Posted by King Vultan on April 11, 2004, at 10:58:01
In reply to Re: Nardil from Australia = 1950's version.KV, posted by Spotcheck on April 10, 2004, at 20:25:24
Sorry if I came across as unsympathetic, as I think it's extremely unfortunate that so many people have suffered as a result of the Nardil formulation change. However, it is true that the number of people taking Nardil is tiny compared to the number taking Zoloft, for example. Having some experience with the way high and low volume compounds are differentiated and also some familiarity with the way big companies think, I think it's likely that the reformulation was done with less care than it should have been.
For the people who have been negatively affected by the formulation change, all I can suggest is to increase dosage and attempt to find a level, which hopefully actually exists, that will provide the same efficacy as did the former dosage of the old formulation. Everyone is agreed that the active ingredient, phenelzine sulfate, is unchanged and still in the pills, and my conclusion is that it's a very similar issue as the imipramine matter I referred to in my other post--the absorption rate has changed for those negatively affected by this, and not as much Nardil is actually making it into people's systems. I don't know if the old maximum dosage of 90 mg/day still holds true, but if I were someone who had successfully been on this drug for years, I think the reasonable and prudent thing to do would be to start increasing dosage and communicate with other affected users as to the results.
I do think Pfizer should be taking the complaints into account and informing doctors and pharmacies about the formulation change and its potential ramifications. I guess that's too much to expect from a big corporation, though.
Todd
poster:King Vultan
thread:283363
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040407/msgs/335157.html