Talk:Naltrexone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naltrexone 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.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Naltrexone can also be admisistered as a low dose implant. These implants can remain effective for up to 12 months. They dissolve slowly and are usually put in under a local anaesthetic in the left iliac fossa. Although not licensed, they are available in the UK at specialist clinics, in the USA and in Australia. Jenny Sudell (Isle of Wight)



Why is putting in more than one reference about low-dose naltrexone excessive? Following this "logic", then one source on any subject would be enough... why read any other other authors? why reference anybody else who is using the same drug, for different purposes....? is it all excessive? since when is science advanced by only following one person's writings(s).... If the previous redactor would only realize that he has now cut the references on low-dose naltrexone to one site and ONE INDIVIDUAL, perhaps he might be a bit more open minded.... Naltrexone seems to help patients with multiple diseases... why not let those references be stated by those who post their own results...? Marcelo Hoffmann, writing from northern California, on July 2nd, 2005

Marcelo, you are linking subpages from one site that is dedicated to LDN. I think that is excessive. If your links had come from various sites that contrasted different approaches, their use would have been defendable.
It is a common mistake that by adding links you add information to Wikipedia. This is untrue. If you want to add information, just write more about LDN; in this case, you can use the links specifically as references to back up what you've written. JFW | T@lk 3 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)

Dear Jfdwolff. I did include what you loosely call "repeats" (two double references from the same site...), but could you just try checking the other sites that I previously referenced, and prove to me and others that they were from the same LDN source (individual/site ), as you claimed... particularly given that one is referenced to a U.K. site and one based in Boston, and completelely and provably separate from the LDN site in New York, N.Y.......: just try clicking on "Multiple Sclerosis Research Center" (UK; http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=show&pageid=777); and also on "Interview with LDN researcher Dr. Agrawal" (http://www.bostoncure.org:8080/article.pl?sid=05/01/27/1748256) Are these repeats too.... ? Is writing/describing/referencing the same/related topic from a different site/author a repeat....???

I certainly do not claim such expertise to be able to choose the one and ONLY universal reference that you claim.... and in case you cared.... information about low-dose-naltrexone for multiple medical indications and from multiple original sources could be life-saving for those patients or interested parties who would read it for treatment possibilities for their disease.... but only, and just in case you cared....! Marcelo Hoffmann

Wikipedia needs original content, not links. Just stop it. JFW | T@lk 6 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

What a dialogue....! instead of responding to my explicit logic and thinking, issue a perentory command to stop a reference-stating behavior that is at worst somewhat redundant, and at best contributory (at least for some people, some of the time...). But this time, claiming absolute knowledge of what is best, for him/others, and Wikipedia..... I guess according to JFW, hyper-references should not be added to Wikipedia... after all, the statement "Wikipedia needs original content, not links..." is rather broad and would appear to leave no option(s).... hardly worth bringing the topic of multiple references to the discussion section of naltrexone.... for this sort of "dialogue" (or lack thereof....) Marcelo Hoffmann July 6, 2005

No point in dialogue. You're wasting my time. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)
If you want to know: PMID 15694688 is the only serious source I have found for LDN in a disorder not directly linked to opioid addiction. The author is, surprise surprise, the same Dr Agrawal. I think the subject should get the coverage it deserves as it stands at the moment: very little. It is a scientific hypothesis being tested, and not more notable that any other experimental treatment. One link is all that is necessary. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Jargon

I have a major complaint about this article: it's so full of scientific jargon that it's quite hard for the layman to read. I don't know anything about Naltrexone except that it's some kind of implant used to treat heroin addiction, and came here hoping to learn more, as most people do when they come to wikipedia. But I gave up after a couple of paragraphs because this is a page designed for people who already know what they're talking about, not for people like me who have degrees in literature and can't tell an "iliac fossa" from a hole in the ground. ;) Thing is, I think that this page draws more attention from people out of the know than people in the know. I don't suppose one of you fine people might want to throw in a paragraph at the top or bottom that gives a simpler, jargon-free explanation of what Naltrexone is, and how it works? Surely "iliac fossa" could, for one paragraph, be replaced by "plate of the hip bone," and "opioids" replaced by "opiates and similar drugs," or "drugs in the family of heroin, opium, and morphine"? Stuff like that. Just a thought. My rain face 01:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree we could have some slightly more descriptive language. How about you chase the wikilinks and see whether you can add some useful descriptions (e.g. after "opioid antagonist" you can say "substance that blocks the action of opium-like drugs such as heroin"). JFW | T@lk 09:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Some of the conditions where LDN has been reported as beneficial include multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, HIV/AIDS, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, AD in children (Elchaar GM, et al. 2006) and cancer. " This reference is incomplete. What journal? --GangofOne 07:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is complete now. --WS 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone care to hear from some one using it?

If anyone cares at this late date, I'd be happy to discuss FIRST HAND what it is like from THIS side of the perscription, and I can do it in terms anyone can understand...


[edit] Other Uses???

My doctor has prescripted naltrexone to prevent self harm behaviors. I found a couple of journal articles related to this, but I didn't find any mention to this in the wikipedia article. Could more information on this be included?

[edit] Rapid detoxification

The rapid detoxification subsection does not cite any sources and I believe many of the aspects are incorrect as they appear to be referring to ultrarapid detoxification. Additionally there appears to be references in this section to naltrexone maintenance therapy for opioid dependence which is a completely different treatment modality than detoxification as it is continued indefinitely whereas detoxification is a finite process. One could certainly undergo rapid detoxification using naltrexone and transition to maintenance naltrexone dosing to maintain opioid abstinence but this is utilizing two different treatment types. --Thiswouldbemark (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inverse Agonist

Hey so I changed the description of its activity at the mu-receptors to being an inverse agonist rather than an antagonist, someone who knows how should clean up the references section because I and someone else apparently don't know how to add to the reflist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.64.109 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)