![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Michael Bell on November 23, 2008, at 20:49:57
I'm just curious as to the experiences of people who have been taking Nardil after 2003 (aka the "new" Nardil). I notice a few recent posts saying it hasn't been effective. For the "new" nardil users out there, do you mind stating why you were taking it (i.e. depression, social anxiety), and whether it was effective for any of these conditions? Also, what did you combo it with, if anything?
Posted by mav27 on November 23, 2008, at 22:03:26
In reply to What is the verdict on post-2003 Nardil?, posted by Michael Bell on November 23, 2008, at 20:49:57
I took it for depression and social phobia and it worked an absolute blast.. it pretty much cured everything. It was just the hypotension it was causing me that stopped me from staying on it.
Posted by jedi on November 23, 2008, at 22:46:12
In reply to What is the verdict on post-2003 Nardil?, posted by Michael Bell on November 23, 2008, at 20:49:57
Hi Michael,
I've taken Nardil + clonazepam for most of the past 11 years. My diagnosis is atypical major depression + dysthymia(double depression) along with social anxiety. The medication has worked for me pre and post the 2003 formulation change, One thing, since the first time I started Nardil I have not had the initial hypomania with associated euphoria. I've stopped four times for other medication trials because of the weight gain, insomnia, afternoon tiredness, and delayed ejaculation.I have noticed some apathy which I believe is caused by a combination of the disease and the medications to treat it. Pre depression and Nardil I considered myself fairly intelligent. I owned and managed a computer networking business and used the profit to by 50 residential rental units. I was Valedictorian of my high school class, graduated from junior college with a 3.9 GPA and from university with a 3.5 GPA. I have a degree in psychology and a minor in computer science, plus a bunch of night classes in electronics and astronomy. I also have a Realtor's license. Since the major atypical depression hit 11 years ago I feel my edge is gone and a certain amount of apathy has set in. I used to listen to tapes on business success, real estate, and motivation any time I was in my car. Now I find myself zoning out to the radio, what a waste of valuable time!
Be well,
Jedi
> I'm just curious as to the experiences of people who have been taking Nardil after 2003 (aka the "new" Nardil). I notice a few recent posts saying it hasn't been effective. For the "new" nardil users out there, do you mind stating why you were taking it (i.e. depression, social anxiety), and whether it was effective for any of these conditions? Also, what did you combo it with, if anything?
Posted by Mickapoo on November 24, 2008, at 19:49:05
In reply to What is the verdict on post-2003 Nardil?, posted by Michael Bell on November 23, 2008, at 20:49:57
> I'm just curious as to the experiences of people who have been taking Nardil after 2003 (aka the "new" Nardil). I notice a few recent posts saying it hasn't been effective. For the "new" nardil users out there, do you mind stating why you were taking it (i.e. depression, social anxiety), and whether it was effective for any of these conditions? Also, what did you combo it with, if anything?
Hi Michael,
I am taking Nardil for social phobia. I was on 300 mg of Lamictal when I started Nardil, for major mood disorder. I am still on that. I'm on 75 mg of Nardil and today has been 12 weeks and I have yet to see a response. I tried using Clonazepam, which reduces my anxiety if I'm stressed out about something like work, personal issues, etc..., but as far as generalized social phobia, it's done nothing at all to abate my fear.
Posted by Michael Bell on November 26, 2008, at 11:05:38
In reply to Re: What is the verdict on post-2003 Nardil? » Michael Bell, posted by Mickapoo on November 24, 2008, at 19:49:05
Sorry, but I thought I would get more responses on this topic. Thought there were a lot more Nardil users on this board. Please, if you are a Nardil user and don't mind taking the time to reply, kindly do so.
Posted by Vincent_QC on November 29, 2008, at 6:28:26
In reply to Re: No more responses?, posted by Michael Bell on November 26, 2008, at 11:05:38
> Sorry, but I thought I would get more responses on this topic. Thought there were a lot more Nardil users on this board. Please, if you are a Nardil user and don't mind taking the time to reply, kindly do so.
I just ask the question this week on another thread and I recieve no answer...
I read so many bad comments about the new nardil formulation that I just begin to think about the fact that I will loose my time again.
On other hand, I think a lot of people with social phobia and anxiety tend to listen too much to their body...I don't want to generalise, but for someone who is anxious, that's normal to listen to every signs your bodies give to you...and just to know that the formulation of the Nardil change, it can make some people to have bad reactions. Maybe i'm right, maybe i'm wrong...Who know ? We even don't know if all the antidepressants drugs have more "placebo" effects than real effects...since a lot of studies was not show to the general public, and a lot of them show results of placebo vs drugs with a maximum of 10 % difference...so that's not what I call a good result...If the Cipralex show a remission of 33% for depression and a 23 % of success in the placebo group, that's mean only 10 % of people really benefit from the Cipralex improve. The same apply to all the studies...some people just look at the drugs groups and forget to also take a look at the placebo results...Anyway's, i'm out of subject now...
I know the only differences between the new Nardil and the old one seem to come from the removing of the innert ingredients, so it's why I think it's just a false impression people have, they are anxious so they have a reaction, a positive one or not... I don't know if someone understand what I mean???
I put some links on my thread about the new formulation VS the old one. I will have to see by myself if the new Nardil is effective or not. It's the best way to know it.
Nardil is not the only one drugs to be reformulated in the past year, a lot of generic drugs are like this now. Yes, some studies also point the facts that generic drugs seem to be less effective, but this is different for everyone, some people will see a difference, others not.
I also read a lot of threads about the Clonazepam intake at the same time than Nardil. Again, for someone who never take a anxiolytic drug before, it can be magic, and this relief of anxiety will certainly be fast...but it will not come from the Nardil...it's will be the Clonazepam action on the Gaba receptors.
A lot of studies also show a change in the gaba receptors of the peoples who take anxiolytics drug after a couple of months, in fact, a destruction of a these receptors... It's probably why a lot of people have to increase the dose after a little while or switch to another one more potent and addictive like Xanax...but it's a never ending circle...and the more you take of them and the more you will have some bad effects like cognitive impairements...
I do believe that if you already take an anxiolytic drug in the past, and you are new with the Nardil, you will not find the Nardil very effective just for the social phobia at first, whatever the dose you take. Since the change, in the gaba receptors, caused by the use of the anxiolytic drugs seem to be permanent, I think the Gaba effects of the Nardil will not be very perceptive and will just became evident after a lot of time.
That's my point of view and my experience also.
Posted by SLS on November 29, 2008, at 8:40:10
In reply to What is the verdict on post-2003 Nardil?, posted by Michael Bell on November 23, 2008, at 20:49:57
I found the new Nardil to be roughly equivalent to the old Nardil. It is hard to tell, since my previous exposures to Nardil produced only a partial response. My most recent period of Nardil therapy produced a robust response in combination with the other drugs I am taking. I did not feel that Nardil was without effect. Perhaps one needs to take a bit more of the new formulation to receive the benefit of the old formulation. I needed 90mg last time. The time before that, I seemed to be responsive at 75mg.
I guess the bottom line is that, for me, the two formulations of Nardil seemed to be the same.
- Scott
Posted by Mickapoo on November 29, 2008, at 8:44:01
In reply to Re: What is the verdict on post-2003 Nardil?, posted by SLS on November 29, 2008, at 8:40:10
> I found the new Nardil to be roughly equivalent to the old Nardil. It is hard to tell, since my previous exposures to Nardil produced only a partial response. My most recent period of Nardil therapy produced a robust response in combination with the other drugs I am taking. I did not feel that Nardil was without effect. Perhaps one needs to take a bit more of the new formulation to receive the benefit of the old formulation. I needed 90mg last time. The time before that, I seemed to be responsive at 75mg.
>Scott,
When you said you needed 90 mg last time, did you feel any positive effects before that? Or not until you reached 90? Were you taking it for social phobia or depression?Mickapoo
Posted by Vincent_QC on November 29, 2008, at 12:22:03
In reply to Re: What is the verdict on post-2003 Nardil?, posted by SLS on November 29, 2008, at 8:40:10
> I found the new Nardil to be roughly equivalent to the old Nardil. It is hard to tell, since my previous exposures to Nardil produced only a partial response. My most recent period of Nardil therapy produced a robust response in combination with the other drugs I am taking. I did not feel that Nardil was without effect. Perhaps one needs to take a bit more of the new formulation to receive the benefit of the old formulation. I needed 90mg last time. The time before that, I seemed to be responsive at 75mg.
>
> I guess the bottom line is that, for me, the two formulations of Nardil seemed to be the same.
>
>
> - ScottThanks Scott!!! That was the answer I wanted to read ;-)
I agree wtih you, I personnaly know some people who take the old Nardil and they needed less that 90 mg to have a good response on it. With the new, 90 mg seem to be the goal to reach.
New formulation or old formulation, I have a lot of hope in the Nardil treatment...I think I just want to have some positive feedback to make me feel more secure this time, so thanks again for your answer ;-)
I just notice that my first experience on Nardil at 90 mg in 2007 was not like the one I have now. I just start this week again, and i'm a lot more anxious. But also, I was on a high dose of Clonazewpam at the time (8mg/day), maybe it's why I wasn't feeled at time the kind of "anxiety increase" I feel since I begin it and of course the insomnia... I also now understand why they recommend to give some Trazadone (Desyrel) with it at the bedtime... I think in less than 5 days, I only sleep 2 hours in a row maximum...so you can imagine that my energy level is at the lowest point now... I hope my familly Doctor will prescribe a little dose of Desyrel to me next week...because my psychiatrist don't want to do it...He know it's write in the fract sheet of the Nardil, but he said to me that he would never give it at the same time than the Nardil because of the 5-HTP interactions that can be fatal... I will have to defend my point of view, since I don't want to end up increasing my Valium intake or return on a more powerfull benzo drugs like Clonazepam, Xanax or Zopiclone and finish at the hospital like the last time...
Well, so much questions, se less answer, no wonder why i'm overstress!!!
Posted by SLS on November 29, 2008, at 21:06:00
In reply to Re: Needing 90 mg » SLS, posted by Mickapoo on November 29, 2008, at 8:44:01
> When you said you needed 90 mg last time, did you feel any positive effects before that?
Yes. However, I plateaued early, and did not feel very much better until I went to 90mg. I took Nardil primarily for depression. However, social inhibition/anxiety is a feature of my illness. I found that Nardil began taking care of the social anxiety before I received benefits for depression.
- Scott
Posted by amdew717 on December 3, 2008, at 14:25:30
In reply to Re: What is the verdict on post-2003 Nardil? » Michael Bell, posted by Mickapoo on November 24, 2008, at 19:49:05
Michael,
I took Nardil 60mg from Mid-2001 to Early-2008. It worked great for CLINICAL DEPRESSION & SOCIAL ANXIETY. I stopped taking it because it was only then that i noticed it didn't seem to be working as well. When I came onto Psycho-babble I learned that it had been reformulated. It was very validating that it was not my imagination. Although this reformulation occured in 2003, i didn't notice any decrease in effectivenss until 2008. I increased the dosage to 75-90, but i didn't find any benefit, just an increase of side-effects (urinary hesitancy, delayed orgasm, insomnia).I went off it in April and have just begun taking it again after successful trails of EMSAM, PRISTIQ, STRATTERA, SERZONE, and maybe 1 or 2 others.
I've been back on it at 60 MG for about 4 weeks and so far i have not seen much improvement in the depression or anxiety. Not sure if i will stick with it, but not sure what choice i have either. I'm feeling rather hopeless since i went back on it because it was tried and somewhat true, but maybe i need to take more and give it more time....we'll see.
James
Posted by that_guy23 on December 3, 2008, at 18:15:42
In reply to Re: What is the verdict on post-2003 Nardil?, posted by amdew717 on December 3, 2008, at 14:25:30
Iv'e been on nardil now for 13 weeks. I was started at 15 mg 3x aday for 1 week, then 45mg for 2 weeks, at weeks 4-5 I was upped to 75 mg's. I almost immediately felt a euphoria that was so amsing and relaxing. It was sedating to but I didn't care, I thought finally a drug thats gonaa work!
over the 2 weeks the euphoria lasted a full week each time I took my pills, Then it was off and on for a week. I alss noticed a change in my motivation, attitude, and mood big time, which of course was my depression. But my main concern was my severe social anxiety, it haden't been touched.
I went to see my pdoc after 2 weeks on 75 mg's and the euphoria was gone but the depression was still effected. This is when we decided to up my dose. I assumed I was going to 90 mg's, and now I even think that would have been a mistake. But no she wrote me a prescription for 105 mg a day, WOW. At the time I didn't know alot about the drug so I just assumed that I was gonna get better with my social anxiety and probably more euphoria. I noticed an effect off of this dose almost immediately to, orthostatic hypotension. I was falling around could stand up for more than a min, or I went temp. blind for like 30 secs. my ears would ring and I had to lie down, at first I found it a little funny thinking, this will wear off soon, nope I lasted 1 week at 105, then dropped it to 90 for 2 weeks in which I became very dpressed at, then back at 75, where I felt it for a week straight still, and then for 2-3 weeks it cmae and went. So her I am now at 75 for 5 weeks, 7 in all. I have no more hypotension, but I have low blood pressure, and can't orgasm, that's good considering I had like ten other SE's, including; fatigue, urinary retension, constipation for like a month or more, dryness of mouth, chills, shakiness or trembling, and carbohydrate cravings, which are still there a little.
So I know the nardil acted on my dpression, which wasn't my main concern, but I know it did work! So I'm planning om sticking with it, for a while yet. My current pdoc won't increase my dose or add augmentation, thats why I sent a referall to another doc. I think I'm gonna up it myself this week or next week to 90. I also take 1mg clonazepam 3x daily. I want to increase that, because I don't have any relief, but I've heard that that can effect the nardil. It didn't effect at first though at 75 mg's.
I want to stay on nardil because of it's success stories, and it being the gold standard for SA. I guess if I up to 90 and then get augmentation, and stay at that for a month or so, and theres no change, I'll probaly just switch right over to parnate.
Bit of a rant, But thats my nardil story.
any questions, or suggestions, please let me know.
Posted by hattree on December 8, 2008, at 8:29:53
In reply to Re: Needing 90 mg » Mickapoo, posted by SLS on November 29, 2008, at 21:06:00
Scott, Did you put on weight on Nardil?
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.