Talk:Fluoxetine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Chemicals WikiProject
Portal:Chemistry
 Chemistry Portal
Fluoxetine is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Fluoxetine is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Fluoxetine (Hydrochloride)

This article uses the names "fluoxetine" and "fluoxetine hydrochloride" throughout. I'm assuming these are one and the same in chemical structure and simply a shortened/extended name? If so, can I suggest that the article use only the one term, but note it can also be called (insert other name). This would eliminate any confusion arising from the two names. ju'iblex 04:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fluoxetine refers to the actual chemical entity and hydrochloride is a salt that is put with the fluoxetine to stabalize the compound in a capsule/tablet/solution form. Therefore, they both refer to the same thing. I would prefer to change it to fluoxetine hydrochloride because fluoxetine isn't marketed by itself. PharmerJess 20:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
but flouxetine is the actual active compound in the thing you swallow. i think i prefer the use of flouxetine alone. very few journals will refer to it as flouxetine hydrocholoride anyway.

[edit] Prozac as a personality modifier

don't know if this should be included in the new edit, but there is evidence to suggest prozac modifies personality. The problem being here that there is little quantifiable data measuring personality. to my knowledge there are no papers about this aspect but there have been a few books about it as well as anecdotal accounts from psychiatrists. i think this should be included due to the interesting issues it raises about personality and the underlying neural basis for it. It is also relevant in explaining prozac's widespread use even after the symptoms of depression have been curtailed. i can't remember the source, but i will put it up as soon as i find it in the library again.

[edit] Scientology and Prozac

I hear about scientologists being behind the Prozac Truth website, can anyone confirm?

My guess is yes, since they cite absolutely no research papers on the subject or provide otherwise meaningful data. --Iosif 23:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If Scientologists are the only people who put stuff on the Net without citing their sources, then the Wikipedia is OT III. (Joke.) Anville 13:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Prozac.com, Prozac is the best thing since sliced bread

According to ProzacTruth.com, Prozac is a creation of Devil.

Prozac.com is, of course, strongly biased. It's just an advertisement. But is ProzacTruth.com biased as well, only from a different angle? Is the real truth somewhere between prozac.com and prozactruth.com?

I also am about to start taking this drug. I am a Diabetic and take insulin. I also have High Blood Pressure. Will this help me or make things worse? I am so scared to take alot of the meds my Dr. wants me to because i read so much about the side affects. They also want me to take Bupropion. Is this not the same type of drug? I will wait for any answers you might have. Ken from Massachusetts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.154.32.95 (talk • contribs) .
Hi Ken. Please understand that Wikipedia can not give medical advice. We are wikipedians, not physicians. Feel free to read this article and bupropion, but do not consider them medical advice and they shouldn't take the place of your physician. I really must urge you to speak with your doctor frankly about the concerns you have, since he/she is the only one able to give you advice and explain or modify the treatment you are currently receiving. Thanks --Bk0 (Talk) 17:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am about to treat my depression with Fluoxetine hydrochloride and it is very important to me to have as objective knowledge as possible, before I start any treatment. -- Unknown author, Jan 2003

If it's objectivity you need, you're in the wrong place ;^) Jordan Langelier
Why? And better yet, what would you recommend as a balanced alternative? (for an opinion, obviously.) --Gutza 21:33, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just in case someone else comes along with the same questions... Studies show that the highest efficacy for clinical depression is in using both anti-depressants and cognitive therapy. The idea is that the anti-depressants help with the immediate "fog", but the cognitive therapy will help treat underlying issues or behavior that may increase or cause depressive feelings. Cognitive therapy on its own has a better one year success rate than antidepressants alone, but the best bang for the buck is supposed to be both. YMMV. I had clinical depression about twenty years ago, dislike drugs, and found CBT to be more helpful. 67.10.133.121 02:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want balanced and objective information on Fluoxetine and the other SSRIs then look to the large body of research papers published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. There are about 400 papers on fluoxetine and about 25 of these are meta-analyses. If you don't want to be beholden to other's possibly biased opinions then you will have to do your own secondary research. The least you will have to do is study at least a couple of the meta-analyses. You can find the abstracts on PubMed and the full articles in a large reference libarary. It is important to bear in mind that fluoxetine entered clinical use for depression in 1988 and has given to literally millions of people around the world since then. People that have obtained relief from their depression on fluoxetine and other SSRIs don't set-up websites or blogs pouring scorn and vitriol on pharmaceutical manufacturers and pschiatrists and they don't loiter on message boards whining about withdrawal or adverse reactions. Those that have benefiited from SSRIs are busy living their lives. Certainly some people do experience serious adverse responses to SSRIs and withdrawal can be harsh especially with SSRIs that have a short half-life (fluoxetine has the longest half-life of all the SSRIs) and this can be very debilitating. However, depression itself is debilitating. SSRI withdrawal typically lasts for 2-4 weeks and it can involve a relapse in depressive symptoms. The use of the SSRI -- assuming you have found one that works for you -- though will typically give you many months or even years of low-level depression or no-depression life. If your depression does have a psychological basis (not all depresssions do) then you may benefit from CBT. CBT is the only psychotherapy with any evidence of efficacy for the treatment of depression. A common occurence with people on SSRIs is to forget what they felt like prior to commencing treatment with SSRIs after a few months and to begin attributing the residual symptoms of the depression (eg. apathy, fatigue) to the SSRI. This often prompts an abrupt cessation of SSRI usage and the consequent withdrawal symptoms. If you are suffering from depression it is useful to keep a diary. Take note of how you feel before commencing with the SSRI and record how you symptoms are changing with the SSRI. With the benefit of your diary you are better able to determine if the SSRI is causing some particular symptom or if it is something due to the depression. Stay away from all the Scientology front websites and organisations. The Scientologists are only interested in taking your money and enslaving you. The CoS has the blood of Lisa McPherson on its grasping hands[1]. flavius 12:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"If your depression does have a psychological basis (not all depresssions do)" I'm not aware of any empirical evidence to back this statement up. The so-called "chemical imbalance" theory is just that, a possible unproven explanation for the unknown mechanisms that contribute to the clinical efficacy of antidepressant drugs. Of course I completely agree with your assessments of the Scientology cult, however. --Bk0 (Talk) 19:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

here here! someone else who thinks CBT is an effective treatment. of course it must be given along side pharmochological treatments as well. It doesn't matter which comes first though. for suicidal patients obviously a blast of SSRIs is paramount asap. but if they are into homeopathy for instance, it's often worth holding back on the antidepressants and presenting them as a last chance once the homeopathy doesn't work. Not sure why scientologist have a crusade against prozac... seems a bit wierd though.

"The controversial Prozac approval process described, as well as side effects of other SSRIs and other types of medication, can be found on Prozac Truth, The Untold Story website."

I am not about to treat anything with Prozac, I was just curious about the drug, and the quotation above looks pretty POV to me, that site doesn't look so trustworthy as to invest it with such a powerful statement from Wikipedia. Other thoughts? --Gutza 22:59, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Me again. I went ahead and edited, removing that paragraph altogether and replacing it with a NPOV pointer to the resources. I have no bias whatsoever regarding this drug, feel free to revert if you think that was too drastic. --Gutza 23:06, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Truth is not the averaging of polarized opinions. Truth is just truth. If you value your health and your sanity, seek the truth and don't settle for less - there is a road out of mental illness. However, the solution to depression does not include side effects such as suicide and depression.

" Lawsuits amounting to millions were instigated, alleging the drug made users feel suicidal and/or caused other serious side effects." You may want to look into rewording this phrase. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure I read that their was a link between suicide and prozac, not that it caused suicidal feelings. The latter implies that it physically made users feel suicidal which might be true, but I thought that the issue was that it numbed the emotions and social attachment in already depressed people. \

This is real late in coming, but I will never take any of those drugs again. I will take street drugs before I take any of the SSRI's. Those things are the worst thing in the world, I will jump in front of a speeding train first.

There seems to be a logical fallacy in the above post. SSRI's are street drugs, aren't they? ;)

I have been taking fluoxetine and had very little in the way of side effects - just a small amount of nausea at the start. It has been very successful in treating my depression so far and I'm feeling good for the first time in ages. I just wanted to add this as I'm sure there are others who it has helped and as mentioned above they don't tend to speak out. I think that an explanation in part of why there is such a broad range of reactions to drugs like these is the limited understanding of the basis of the disease. In my opinion what we know as depression could have many causes each presenting with similar symptoms explaining why some treatments only work for some individuals.

[edit] Spamming on sexual dysfunction issues all over

Many articles have been edited pasting the same statements over and over again. Warnings were not attended. This modus operandi is vandalism. Perhaps, this article needs to be reverted and temporarily blocked. --Octavio L 06:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This user is promoting his own research, but fails to cite a credible source. The source he alludes to does not support his assertions. Revert on sight. I will block if he carries on. JFW | T@lk 08:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glandular fever

Does fluoxetine cure glandular fever?

No, it doesn't. It's used in chronic EBV, though, or what we tend to call chronic fatigue syndrome. JFW | T@lk 07:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prozac weekly vs generic question

"4 or 5 regular 20mg doses taken at once will have a similar effect to Prozac Weekly with significantly lower costs, especially when using generic versions." Is it really true that the weeklong dose of prozac is no different than taking a larger dose of ordinary prozac? I'm pretty sure that withdrawal symptoms start within a day or two with ordinary prozac, so it seems like a once-a-week dosage would be inappropriate unless it has some extended release mechanism. (unsigned by 140.247.144.121)

Quoting from the drug monograph:
[Fluoxetine has an] elimination half-life of 1 to 3 days after acute administration and 4 to 6 days after chronic administration and its active metabolite, norfluoxetine [has an] elimination half-life of 4 to 16 days after acute and chronic administration [respectively] ... The long elimination half-lives of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine assure that, even when dosing is stopped, active drug substance will persist in the body for weeks. (rxlist.com monograph)
The Prozac Weekly formulation is enteric-coated primarily to avoid GI irritation from the larger dose. The coating delays absorption but does not signficantly prolong it, meaning that the total dose is absorbed after 1-2 hours rather than 20-45 minutes. Fluoxetine can be taken weekly due to its extremely long half-life, not due to any mechanical extended release formulation. In fact, I am not aware of any possible formulation that could extend oral absorption over 5-7 days. Typically material passes through the GI tract over no longer than 48-72 hours, usually closer to 24 hours. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Prozac in popular culture

This article does not mention that Prozac is a fashion drug. It is so often referenced in books, songs, films, that this deserves some statement. I could cite a few examples, but i'm not sure what exactly to say about the "vibes" connected with it in general. I mean along the lines of, extacy is a drug popular with ravers, cocaine popular with high society and rappers, prozac with ... yuppies, housewives and goths, perhaps? gbrandt 11:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is wrong for an encyclopedic entry to have such generalizations as 'goths take it', not in those exact words but that is basically what it would be saying and this can not be proven as fact, same with housewifes and yuppies as you so put it.


Pfft. Goths are given zoloft on sight where I live. (doctors are getting paid off by drug companies) 144.131.139.111 00:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC) User:Ragnarokmephy

[edit] Fluoxetine for dysthymia

Is it a recommended drug for dysthymia?

Answer: It is what I was diagnosed with and I take it, so yeah I guess it is

[edit] Pregancy category C?

Several other reputable sites are reporting that Prozac has been classified category C. I've changed this page to reflect this data, although I was unable to personally verify.

[edit] Change

I changed the listing of dosage forms, as there is no 60 mg capsule available and 20 mg tablets are available. I also removed: "Dosages in the range of 20-60 mg per day are standard, with 80 mg considered a maximum." Because the dosage of a medication depends on what it is being used to treat. PharmerJess 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Side-effects

Surely the side effects section should list more than just adverse affects? For example, this SSRI has been known to cause gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea.


[edit] Mechanism

Somebody needs to flesh this out. Some mention of the monoamine theory of depression, downregulation of receptors, etc needs to be mentioned. 203.5.70.1 11:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] side effects

The complete list of side effects for Prozac could take up three pages. It is best to keep short, simple and sweet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.82.232.151 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

what about the neurotrophic theory about mechanism, BDNF, Glucocortidoids etc there are many emerging ideas about how prozac and other ADs actually work. probably best to expound on the basic monoamine premise and then mention that there are other possible Modes of action, and the whole thing is really poorly understood... huh welcome to neuroscience...

[edit] Positive View of Prozac

Should not there be a section on the positive things that Prozac does? I don't think that this would violate neutrality if it was handled correctly. If I had read this article before I was proscribed this medication I would NEVER have taken it, no part of the article addresses what this drug does positively for some people. (Prozac saved my life, I have been suicidal since puberty (am now 25). I was always leery of drugs, just relied on therapy. Finally, two years ago I agreed to try Prozac, it literally saved my life, not to mention my marriage.) I wanted to address this in the "talk" before I tried to write up a section on the positive response that some patients have. Any thoughts? BonnieJosephine 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


I NPOV tagged it because there is nothing positive about it. From reading this article, one would think prozac is poison and eli lilly is an evil corporation bent on destroying lives in the name of profits. Lets have a fair article.67.167.130.247 17:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm going to bring this up with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology folks, so the article can be reviewed. I agree that the NPOV tag should stay as there definitely appears to be 1) bias and 2) a noted lack of cites and references - Alison☺ 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikis on antidepressants tend to attract a large amount of cruft, conspiracy theorism, soapboxing, hang-wringing, and outright quackery. I keep an eye on most of them, but a lot of this stuff can slip by undetected. The price of NPOV, I suppose, is eternal vigilance. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the entire following section from the "Children" subsection, as it is a total, copy-and-paste copyvio from this website.

The research, conducted over three years at 12 medical centers, was funded and coordinated by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of US$17 million. A total of 439 adolescents aged 12–17 were given fluoxetine, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), placebo plus CBT, or placebo alone. After 12 weeks, 71% of those treated with fluoxetine and CBT showed improvement (defined by the therapists and the subjects' responses to questionnaires). Improvement was reported by 60% of those taking fluoxetine without CBT, 43% getting CBT alone, and 35% taking placebo alone. NIMH Director Thomas Insel told the media it was a "landmark study" because "it's the largest publicly funded study and the only study this size that doesn't have pharmaceutical funding", but lead investigator John March of Duke University Medical Center was on the Eli Lilly payroll.[citation needed] Data to which March et al did not draw attention showed a higher incidence of harmful behavior among teens taking Prozac (11.9%) compared to those on placebo (5.4%) and CBT alone (4.5%). [citation needed]Few stories mentioned that teenagers to whom suicidal thoughts had occurred had been excluded from the study before it began.[citation needed] According to FDA documents posted on the FDA website on September 25, 2003, at least 2 of 48 children treated with Prozac in the NIMH-sponsored trial attempted suicide.[citation needed] NIMH's role in funding a study with taxpayer money was subsequently used by Eli Lilly as court evidence to extend its Prozac patent exclusivity and to obtain FDA approval for treating depression in children.[citation needed]

I'll check the page history on the off chance the website "cited" WP, but it seems highly unlikely, as it's a 2004 article. What should we do about this? Fvasconcellos 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about a contraindications section

We need the aforementioned sectiom. Also, some of the serious but rare side effects such as activation of mania or psychosis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joel2016 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Copyright violations

Found various chunks of this to be copied verbatim from various sources, some are papers published via PubMed (verbatim copy/pastes, not just cites). The article needs extensive review before this issue can be cleared. The team at WP:PHARM have been informed, so we'll see what happens - Alison☺ 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • rebuilding here - feel free to have a go - Alison☺ 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Page Reconstruction

The whole page was taken down? That seems like censorship, not partnership? Dispute over copyright and source material should be verified, not deleted until further notice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.82.232.151 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/l/u/Talk%7EFluoxetine_b9c8.html"