Talk:Xylometazoline

Pharmacology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"1% w/v xylometazoline" dose?! My spray (ratiopharm NasenSpray) is a 0.1 % solution - maybe the figure is wrong in the article? Also, i don't understand the concept of drug resistance to xylmetazoline - as it does the same as adrenaline, a person with high adrenaline production should have chronic nose congestion as well.

actually, if you took xylometazoline too long, and you get chronic congestion, will the chronic congestion fade away after some time?

Thanks, --Abdull 17:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The question should be why is there congestion in the first place? and why would any sane person use a drug to remove the sympton for a short while only to make it worst in the future?

I read somewhere that a lack of water in the body is one thing that affects allergies so drinking more water should help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.148.189 (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring up the point about resistance to Xylometazoline too. I have a relative thathas been using Otrivine day-to-day for the past couple of years, without decreased effectiveness. I do not understand why the number of receptors would decrease after prologned usage. " Prolonged use of xylometazoline may result in tolerance or a decreased effect of the drug. Both a decrease in the decongestant duration and effect occurs possibly due to receptor down-regulation" source. The article implies that in all cases the vessel becomes resistant (because of the omission of 'can'). This really needs to be cleared up and sourced. Balazsh (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how no-one has changed the article, I added the source and modified the language of the article to reflect what I have said above. BalazsH (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]