This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Methylphenidate 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Methylphenidate is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
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 Methylphenidate.
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Addiction and dependence are not signs of an overdose. Thus should not be a subheading of that. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Should the "addiction and dependence" section be under adverse effects or overdose. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Imported from
User talk:Seppi333
|
---|
I've placed emphasis on the relevant statements. In a nutshell, the high doses used for narcolepsy do have the potential to induce an addiction (Adderall IIRC has been used therapeutically at doses of around 150 mg/day for narcolepsy, whereas for ADHD the recommended maximum dosage and the maximum dose that virtually all medical insurance companies in the US limit coverage to is 60 mg/day). Given how incredibly destructive addictions are, if addiction were even a rare (like 1 in 1000) occurrence at doses commonly used in the treatment of a prevalent medical condition like ADHD, I don't see how the use of these drugs could be condoned my medical professionals. Also, I realize that the textbook I linked seems like an arbitrary source, but one of the authors ( Eric J. Nestler) is the researcher that discovered the role of ΔFosB in addiction and identified the molecular mechanisms by which it induces an addictive state. He's a leading expert on the molecular neurobiology of addiction, so I don't think he'd include a statement like that in his textbook if there weren't supporting clinical evidence and/or experimental evidence on ΔFosB induction by low doses of psychostimulants from animal models to back it up. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
I know I've cited other sources besides this that make corroborating statements about the use of ADHD stimulants at therapeutic doses being essentially devoid of addiction risk. I can find those sources if need be, but I think this is a fairly clear-cut issue for this drug.
Moving the addiction section from Overdose to Adverse effects reflects a departure from the MOS (per the discussion in the original proposal for the dual listing of these sections under the "Adverse effects" and "Overdose" headings in MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices, the placement of these sections was supposed to be based upon the prevailing opinion as to whether addiction can develop from the use of an addictive drug at doses used therapeutically for its indicated conditions). The broader issue is restructuring the section layout for drug articles specified in MOS:MED in a manner that Doc James and I, and anyone else with input, are comfortable with. That said, I don't really see the point of this RfC because the outcome is likely to become moot following the inevitable change to section layout specified in MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Doc James: As the issue with this page has since been resolved, can we close this RfC? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 06:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
First ref says "Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children " [3]
Second ref says "the low quality of the underpinning evidence means that we cannot be certain of the magnitude of the effects." [4]
The text was supported. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been made aware of a medication called Jornay PM (Methylphenidate HCl). It looks like an extended-release form of Methylphenidate but patients take it at night. It has FDA approval and is currently available in the US. Does it belong as a mention in Extended-release section? I'd add it myself but I'm having trouble finding the right references for how long it lasts and if it's available outside the US, etc. Wirewad ( talk) 18:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ref says "Stimulant medications cause a modest increase in average blood pressure (about 2-4 mmHg) and average heart rate (about 3-6 bpm), and individuals may have larger increases... Cardiac: angina, arrhythmia, palpitations, pulse increased or decreased, tachycardia"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Support the 2019 proposal to merge to brand Daytrana to the generic name for the drug. Klbrain ( talk) 17:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not able to contribute professional knowledge to this article, but I would like to share some personal experience. Methylphenidate was a psychiatric "magic bullet" for me. After decades of crippling clinical depression, my current psychiatric care provider (the most recent in a series of at least six) suggested it. The improvement in my symptoms was immediate, intense, and lasting. I had run through the gamut of conventional depression treatments prior to this, including ECT, with no relief, and did not know that methylphenidate was an option. I suspect that many of my former providers did not know either, or considered it a last resort.
If someone could expand this section and include some links to academic or medical sources it would be of enormous value to other people who are struggling with treatment-resistant depression. It is difficult as a layman or patient to find information about this use of methylphenidate, and heathcare providers seem to be gun-shy about recommending it. 216.30.159.93 ( talk) 23:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
depression treatment usually depends on monoamine theory. SSRI or other antidepressants(except atypicals and maoi's) increase monoamines but mostly serotonin basicly. Atypical depression and ADHD related depression (and some other types of depression) can be reversed by stimulants because of their distinct mechanism. But as a dopamine reuptake inhibitor methylphenidate mostly treats fatigue and anhedonia associated with depression or other medical conditions. my situation is same with you. ssri's can make depression worse if depression associated with other conditions. primary depression is more type of "melancholy" rather than "just anhedonia". but there is also some types of depression that depend on anhedonia but they respond ssri/snri's unlike those with ADHD. RoyaleKingdom78 ( talk) 12:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Adding some sources. The prescriber’s guide to classic MAO inhibitors (phenelzine, tranylcypromine, isocarboxazid) for treatment-resistant depression and MAOIs and CNS Stimulants
Currently it is: "It is not a Cocaine derivate nor analogue. Cocaine is analgesic and ligand channel blocker with SNDRI action while Methylphenidate is NDRI with 2-3 fold DAT selectivity over NET. Cocaine also more potent in SERT rather than NDRI site. [7]"
But it should be as follows: It is not a Cocaine derivate nor an analog. Cocaine is an analgesic and ligand channel blocker with SNDRI action while Methylphenidate is an NDRI with 2-3 fold DAT selectivity over NET. Cocaine is also more potent in SERT rather than NDRI sites. [7]"
(First time posting on wiki hope I did it right)
Not exactly "grammar", but in the Available Forms/Extended Release section, "Metadate ER" and "Methylin ER" are brand names, but appear in the Generic Names column.
This sentence under Other medical uses, "However, the use of stimulants such as methylphenidate in cases of treatment-resistant depression is controversial.[42]", references a journal article from 1992.
Kraus MF, Burch EA (October 1992). "Methylphenidate hydrochloride as an antidepressant: controversy, case studies, and review". Southern Medical Journal. 85 (10): 985–991. doi:10.1097/00007611-199210000-00012. PMID 1411740
30 years later, it's relatively common to use Methylphenidate to augment other medications in treatment-resistant depression. Therefore, I believe that either this sentence needs to be reevaluated for whether it's necessary, and/or more recent references are needed to back up this claim. Alteredtome ( talk) 04:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
To all who contributed to writing this Article, all I can say is might just be the best article I’ve read on the entire site. Which is thousands so it’s saying a lot for me. Well done. 2601:644:8F83:D7A0:79B2:28C7:ECD2:4397 ( talk) 01:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Firstly this article reads in parts like an advert instead of a normal article on substances. Secondly, the delphic analyis which includes police and legal services is not useful in estimating addictive, deadly, or dangerous potential, rather it can only indicate attitudes instead of expert opinion due to the inclusion of police. Given that the police involved in this study are engaged in a drug war which generally treats pharmaceuticals as arbitrarily less dangerous, it's an obvious bias. This diagramm is misleading and should be deleted as should references to it. 77.188.117.198 ( talk) 16:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Are bupropion and methylphenidate TAAR-active? Requesting binding profile. -- 0dorkmann ( talk) 08:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
To me it seems superfluous and it might be found confusing to readers. Gutten på Hemsen ( talk) 15:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
From Adverse Effects:
"Ophthalmologic adverse effects may include blurred vision caused by pupil dilatation and dry eyes, with less frequent reports of diplopia and mydriasis"
This seems to be saying that mydriasis is less common than dilated pupils. These terms are synonymous. Is this a syntactical issue I'm missing or is it contradictory? his seems to be saying that dilated pupils are less common than 2603:7081:1603:A300:2CC4:A198:82DB:C8BF ( talk) 02:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
"In children over age 6 and adolescents, the short-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate are well established. A number of reviews have established the safety and effectiveness for individuals with ADHD over several years." Several narrative reviews, the newest of which is 12 years old, are cited in support of this passage. By contrast, a recent Cochrane review concludes that the quality of randomized controlled trials of methylphenidate is too poor to make conclusions about the effectiveness or harms of methylphenidate. This review is actually cited a paragraph below. It seems strange to leave up these contradictory statements. I would suggest that more information about the conclusions of the Cochrane review be included and the older text deleted. Feline negativity ( talk) 18:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents...for the short-term treatment of ADHD, Elliott et al. 2020
Overall, we found that ADHD pharmacotherapies, as a class, improved clinical response relative to placebo; although the latter does not specifically state that specifically methylphenidate is effective, it was one of the medications looked at in the analysis). This suggests that it's a matter of disagreement between the sources on what conclusions can be made with the evidence, not which evidence was available (unless there was a drastic shift in available evidence in those few years between these sources and yours) nor whether the evidence quality was analyzed; in other words, different sources had mostly the same evidence, analyzed it in mostly the same way, and came to different conclusions on what could be said about the effectiveness of methylphenidate.
Methylphenidate and MAOIs are perfectly safe to use concomitantly, despite common dogma to the contrary. MPH is not a releaser of norepinephrine unlike DEX and especially mixed AMP salts (due to the presence of levoamphetamines which have strong peripheral effects). There is virtually no risk of precipitating a hypertensive crisis if titrated/managed properly. The prescriber’s guide to classic MAO inhibitors (phenelzine, tranylcypromine, isocarboxazid) for treatment-resistant depression and MAOIs and CNS Stimulants 206.194.253.145 ( talk) 04:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Methylphenidate 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Methylphenidate is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
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 Methylphenidate.
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Addiction and dependence are not signs of an overdose. Thus should not be a subheading of that. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Should the "addiction and dependence" section be under adverse effects or overdose. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Imported from
User talk:Seppi333
|
---|
I've placed emphasis on the relevant statements. In a nutshell, the high doses used for narcolepsy do have the potential to induce an addiction (Adderall IIRC has been used therapeutically at doses of around 150 mg/day for narcolepsy, whereas for ADHD the recommended maximum dosage and the maximum dose that virtually all medical insurance companies in the US limit coverage to is 60 mg/day). Given how incredibly destructive addictions are, if addiction were even a rare (like 1 in 1000) occurrence at doses commonly used in the treatment of a prevalent medical condition like ADHD, I don't see how the use of these drugs could be condoned my medical professionals. Also, I realize that the textbook I linked seems like an arbitrary source, but one of the authors ( Eric J. Nestler) is the researcher that discovered the role of ΔFosB in addiction and identified the molecular mechanisms by which it induces an addictive state. He's a leading expert on the molecular neurobiology of addiction, so I don't think he'd include a statement like that in his textbook if there weren't supporting clinical evidence and/or experimental evidence on ΔFosB induction by low doses of psychostimulants from animal models to back it up. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
I know I've cited other sources besides this that make corroborating statements about the use of ADHD stimulants at therapeutic doses being essentially devoid of addiction risk. I can find those sources if need be, but I think this is a fairly clear-cut issue for this drug.
Moving the addiction section from Overdose to Adverse effects reflects a departure from the MOS (per the discussion in the original proposal for the dual listing of these sections under the "Adverse effects" and "Overdose" headings in MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices, the placement of these sections was supposed to be based upon the prevailing opinion as to whether addiction can develop from the use of an addictive drug at doses used therapeutically for its indicated conditions). The broader issue is restructuring the section layout for drug articles specified in MOS:MED in a manner that Doc James and I, and anyone else with input, are comfortable with. That said, I don't really see the point of this RfC because the outcome is likely to become moot following the inevitable change to section layout specified in MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Doc James: As the issue with this page has since been resolved, can we close this RfC? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 06:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
First ref says "Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children " [3]
Second ref says "the low quality of the underpinning evidence means that we cannot be certain of the magnitude of the effects." [4]
The text was supported. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been made aware of a medication called Jornay PM (Methylphenidate HCl). It looks like an extended-release form of Methylphenidate but patients take it at night. It has FDA approval and is currently available in the US. Does it belong as a mention in Extended-release section? I'd add it myself but I'm having trouble finding the right references for how long it lasts and if it's available outside the US, etc. Wirewad ( talk) 18:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ref says "Stimulant medications cause a modest increase in average blood pressure (about 2-4 mmHg) and average heart rate (about 3-6 bpm), and individuals may have larger increases... Cardiac: angina, arrhythmia, palpitations, pulse increased or decreased, tachycardia"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Support the 2019 proposal to merge to brand Daytrana to the generic name for the drug. Klbrain ( talk) 17:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not able to contribute professional knowledge to this article, but I would like to share some personal experience. Methylphenidate was a psychiatric "magic bullet" for me. After decades of crippling clinical depression, my current psychiatric care provider (the most recent in a series of at least six) suggested it. The improvement in my symptoms was immediate, intense, and lasting. I had run through the gamut of conventional depression treatments prior to this, including ECT, with no relief, and did not know that methylphenidate was an option. I suspect that many of my former providers did not know either, or considered it a last resort.
If someone could expand this section and include some links to academic or medical sources it would be of enormous value to other people who are struggling with treatment-resistant depression. It is difficult as a layman or patient to find information about this use of methylphenidate, and heathcare providers seem to be gun-shy about recommending it. 216.30.159.93 ( talk) 23:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
depression treatment usually depends on monoamine theory. SSRI or other antidepressants(except atypicals and maoi's) increase monoamines but mostly serotonin basicly. Atypical depression and ADHD related depression (and some other types of depression) can be reversed by stimulants because of their distinct mechanism. But as a dopamine reuptake inhibitor methylphenidate mostly treats fatigue and anhedonia associated with depression or other medical conditions. my situation is same with you. ssri's can make depression worse if depression associated with other conditions. primary depression is more type of "melancholy" rather than "just anhedonia". but there is also some types of depression that depend on anhedonia but they respond ssri/snri's unlike those with ADHD. RoyaleKingdom78 ( talk) 12:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Adding some sources. The prescriber’s guide to classic MAO inhibitors (phenelzine, tranylcypromine, isocarboxazid) for treatment-resistant depression and MAOIs and CNS Stimulants
Currently it is: "It is not a Cocaine derivate nor analogue. Cocaine is analgesic and ligand channel blocker with SNDRI action while Methylphenidate is NDRI with 2-3 fold DAT selectivity over NET. Cocaine also more potent in SERT rather than NDRI site. [7]"
But it should be as follows: It is not a Cocaine derivate nor an analog. Cocaine is an analgesic and ligand channel blocker with SNDRI action while Methylphenidate is an NDRI with 2-3 fold DAT selectivity over NET. Cocaine is also more potent in SERT rather than NDRI sites. [7]"
(First time posting on wiki hope I did it right)
Not exactly "grammar", but in the Available Forms/Extended Release section, "Metadate ER" and "Methylin ER" are brand names, but appear in the Generic Names column.
This sentence under Other medical uses, "However, the use of stimulants such as methylphenidate in cases of treatment-resistant depression is controversial.[42]", references a journal article from 1992.
Kraus MF, Burch EA (October 1992). "Methylphenidate hydrochloride as an antidepressant: controversy, case studies, and review". Southern Medical Journal. 85 (10): 985–991. doi:10.1097/00007611-199210000-00012. PMID 1411740
30 years later, it's relatively common to use Methylphenidate to augment other medications in treatment-resistant depression. Therefore, I believe that either this sentence needs to be reevaluated for whether it's necessary, and/or more recent references are needed to back up this claim. Alteredtome ( talk) 04:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
To all who contributed to writing this Article, all I can say is might just be the best article I’ve read on the entire site. Which is thousands so it’s saying a lot for me. Well done. 2601:644:8F83:D7A0:79B2:28C7:ECD2:4397 ( talk) 01:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Firstly this article reads in parts like an advert instead of a normal article on substances. Secondly, the delphic analyis which includes police and legal services is not useful in estimating addictive, deadly, or dangerous potential, rather it can only indicate attitudes instead of expert opinion due to the inclusion of police. Given that the police involved in this study are engaged in a drug war which generally treats pharmaceuticals as arbitrarily less dangerous, it's an obvious bias. This diagramm is misleading and should be deleted as should references to it. 77.188.117.198 ( talk) 16:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Are bupropion and methylphenidate TAAR-active? Requesting binding profile. -- 0dorkmann ( talk) 08:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
To me it seems superfluous and it might be found confusing to readers. Gutten på Hemsen ( talk) 15:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
From Adverse Effects:
"Ophthalmologic adverse effects may include blurred vision caused by pupil dilatation and dry eyes, with less frequent reports of diplopia and mydriasis"
This seems to be saying that mydriasis is less common than dilated pupils. These terms are synonymous. Is this a syntactical issue I'm missing or is it contradictory? his seems to be saying that dilated pupils are less common than 2603:7081:1603:A300:2CC4:A198:82DB:C8BF ( talk) 02:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
"In children over age 6 and adolescents, the short-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate are well established. A number of reviews have established the safety and effectiveness for individuals with ADHD over several years." Several narrative reviews, the newest of which is 12 years old, are cited in support of this passage. By contrast, a recent Cochrane review concludes that the quality of randomized controlled trials of methylphenidate is too poor to make conclusions about the effectiveness or harms of methylphenidate. This review is actually cited a paragraph below. It seems strange to leave up these contradictory statements. I would suggest that more information about the conclusions of the Cochrane review be included and the older text deleted. Feline negativity ( talk) 18:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents...for the short-term treatment of ADHD, Elliott et al. 2020
Overall, we found that ADHD pharmacotherapies, as a class, improved clinical response relative to placebo; although the latter does not specifically state that specifically methylphenidate is effective, it was one of the medications looked at in the analysis). This suggests that it's a matter of disagreement between the sources on what conclusions can be made with the evidence, not which evidence was available (unless there was a drastic shift in available evidence in those few years between these sources and yours) nor whether the evidence quality was analyzed; in other words, different sources had mostly the same evidence, analyzed it in mostly the same way, and came to different conclusions on what could be said about the effectiveness of methylphenidate.
Methylphenidate and MAOIs are perfectly safe to use concomitantly, despite common dogma to the contrary. MPH is not a releaser of norepinephrine unlike DEX and especially mixed AMP salts (due to the presence of levoamphetamines which have strong peripheral effects). There is virtually no risk of precipitating a hypertensive crisis if titrated/managed properly. The prescriber’s guide to classic MAO inhibitors (phenelzine, tranylcypromine, isocarboxazid) for treatment-resistant depression and MAOIs and CNS Stimulants 206.194.253.145 ( talk) 04:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)