Posted by SLS on March 11, 2006, at 6:50:36
In reply to Changing the formulation » gardenergirl, posted by ed_uk on March 10, 2006, at 15:07:17
> If the 'new' Nardil was suddenly discontinued and replaced by the 'old' Nardil, we would undoubtedly hear people claiming that Nardil was now ineffective.Or possibly that it remain effective with the worsening of side effects or the appearance of additional side effects.
It is difficult for me to ignore the many reports of a therapeutic inequivalency between the old and new preparations of Nardil. If one were to take these reports as accurately reflecting a difference between the two preparations, it seems that the new formulation is not as potent as the old one. Since the active ingredient is the same, any differences must lie elsewhere. It would be nice to see that a simple increase in the dosage of the new formulation recaptures the therapeutic effect for those whom report relapse after switching from the old formulation.
It would be nice to know for sure what's going on. I really don't know what to think. I might be going on Nardil sometime this year. I am not concerned that there will be a lack of efficacy due to a change in formulation. However, I will be prepared to take a higher dosage if necessary so as to offset any change in bioavailability that may exist.
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:617166
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060310/msgs/618731.html