Jump to content

Talk:Atomoxetine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Regal Kegle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulant? Not a stimulant?

Atomoxetine is often claimed to be not a stimulant. I find this confusing, however - despite taking weeks to do so, it eventually has the effect of raising noradrenaline (which in turn also raises dopamine), much like the traditional stimulants, and much like them it raises awareness/alertness/awakeness. It's considered useful for narcolepsy as well as ADD/ADHD. So how, exactly, is atomoxetine not a stimulant? Is it possible that the claim of being not a stimulant is marketing from the company who produces it, given how much of a bad reputation stimulants often get? Xmoogle (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction appears to come from abuse potential. I agree that no sane classification system based on pharmacodynamics alone would call nicotine and caffeine stimulants but not atomoxetine. But if we add abuse potential as a requirement, atomoxetine doesn't pass the test. At any rate, all of the medical literature I've ever come across distinguishes atomoxetine from stimulants, and we're constrained by what the literature reports even if we don't accept it ourselves. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 20:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Atomoxetine raises DA-levels directly, not only via NE. But this only in the prefrontal cortex. I disagree therefore if one can call it for a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI). It is, in fact, an inhibitor of NET, but NET is not specific for NE, it reuptakes DA as well.--Vibackup (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is really not helpful to write in acronyms. I take it DA means dopamine, is that right? But what are NE and NET short for? 85.210.151.106 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be norepinephrine and norepinephrine transporter. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Atomoxetine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inhibition of CYP2D6

The Wikipedia article states that Atomoxetine inhibits CYP2D6 and links to source number 4. The linked article[1] however says that the oral administration of Atomoxetine does not inhibit or induce the clearance of other drugs metabolized by CYP2D6 (second to last sentence). ArcticPizza (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct. I'll change the article to [citation needed], as they probably cited the wrong ref. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15910008

Lack of Research?

I find it odd that the research section for this drug is quite bare when it could be much more dense. It would be hard to include reliable science that has yet to be strengthened but it should include more information. Regal Kegle (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential for withdrawal effects

The article says that "Unlike stimulant medications, atomoxetine does not have abuse liability or the potential to cause withdrawal effects on abrupt discontinuation." Even though there are a number of anecdotes online about people experiencing withdrawal effects from tapering to a lower amount of atomoxetine (including but not limited to brain shocks that are experienced when tapering SSRI drugs). It seems inaccurrate how the article says there is no potential for withdrawal as if it's a definitive fact, shouldn't it be phrased differently?

The reference this information comes from is a study sponsored by the Lilly the manufacturer, and even they just said there was "no evidence", and with a sample size of 16 people who were all recreational drug users so it was in a specific context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.11.75 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:122.60.11.75 'anecdotes online' are not the same as definitive facts. Do you have and reliable sources that state that withdrawal may be an issue? I found another source stating that withdrawal is not an issue here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14709944/ so it seems to be supported JeffUK (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grouped references

Whywhenwhohow, you keep removing a statement from the first paragraph that is sourced later. I would simply add the <ref>, but there are 4 sources on that statement, and didn't want to have too much in the first paragraph. I do not know the syntax to group references together, but I think one exists. If there is and you know of one, or if it is better to add all 4 references, please let me know. Kimen8 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each biomedical statement should have explicit WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Medical articles should be relatively dense with inline citations. WP:MEDMOS --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probable incorrect citation re: comparison to amphetamine

The paper cited in reference 30 does not appear to include any mention of amphetamine. The word "amphetamine" should probably be replaced with the word "methylphenidate." 2607:FEA8:991E:6800:42E:BFBC:53A8:4D8E (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. It is compared with lisdexamfetamine, a derivative of amphetamine, which was shown to be more effective whilst methylphenidate and atomoxetine have equal effectiveness in not only that meta-analysis but all cited here. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Russia with lies.

In some european countries, including Hungary, this medicine is sold (Px-only) under the brand name Bitinex. This summer it was summarily withdrawn from hungarian pharmacies based on an uncorroborated RUSSIAN federal pharmaceutical authority warning about out-of-specification active content and solvability value of the capsules. That despite Hungary not being a member of Russia/USSR/WARPAC since 1990 but is a member of the EU and NATO. Since Bitinex has no approved substitute in Hungary, tens of thousands of kids are left without medication. 94.21.229.182 (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atomoxetine&oldid=1248218203"