508, the Company’s novel, patented, glutamatergic NMDA antagonist and AMPA activator in development as an oral, once-daily therapy for the treatment of treatment-resistant depression and chronic pain. (emphasis also mine)

The parts I have bolded are copied word-for-word. This should make clear that the source Graeme linked cannot be considered independent. Toadspike [Talk] 16:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a drug that is undergoing a clinical trial which has been formally registered, so there will be publications coming out on it. It is important for us to have information bout substances including drugs, particularly those that have applications. There is a good chance that the drug will be abandoned, and I would like to see information on exactly what it is disclosed. Presumably thi is kept a trade secret at the moment to stop copycats. With chemicals I would ask for deletion if the substance is hypothetical, but not so in this case, just we don't know the structure yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would withdraw this nomination if someone found more sources. There will be publications, when the sources we do have say both that the trial is complete and that there haven't been updates in years [3], is a hard pill to swallow. I fully agree that There is a good chance that the drug will be abandoned, which is why I'm so skeptical about this subject's notability. Toadspike [Talk] 23:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to note that abandoned pharmaceutical drugs can still be notable. Especially if we consider in-development drugs to be notable (is notability suddenly lost once the drug is abandoned?). Also see my comment below re: the claim that the source is contradicting itself and thus seemingly unreliable—this isn't actually the case. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not because the XW10508 page itself is especially important. But because of the precedent it would set for Wikipedia drug content generally. Wikipedia:Notability (chemicals) is only a proposed policy, but has existed for about 5 years now. It's relevant here and it's the closest guideline I know of that's applicable. I'm not aware of there being any specific notability guidelines for drugs or medications. Wikipedia:Notability (chemicals) says the following:

While databases such as PubChem and ChemSpider are technically tertiary sources containing entries for millions of chemical compounds, these entries are considered trivial (and not notable) if no properties are given beyond the bare basics for an entry (name, structure, formula, database numbers, and computed properties). To be notable, the entry should have at least some property given, such as melting/boiling point, solubility, description of uses, etc.

AdisInsight (by Springer) and Synapse (by PatSnap), which are cited in the XW10508 page, are comprehensive and independent online indexes of all of the drugs that are in formal pharmaceutical development. They provide information well beyond simple chemical properties or database numbers. Here are the pages in the case of XW10508: AdisInsight and Synapse. These pages provide information including the drug's mechanisms of action, classes, pharmaceutical developers, medical indications it's being developed or used for, route of administration, developmental history and phase, and current clinical trials. Moreover, AdisInsight pages are not simple database entries; they are actually comprehensive narrative reviews. Most viewers just can't see that content because it's paywalled (and can be purchased $50 per article without a subscription). But whenever a new drug is approved, the AdisInsight report is published as a literature review (notably meeting WP:MEDRS criteria) in the peer-reviewed journal Drugs with the article title of format "[Drug name]: First Approval". See here for a long list of such publications.

Based on the above, XW10508 and similar drug pages citing AdisInsight and/or Synapse are notable and can be considered adequately sourced. Hence, I agree with Graeme Bartlett that XW10508 should not be deleted. Also pinging SafariScribe, as they approved the page at WP:AfC and, per the above, there is good substantiation for such approvals. Thank you. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to discover that I have access to AdisInsight. You are correct that some information is presented in a narrative format. However, that page cites the same press release I took issue with above and includes almost nothing that is not in the press release. It also contradicts itself, saying that Phase I trials were completed in 2022, but also saying that there has been "No development reported" in the Phase I trials as of August 2024. None of this gives me confidence that this source is reliable.

Within the framework of the failed proposal you cite above, I do not think the very limited information we have qualifies as beyond the bare basics for an entry for a proposed drug. And it looks like Graeme Barlett opposes the very sentence you cite. [4] Toadspike [Talk] 23:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have access to AdisInsight? Jealous! I only have access to the public page info and Google search snippets. It's nice that they publish the reports in the literature once the drugs are approved at least, since those are more readily accessible.

AdisInsight is a secondary/tertiary source, like literature reviews and encyclopedia entries. Published literature reviews on drugs currently in development frequently cite the same kinds of sources that AdisInsight does for their information (e.g., press releases, as well as pharma company websites). I see this all the time. Sources describing in-development pharmaceutical drugs have to get their information from somewhere and are only able to cite whatever limited public information is available. As far as I know, the main source of that information is the pharmaceutical companies themselves (and perhaps clinical trial registers like clinicaltrials.gov). I don't see basic drug development information provided by press releases/pharma companies and filtered through secondary/tertiary sources as being unacceptable in its reliability. Clinical drug effectiveness and tolerability claims on the other hand would be a different matter (per WP:MEDRS).

The AdisInsight page actually doesn't contradict itself. "No development reported" really means "No recent development reported". It's their way of saying that there was reported development previously but the pharma company hasn't given any updates in a while and the drug may have been abandoned. I regularly see "no development reported" even for phase 2 or phase 3 drugs. Pharma companies themselves frequently don't publicly announce that they've terminated development of a given drug, so inference is often necessary here. I am personally confident that AdisInsight pages are reliable sources of information and have many years of experience with them. To reiterate, AdisInsight is a Springer project and the reports are published in the peer-reviewed literature once drug approval occurs, which I think bolsters their credibility.

I agree with Graeme Bartlett that PubChem/ChemSpider database entries on their own should not establish notability. There are millions of chemical entries in those databases and the vast majority of those would and should not be notable for Wikipedia. But AdisInsight and Synapse pages are for in-development pharmaceutical drugs, which are of course far more notable. And the information provided by AdisInsight is much more substantial than the simple chemical information in chemical databases.

No need for charged language. I disagree that my proposal is failed and I stand by it. Thank you. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for getting a bit worked up. To clarify, do you mean that two years of no updates mean the drug is abandoned, or that it could still be worked on? Toadspike [Talk] 00:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Yes, the drug could still be being worked on. It's not uncommon for pharmaceutical drugs to sit in a given phase for a long time e.g. while the pharma company looks for funding that can allow them to develop it further. And 2 years actually isn't that long in drug development terms. No recent development reported really just means that we don't know if it's still being worked on—it may or may not be—unless or until the pharma company gives further updates. At a certain point though, like 5 years, you can assume with reasonable confidence that the drug is likely abandoned. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you for telling me that I might have institutional access to AdisInsight. If you would like, I can add excerpts from it (or perhaps the whole thing) here tomorrow, it's not very long. Toadspike [Talk] 00:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. And that would be awesome! Thank you. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AdisInsight's Development Overview, which is the prose portion of that page:

Introduction: XW 10508 is a orally bioavailable, once-daily glutamatergic N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist and α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor (AMPA) activator being developed by XWPharma (formerly XW Laboratories) for the treatment of chronic pain and major depressive disorder (MDD). XW10508 is derived from esketamine, designed for extended release. Clinical development is underway in Australia. Glutamate and its receptor subtypes, N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor and α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor, have been found to be involved in the occurrence and development of chronic pain and depression. In September 2020, XW Laboratories changed its name to XWPharma [1]. As at August 2024, no recent reports of development had been identified for phase-I development in Major depressive disorder (In volunteers) in Australia (PO, Immediate release), Australia (PO, Controlled release), phase-I development in Pain (In volunteers) in Australia (PO, Immediate release), Australia (PO, Controlled release).

Key Development Milestones: In June 2022, XWPharma completed a phase I trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of immediate and modified release capsule and tablet formulations of XW 10508 in healthy adults (XW10508-101; NCT04966832). The randomised, double-blind trial was initiated in July 2021, and enrolled 84 volunteers in Australia [2]. In September 2021, company announced dosing of subjects in the trial [3].

Financing information: In September 2020, XWPharma announced it completed a $US40 million Series C financing. XWPharma expects to use proceeds from the financing to advance clinical development of XW10172 [see Adisinsight drug profile 800051495]and XW10508 [1].

The three footnotes are [5][6][7]. 1 and 3 are press releases. 2 is the Phase I trial, which it says was completed on 02 Nov 2022 (the medication's page gives a different date of 13 Jun 2022). If someone can find the results of this trial that'd be awesome. Currently I'm not seeing any, and there are no reports of a Phase II trial starting, which makes me think the drug was abandoned.

On sigcov: The above prose is fairly long, but I am still bothered that (1) a lot of it is sourced from press releases, which we never count towards the GNG for independence/reliability reasons, and (2) a good portion of it is background info about glutamate receptors, which I wouldn't count as coverage of this drug. Strip that away and we're left with almost nothing, let alone the several sources the GNG asks for. Toadspike [Talk] 12:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Toadspike. I added additional relevant info to the page via the full text here. Not a lot.

It looks like XWPharma hasn't published any new press releases since September 2021 ([8]). The phase 1 study is marked as completed, but no results have been posted for that study ([9], [10], [11]). However, a phase 2 trial is listed as recruiting, with start date of December 2023, estimated primary completion date of August 30, 2024, and last update posted April 2024 ([12], [13], [14], [15]). So it looks like it's reached phase 2 and probably is still being developed.

Per the above links, we also have regulatory clinical trial registers as independent sources of information for XW10508 (so not only press releases and the company's website as the original sources of information). – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I missed the phase 2 trial, my bad. I'm gonna withdraw this nomination, thank you for your help expanding the article! Toadspike [Talk] 06:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.