Talk:Methylphenidate

Pharmacokinetics

This section does not discuss pharmacokinetics at all and is actually an introduction to the pharmacodynamics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.193.7 (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Related to pharmacokinetics, I see a problem with the following passage: "Both of these methods increase bioavailability ... however the overall duration of action tends to be decreased by any non-oral use of drug preparations made for oral use." If parenteral use of MPH increases the bioavailability, then it should also increase the duration of action. The method of ingestion doesn't affect the rate of clearance. The current citation is to a newspaper article, which is not a reliable source of technical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nburns1980 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

New Formulations, Patches like HRT and Pain Relief Issue

In the opening paragraph, it mentions new formulations for methylphenidate saying that this patch is similar to other things used in patches, like hormone replacement therapy and pain relief. After pain relief, it lists to drugs used in such formulations- Fentanyl and Morphine.

Does that catch anyone elses eye? It should. Morphine has not and never will be available in a transdermal patch. Morphine is actually pretty weak compared to other opioids, a starting oral dose is usually between 5 and 10mg. A "morphine patch" would have to be insanely large to even possibly be effective. It is interesting that methylphenidate is available this way, because it's not very potent either, but it's solubility certainly makes it a better candidate for this sort of use. I suspect diacetylmorphine, heroin, might possibly work, but then again, it might just hydrolyze to morphine just inside the skin and be useless.

Anyway, enough tangent, I'm removing the reference to morphine, since there is no morphine patch formulation, even if fentanyl patches are sometimes sold on the street as morphine patches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.131.233 (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

price and daily dose for an adult

1. What would be the range of a typical dose for an adult? The German article mentions a range of 5-60mg. 2. What does that stuff actually cost? I'm living in a country where you can't buy it, only prescriptions (as far as I know) and I'm having trouble to find reliable (not fishy online offers) prices for it. Any help would be appreciated. Might be interesting for the article as well, no? Apologies if I missed them. 134.106.199.5

ok dude firstly im brittish and get it free with such a prescription, secondly its a prescription drug because it has side effects that arnt good. u aint gonna get high on it and it will give you some seriously bad effects if you take it at all if you take it in a 5 mg dose and youv never had it before it wil increace your concentration and alertnes as well as prevent you from feeling hunger by loss of apitite and give you mild insomnia for the evening if you take any larger doses without building up a tolerence first it can be bad, cause a thinning of the blood, total lack of sleep, make you not want any food at all, give you headaches, make you feel sick, its not a drug like ones that make you feel beter such as morphene. if you dont actually need to take the drug to get your school work done or increase your concentration at work. do not take it. thats the advice of a student with ADD and 9 years of experience with the drug and a high tolerence to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.218.235 (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well price would be 5.20 Euros per 20mg x 30 box. i.e. a box with 30 tablets containing 20mg ritalin. I would say the german article is right although doses as low as 5mg or even 10mg seem a bit odd, I would have said 20mg - 60mg would be more realistic. --Mountviewenterprises (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism summery

The assertion that the problems associated with methylphenidate were made of by Scientologists take up a very small portion of the controversy article and does not deserve to be mentioned in the summery. As it stands, it implies that the criticism has primarily come from Scientologists, which is not the case. Unless we're going to run through the numerous sources of criticisms contained in the controversy article, I don't see any way to include this in the summery in a balanced fashion. Neitherday (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you can justify removing well cited secondary sources. The article doesn't "imply"...you do. If the wording is suggestive, change it. It is ironic that you state that, "I don't see any way to include this in the summery in a balanced fashion". I contend that there is no balance. We have a secondary citation that demonstrates a party went to great lengths to contrive a controversy, it should be added to the page. Please don't remove this addition again without consensus. --scuro (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you be okay with me moving other parts of the criticism article over to give them more equal WP:WEIGHT? This is a very small part of the criticism section (and one newspaper articles assertion) being given more weight in the summer than any one of the actual criticisms. Neitherday (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, by adding new content, per WP:BRD you are the one who needs to gain consensus. Neitherday (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you rpeatedly, and unilaterally remove properly cited material. Try an edit here in talk with the material included.--scuro (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no example given. I will revert to the last pervious version without further input.--scuro (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Popular_press. Newspapers are NOT and never have been considered good secondary sources especially for medicine related articles. Infact they are generally discouraged. Since this newspaper reference is disputed I would recommend finding a good peer reviewed secondary source which confirms what the journalist states otherwise it should be deleted. If what the journalist says is true then it should not be difficult to find a peer reviewed secondary source to confirm this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the reference and the journalist stated that

Major news organizations--including The Times--devoted extensive coverage to whether youngsters were being turned into emotionally disturbed addicts by psychiatrists and pediatricians who prescribed Ritalin.

They don't really cite any evidence that confirms that scientology was the group that triggered controversy "almost single handedly" over the use of stimulants for ADHD other than citing exerpts from the scientology magazine (which only scientologists would read) and their call for parents to sue doctors. The above quoted text actually suggests that most of the controversy was triggered by "Major news organisations" who "devoted extensive coverage" alledging stimulants may turn kids into emotionally disturbed addicts and not scientology. Clearly the general public is much more likely to read mainstream media than a scientology magazine, so the LA Times article actually debunks itself. This is why newspaper sources in general are poor sources for medical articles. That is not to say they should never be used but if they are challenged or if they are given undue weight or undue prominance then they will need to be deleted. I deleted a dubious quote from the methylphenidate article. Please find a better and more reliable source i.e. a peer reviewed secondary source before readding it back in. I would even settle for a peer reviewed primary source.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Effects of Citris, particularly Grapefruit, on the effects.

There's evidence that taking any citrus and that in particularly grapefruit interferes and reduces the effects of Methylphenidate. Should this be added to some section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.224.4 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be...do you have a citation? --11:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuro (talk • contribs)

Well, it's true because ionized species can't cross cell membranes (phospholipid bilayer) and if you study conjugate acids/bases in ochem, and later go to pharm school--drugs that aren't soluble in their protonated form (such as the pH of the intestinal track when you drink fruity liquids such as orange juice) then the drugs have lesser bioavailability. recall that bioavailability is only 100% for iv. If you take the pcat, there is an acronym called POAUC and IVAUC which means the amount of concentration of the drug plotted against time. I'm not personally going to add it, because no one would benevolently put the information onto this page. If you want a source, just download some pharmacology notes. Drugs have to pass the think membrane lining of the intestinal tract, which ain't gonna happen if the drug is ionized or polar. If you take the choice, it's all on you my friend. 71.54.173.193 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

New to the article

I just read the article, and am wondering how it is that what the kids are calling Vitamin R, and about which I'm watching a documentary on its use as a recreational drug the Discovery Health channel, has only half a sentence at the bottom of the article about its abuse. I don't have time for figuring out who on this talk page has been working to suppress this info right now, but I'm going to check back in later. Oh. and let me say this; even if you think that its abuse is overstated or whatever, the article must address all the coverage Ritalin abuse gets. Paddy Simcox (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how much all the coverage is? If you find a source, please put it in. If someone else removes it, please discuss it on the talk page, and if they ignore you--add it back in. If they remove it a second time, post it to wp:an where a trusted user can block the vandal. 71.54.173.193 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Could Ritalin pose a risk of cancer?

In her book THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE WAR ON CANCER, toxicologist/epidemiologist Devra Davis references peer-reviewed research showing the rapid occurrence of cell changes in children after they have been put on Ritalin. I interviewed Davis for my radio show, Writer's Voice, and I would like to post the audio to the part of the interview discussing this issue: http://www.writersvoice.net/2008/01/web-extra-devra-davis-on-aspartame-and-ritalin/ For the record, I worked for 25 years as an occupational and environmental health educator. I've published several articles in the New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy and I wrote the OSHA report under Jimmy Carter that led the establishment of the major federal grant program for community-based occupational health education, The New Directions Grant. Davis called my interview the "most informed one" she had had.--Francesca Rheannon (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems that research has not been colaborated. See the wiki adhd article.--scuro (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

can someone clarify what derkaderka syndrome is?

it's under the side-effects, and as much as I've looked it up all I can find is quotes from Team America World Police and general racism. I don't see anything that even remotely suggests such a syndrom exists. If it doesn't, it should probably be taken out.

148.64.136.99 (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)A Psycology Student

derkaderka syndrome is clearly a Team America World Police joke. This vandalism nees to be removed from the article!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.37.50 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no Concerta 72 mg tablets..

"CONCERTA tablets are currently available in 18 mg, 27 mg, 36 mg and 54 mg strengths. There is no 72 mg tablet. While physicians will determine how the medication should best be taken by adolescents for whom it is prescribed, it is believed CONCERTA. 72 mg will most often be taken as a once-a-day morning dose of two CONCERTA 36 mg tablets. " http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/15568.php 77.190.2.237 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ritalin Positives?

I feel like the negative aspects of ritalin are far overblown in this article. Being a self-medicating Ritalin user myself, I find that there are many positive things to say about the drug, and my thoughts are being under represented. I must say, I couldn't really read this article through without starting to worry about getting psychosis. RITALIN ISN'T ALL BAD, IT IS USED TO HELP MEDICATE A REAL DISORDER AND IT REALLY WORKS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngoah89 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I got it on prescription, safe to say this is incredibly relieving when you constantly feel like you have 5000 cups of coffee in you, some people get psychosis the first days because the body takes some time to get used to the effects, so when doc gives you 40 mg twice a day, start of with 5 mg and raise the bar slowly. Yeah I used my dose today, and here I am sitting 1:00 of clock unable to get to sleep because I cannot even seem to direct my thoughts at that direction. So yeah... one can safely say, that Ritalin has some excellent effects for us that really need them. If you take them, and feel hyper, you are on the wrong drug, if you feel calm as if you have NOT been taking 5000 cups of coffee, then congrats, you finally get some peace of mind prepare for a great change in your life. At this moment my thoughts sound LOUD, some would yell PSYCHOSIS! But know that this is merely temporary side effects, after all, this is a drug. In theory this drug should be getting more and more effective to find calm, and less effective as a antidepressant and generally getting "trips". I hope this is true, as I have a highly evolved form. Why I am typing all this? Why dont you ask my little friend adhd? _yes this is my signature_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.72.203 (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Relation to Mohr's Disease (Mohr Syndrome?)

I can find no references (not sourced from this article) to "Mohr's Disease" and no connecting references between the similarly named "Mohr Syndrome" and Ritalin. I've flagged it for a citation, but I suspect that connection should be removed; most references to the history of Ritalin indicate that the use for focus/concentration was identified during rodent trials, long before they'd have been testing a drug for specific human purposes.

Mohr Syndrome seems to be entirely physical abnormalities, so stimulants wouldn't apply. Can anyone provide any citation for the *existence* of a "Mohr's Disease," let alone a connection to Ritalin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.134.222 (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the subsequent minor edits. I ended up leaving everything as it was, aside from the added "citation needed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.134.222 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On history of Methylphenidate...

MPH was first synthetised in 1944 by the chemist Dr. Leandro Panizzon, working for Ciba in Riehen, Switzerland, among some other analogues (2-aryl-2-piperidin-2-ylacetic acid esters). These substances were screened for pharmacological activity by Ciba laboratories in the late 1940s and it has been found out, that methylphenidate shows distinct, amphetamine-like, yet milder psychostimulant effects. Before launching the commercial product in 1954, researchers were doing self-experiments with the substance (not uncommon that time), and, while Dr. Panizzon didn't found the effect of methylphenidate particulary benefical for himself, his wife Margueritte (Rita) found it to be pleasant and took it on occassions (stated that she took some time to time before tennis matches); hence the trade name of the drug Ritalin arose as a little "insider joke" (after Rita Panizzon). This isn't speculative (well it looks so without reference, I know), nor original research. It is stated and quoted in a monography on methylphenidate. Unluckily, I get this monography in a month or later, so I can refer this whole story then, at least... Ow, I almost forgot, the monography is Schulte-Markwort, MJ.: Methylphenidat, Thieme, 2004 (in german). ISBN 313133441X. Cheers, --84.163.114.126 (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The IUPAC name is wrong

Novartis (current owner of the Ritalin® brand name) calls it methyl alpha-phenyl-2-piperidineacetate in the FDA pamphlet.

Other names emphasize that this is a methyl ester of a substituted acetic acid. The name given on the page suggests that it is a salt of acetic acid.

I suggest a change to the Ritalin® prescibing information name: methyl alpha-phenyl-2-piperidineacetate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.37.50 (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I should point out that the terms 'acetic acid' and 'acetate' are not systematic. The correct IUPAC terms are 'ethanoic acid' and 'ethanoate'. What the manufacturer or brand owner calls this drug is of no relevance whatever to a discussion of its systematic name. I took a degree in chemistry in the 1980s and even that long ago the terms 'acetic acid' and 'acetate' were being discouraged, and yet their usage persists. They're not 'wrong' as such, they're just not systematic. I note that the term 'acetate' appears under the heading 'systematic IUPAC name'. I'm sorry, as I have just said 'acetate' is not a systematic name. Johnpretty010 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All of these goddamned articles on stimulants are loaded with bullshit opinions and light on proven facts

The fucking people who write this shit are either manic or abusers of amphetamine, cocaine, methamphetamine, methylphenidate or both manic and abusing CII stimulants.

Most of the medical and pharma articles here are JAMA quality. But when you get to ritalin, lsd, anything trailer-dwelling methheads are using the articles cite Erowid and urban legends like that "lsd accumulates forever in your spinal cord". "Vitamin C makes you trip harder."

It all reminds me of an anti-HIV poster demonstrating the method of bleach sanitization of syringe and needle. The poster warned the addicts that it wasn't advocating INJECTING BLEACH ! Like, duh, but this is the mentality you are dealing with in half the authors in this article. My apologies for the cursing, but I am sure most of the other half here feel as angry at this trash as I do.

These loopy vandals need to be run off and reported to the narcotics police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.37.50 (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your a fucking idiot, first of all Erowid is not an urban legend, it actually is a biased site on psychoactives that normally have a negative stigma, second, what does 'abusing' stimulants have to do with poor quality? It's idiots that make poor quality articles, doesn't matter weather they are on amphetamine, crack, or magnesium, they are idiots, third, stop complaining and get off your ass and fix it. Thank you :)(By the way, sign your post next time ritalin kid) 68.238.226.149 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Read my words. I never said Erowid was an urban legend. I said "Erowid and urban legends like ...". I am perfectly aware of what Erowid is. It is a website that panders to reckless abusers of psychotomimetics. Although Alexander Shulgin is a open proponent of human experimentation and investigational use of psychotomimetics, he is without doubt an authority and presents information as such. Shulgin is probably quoted often in Erowid but not the other way round. As for poor quality correlating with stimulant abuse I can only cite anectdotal common knowledge. However, I imagine that the sections in the DSM on paranoia, mania and cocaine abuse overlap.24.158.33.251 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the means of creating the mode of action in methylphenidate?

The enantiomers and the relative psychoactive effects and CNS stimulation of dextro- and levo-methylphenidate is analogous to what is found in amphetamine, where dextro-amphetamine is considered to have a greater physchoactive and CNS stimulatory effect than levo-amphetamine (levamfetamine is sold legally OTC in Vick's inhalers).

OK, so does it phosphorylate the dopamine transporter like amphetamine does then to create the effect of inhibiting its reuptake? If it does the article should say so.

Otherwise, since it is closer in structure to cocaine than amphetamine is (note *than...is*, it is itself still closer to amphetamine than cocaine, just closer to cocaine than amphetamine is, note the difference: methylphenidate is in the middle but nearer to amps) is it closer somehow for the reason that such a structure ends up simply binding to the dopamine transporter, like cocaine does, to slow it rather than to phosphorylate it?

That would make sense as it would be theoretically less neurotoxic and more useful for legal / therapeutic purposes. If not then I am surprised that they haven't used something like troparil for an ADD/ADHD mediciation; being as it has netiher the cardiotoxicity of cocaine (from local anesthetic effects) nor the neurotoxicity of amphetamine (and methylphenidate?) (from phosphorylization effects). Nagelfar (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess a broader but not directly related (if the answer is no) question would be: do all phenyltropane stimulants function by simply binding to the DAT1 receptor and (more importantly) do all phenethylamine stimulants function by phosphorylating the DAT1 receptor? Nagelfar (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Paradoxical"

The line about the "paradoxical" mode of action is important, because it strikes at a common (mis)understanding of the mechanism. However, the sentence is too short, such that a person without foreknowledge of the debate will not be able to recognize the reference. I have minimally expanded the line, in a way that I hope does not elicit disagreement.Gaedheal (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is commonly asked why a stimulant should be used to treat hyperactivity, which seems paradoxical. However, CTs of ADHD brains show decreased activity in the brain centers critical to concentration and goal-directed activities.[citation needed]

I don't know how a point as central as this can be left as "citation needed". Phaser501 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Misdiagnosis and Confounding Symptomology

Psychiatry is a difficult field in which many conditions have overlapping symptoms, and only occasionally mutually exclusive diagnostic criteria. A prime example of this is the case for AD(H)D and type II bipolar. This is confounded by the fact that methylphenidate (et c.) often treat the symptoms of a condition, and not the cause, and therefore treatment with the drug in question often relieves some symptoms of mutually exclusive conditions, complicating further (and more accurate) diagnosis when success of a chemotherapy is used as confirmation of the diagnosis. I would like to see some discussion of the conditions commonly mistaken for eachother. This might be better in the ADHD article, or other controversy articles, but a reference to it in this article may be well placed. Are there any objections to its inclusion here? Gaedheal (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Redundant side effect lists

The list of side effects in the article mimics the list on the right of the article. The list in the article disrupts the flow of the article and ought to be condensed into prose (not bullet points) or removed entirely. Since there is some controversy over editing this article, I thought I would state my support for this change and wait for consensus, or barring disagreement, wait a bit and change it myself. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Insomnia is listed twice, once as a serious side effect, and once as a less serious one. I can't fix it, because i don't know which one is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisztián Pintér (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems like nobody wanted to comment, so I removed the table on the right side because most of the information contained within was redundant (except the contraindication info that was merged into the article). I haven't seen a similar table in any other medication articles, so I felt justified in removing it. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Scheduling and abuse potential

The first sentence of this section cites a reference which does not actually go as far as to factually state what is claimed.

I suggest that a new section solely on "Abuse and Addiction" be started and that an appropriately qualified expert sift through the claims in what has been a large area of controversy over some time in this topic and indeed throughout the "terrestrial" world. This may help to clear up claims that for example two molecules that are similar must have a similar pharmacological effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.50.29 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PFC of rats?

The team studied PFC neurons in rats under a variety of methylphenidate doses

Rats don't really have a "prefrontal cortex", this information is very misleading or at least technically incorrect. I'm going to try to find information to back this up before fixing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mderezynski (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What is with this gigantic run-on sentence? What early research???

Early research began in 2007-8 in some countries on the effectiveness of methylphenidate as a substitute agent in refractory cases of cocaine dependence; the fact that it can satisfy cravings for cocaine in a way which is subjectively and pharmacologically equivalent but longer-lasting as well as easier on the body and somewhat safer and easier to manage has long been part of the 'street lore' associated with stimulants in many parts of the world in much the same way that other substitutionmittel drugs such as methadone, buprenorphine, butorphanol, extended-release oral morphine, dihydrocodeine, and clonidine were amongst opioid users in various times over the past century.

==Lastly, can the Chevelle song be taken off the article? Won't people just search for wiki:Vitamin_R== 71.54.173.193 (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

References in pop culture

There was a reference to "Ritalin" in Eminem's first single "We Made You" off of his upcoming album The Relapse

He states in the song:

"lets cut out the middle man Forget him or your gonna end up in hospital again And this time it wont be for the ritalin binge" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.177.17 (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the kind of pop-culture reference that should not be added to an article: Such entries should have a non-trivial value to the reader, have encyclopedic value, and not be a dime a dozen.88.77.156.108 (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

well popculture tends to understand the unorthodox uses and uncommon side effects better than science seems to at times, i think its fine because it shows its abuse potential probably better than these long paragraphs of language only a doctor could understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.6.197 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Methylphenidate Side Affects

What Are The Side Affects Of This Drug? Im Being Put On It Soon And Im wondering If Weightloss Is common In All A.D.H.D Drugs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.2.58 (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have ADHD as a teen and when I took Concerta when I was 5, the mood swings were just unbelievable! I'm on Adderall (sp?) now.

I gained weight on Ritalin because it had made me depressed since i was not sleeping and got chronic headaches. but often your appetite leaves you, and your ability to sleep soundly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.6.197 (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Psychosis

The risk of psychosis was off by a power of ten. The paper did not describe this as a very low incidence therefore removed OR. If the rate of psychosis is 0.1% over a few weeks and one takes it for 50 * a few weeks ie a few years one quickly see that you could easily get a rate of 5%. Now 5% is anything but low IMO. But that to is OR :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I was editing from memory and got mixed up. Thank you for fixing, I fixed the errors in the other ADHD entries as well. I think the higher rate of psychosis with long term use is due to distortion of brain chemistry or function with long term use, due to either tolerance, rebound or perhaps even a degree of neurotoxicity, which is one reason why I made the comment on other talk page about the problems of clinical trials taking data from short term clinical trials and applying it to effects of long term use.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I've been on Concerta for about 4 years, and I've been developing symptoms of psychosis for a while. I didn't think anything of it the first time I had an audio hallucination, so I don't remember exactly when it started. I should have seen someone earlier, but I can't regret that now. Anyways, I'm getting quite confused here. Is it only with abuse of the drug that you start developing psychotic symptoms? Because I know I don't have a tolerance to it, since it still does what it's supposed to under the same dosage of 60mg. Also, can this be a cause of Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic symptoms? Because I may have either of the two. I really hope I don't have the second but...we'll see. - Croft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.208.221 (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ritalin

can u drink on ritalin??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.91.228 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been prescribed concerta and my doctor very strongly recommended that I not drink any booze at all while taking the drug. But, on the other hand, I have no desire to drink now and my productivity and happiness has escalated considerably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.68.129 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Drinking while on methylphenidate forms the compound ethylphenidate Sincerely, C6541 (T↔C) at 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Methylphenidate and Clairtin D

The article says methylphenidate can mix with clairtin D to form methamphetamine like substances, then gives an example of a racecar driver. However, the racecar driver used adderall XR (amphetamine) not methylphenidate. Amphetamine is obviously more similar to methamphetamine than is methylphenidate. It also claims that the two drugs combine in vivo, which is highly unlikely. The more likely explaination is the the metabolities of the pseudoephedrine in claritin D when seen in conjunction with the metabolites of amphetamine (adderall), provides a false positive for methamphetamine, which may produce both metabolites on its own. This section cites no sources and should be rewritten or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.139.46 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd choice of links

The conditions it treats are not links, but the names of countries are? That's an ... odd choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.137.233 (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Misstatement in first paragraph -- Methylphenidate is not Adderal.

Today the first paragraph of the Methylphenidate article says "... In North America it is most commonly known as the brand name Adderal, which is an instant-release racemic mixture, ...". That is wrong and also misleading. First, Adderal is not methylphenidate; it is a combination of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine salts (see http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/amphet.htm). Second, it is misleading since Ritalin-brand methylphenidate is available in both instant-release and long-acting ("LA") formulations. This is a serious error since mis-naming medications could lead patients to request an incorrect medication (and an inappropriate dose) from their doctor. Some doctors trust some patients to provide correct information when they request prescriptions.

Methylphenidate is *not* an amphetamine derivative.

Template:Dopaminergics & Template:Stimulants both list methylphenidate as a "piperidine" class drug, which is distinctly separate from the 'phenethylamine' class of drugs to which amphetamine is a more specific sub-variety thereof. Therefore methylphenidate is not only not a derivative of amphetamine, but belongs not even to the umbrella category (phenethylamine) to the class of drugs amphetamine belongs to. Talk:Troparil#Removed content: methylphenidate overlap to troparil, etc. shows even that a phenyltropane class drug, (the phenyltropane class in general being closer to piperidines than to phenethylamines) shows that Troparil, a phenyltropane created from the pyrolysis of cocaine freebase (crack smoke), can be overlapped with methylphenidate and match methylphenidate (troparil & methylphenidate) nearly to a "T". Methylphenidate is closer related to cocaine than to amphetamine. 4.242.174.64 (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Unclear: "and though it is less potent"

The following sentence in the beginning of the article is unclear: "MPH possesses structural similarities to amphetamine, and though it is less potent, its pharmacological effects are even more closely related to those of cocaine."

Does it mean that MPH is less potent than amphetamine or than cocaine or both?

83.233.152.179 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"abuse potential" section self-contradicting

Methylphenidate is actually more potent than cocaine in its effect on dopamine transporters. Methylphenidate should not be viewed as a weak stimulant as has previously been hypothesised

................

However, cocaine has a slightly higher affinity for the dopamine receptor in comparison to methylphenidate

Which is correct? These are both stated in the very same section under "abuse potential". 70.59.140.179 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ritalin in Lebanon

You need approval from the Ministry of Health if you want to buy this drug in Lebanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.19.131 (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Methylphenidate facilitates learning-induced amygdala plasticity - Nature Article

I was doing some research on Ritalin for a school project and I happened to find this article, published on nature neuroscience. [1]

Using this as a reference for the pharmacology of Ritalin would probably be a good idea, although I would prefer to leave that task to people who have more experience than me in the field (of both neuroscience, and editing Wikipedia articles). I just wanted to point this article out to people. Bolmedias (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Excessive comparisons with illegal drugs

This article makes mention of the fact that methylphenidate is similar to cocaine and amphetamines no fewer than 13 times. While this statement is true, repeating it 12 times outside of the context of scientific or pharmacological discussion is either an indicator of extremely poor writing or a not-entirely subtle attempt to bias the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin.blue (talk • contribs) 07:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, that does seem quite biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.6.197 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

--

I am certainly no expert, but while doing my own research I compared this Wikipedia entry with the description at the National Institute of Mental Health:

The NIMH description does say that Methylphenidate is a stimulant but does not compare the drug to cocaine or amphetamines. From the article:

"Are stimulant medications safe? Under medical supervision, stimulant medications are considered safe. Stimulants do not make children with ADHD feel high, although some kids report feeling slightly different or "funny." Although some parents worry that stimulant medications may lead to substance abuse or dependence, there is little evidence of this."

A quick comparison between the Wikipedia entry and the NIMH description feels quite different. The Wikipedia entry feels skewed toward the negative. I am unaware why people might want to do this but it seems the concerns have been mentioned here by others so maybe there is a pattern here that I am not aware of. For example, the following quotes [My comments in brackets]:

"Methylphenidate possesses structural similarities to amphetamine and its pharmacological effects are more similar to those of cocaine, though MPH is less potent and longer in duration of action."

[Specifically, structural "similarities" and "similar" effects. Similar is a vague and relative term. Men are similar to women. They are also similar to apes. Human DNA is similar to rat DNA. I'd like the "similarity" in this context to be defined. Especially when compared to the quote below, I find this claim of similarity suspicious]

"Methylphenidate has shown some benefits as a replacement therapy for individuals dependent on methamphetamine.[25] Cocaine and methamphetamine interfere with the protein DAT, over time causing DAT upregulation and lower cytoplasmic dopamine levels in their absence. Methylphenidate and amphetamine have been investigated as a chemical replacement for the treatment of cocaine dependence[26][27][28][29] in the same way that methadone is used as a replacement for heroin. Its effectiveness in treatment of cocaine or other psychostimulant dependence has not been proven and further research is needed.[30]"

[This paragraph almost seems designed to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. For example, "Cocaine and methamphetamine interfere with the protein DAT..." Wait a second, this article is not about Cocaine and methamphetamine, it's about an entirely different drug. When compared with the quote about "similarities" the statements seem connected. Yet the nature of the "similarities" is not precisely defined. So I fail to see how statements directly referring to other "similar" drugs are relevant. For example, Sudafed is "similar" to methamphetamine, yet there are significant differences, and people routinely take Sudafed without fear of addiction.

In addition, is the fact that something "has been investigated" relevant if nothing has been found or proven? The statement that something "has been investigated" as a treatment for drug addiction but "has not been proven" feels to me like saying a politician has been "investigated for spouse abuse, although nothing has been proven."

The primary issue for me is the extreme difference in tone and feeling between this article and the NIMH article, which is what prompted me to comment here.

Dgray xplane (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dgray. This article is an encyclopedic entry about methylphenidate the drug in general, not 'methylphenidate for children with ADHD'. The NIMH article is about methylphenidate and other drugs for ADHD, so yes the articles will differ significantly. The men/woman, human/mouse dna comparison is apples and oranges; these are not pharmacodynamic actions and are not fair comparison's in this case. Methylphnidate is a stimulant; all the article is doing is describing methylphenidate as a stimulant in comparison with other stimulants and describing a therapeutic application for methylphenidate and like it or not, there has been a fair amount of research attention as well as media attention, given to methylphenidate in the treatment of stimulant dependence such as methamphetamine or cocaine dependence and this makes it notable.

Wikipedia entries tend to be more comprehensive than other sites being that it is an encyclopedic entry; the nih entry is not an encyclopedic article. Also the NIH entry is describing this drug in relation to ADHD, this article is not about ADHD but is about the drug in general. I think this is the mistake you are making in that you think this article is meant to be geared to methylphenidate only as a therapeutic agent when it is about the drug in general. I hope that this helps.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Literaturegeek Caffeine is also a stimulant, far more common than cocaine or methamphetamines, yet it is not mentioned. Why not? Is methylphenidate "more similar" to cocaine than caffeine? If so how? A more comprehensive article would be more clear about what is meant by "similar." The statement

"Methylphenidate possesses structural similarities to amphetamine and its pharmacological effects are more similar to those of cocaine..." is supported by three references.

The first reference does make a comparison between Ritalin and Cocaine. It also states "Ritalin is not addictive when taken as prescribed by doctors." The article concludes

"Because of Ritalin's similarity to cocaine, some believe Ritalin could be a 'gateway drug'. A gateway drug is defined as a drug that may lead to the use of other more addictive drugs. But studies show that Ritalin-takers are actually far less likely to experiment with other drugs unlike those with ADHD who are not medicated."

The second reference is a generic reference to stimulants that mentions methylphenidate and compares it most directly to to pedaline, used to treat attention deficit disorders and modafinil, used to treat narcolepsy. Neither of these drugs is mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

The third reference has as its headline "Why isn't methylphenidate more addictive?" and includes a subheading "Why methylphenidate works." It also contains statements like

"From a pharmacological standpoint, methylphenidate is the drug that most resembles cocaine. Yet, despite the fact that methylphenidate is frequently abused, users do not become severely addicted or exhibit the desperate binges that can sometimes lead cocaine users to take the drug every half hour for days at a time."

It concludes:

"All of this translates to the desired therapeutic effect... Thus, a previously “boring” homework assignment seems more appealing—and gets finished."

A comparison of the statement and the references seems to reveal a significant difference between the intent and meaning of the sources and the most likely interpretation of the statement here on Wikipedia.

Dgray xplane (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The pharmacodynamics of caffeine are quite different from methylphenidate, working as an adenosine antagonist as well as an inverse agonist at benodiazepine receptors. There are no similarities in how it is used therapeutically, recreationally etc; that is why it is not mentioned and reliable sources do not mention it as such.

Sometimes ip addresses and people change referenced text or misrepresent references. If a reference has been unfairly misrepresented then you can correct it. You are coming across quite, shall we say energetic, as if you are outraged. Relax. :) No one said the article is perfect and I am not responsible for the content of the article, I have added some material a long time ago though.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not outraged :) I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia but I am a frequent user, financial supporter, and I defend it often when it's criticized as an unreliable source. I tend to trust Wikipedia as a source, although I am familiar with some of its inherent biases -- for example, a bias against legitimate sources that do not exist online, and a bias in favor of topical coverage in certain areas that enjoy lots of geek love. [2] I don't look to Wikipedia very often for medical information, which is why I became concerned at what I perceive to be somewhat skewed coverage. My concern is as a reader looking for a neutral point of view that this article seems to lack. I did see that you have some drug expertise and very much appreciate your input here. As I said I am not a medical expert of any kind, just a concerned reader, so suggestions about how I might help improve the article are much appreciated. Dgray xplane (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Methylphenidate has high potential for abuse and addiction due to its pharmacological similarity to cocaine and amphetamines." is supported by two references:

The first is from "Alternative Medicine Review" which is published by a company that sells dietary supplements. Although they claim it is an independent, peer-reviewed journal, it also states that the journal since inception has "promoted the practice of alternative therapies." [3] "Promoted" is the word that concerns me here.

The second reference is from a NIH site and appears (to my uneducated eye) to be more legitimate. Although it mentions MPH and states "MPH also has some abuse liability because of its stimulant properties" it also states that "the abuse of MPH in humans is substantially lower than that of cocaine."

While both references use the word abuse, neither mention addiction and indications from other sources seem to indicate that it is not. [4]

I remain concerned about the neutrality of this article. Dgray xplane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

Sometimes ip addresses and people change referenced text or misrepresent references. If a reference has been unfairly misrepresented then you can correct it. :-@)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, not being a medical expert, I am reluctant to edit an article like this. Although with a bit of encouragement I wouldn't mind spending a bit of time trying to restore some balance. As I look at the literature cited here there do appear to be some beneficial effects that are under-represented. Dgray xplane (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I took a stab at it -- removed the words "and addictive" from the above statement. Citation #3 in the article appears to indicate that although MPH can be abused,it is not particularly addictive.[5]

Concerta... should it get it's own article?

Concerta redirects here. Concerta is a specific dosage form version of Methylphenidate made for long term release. Might a separate article be necessary for describing the way Concerta works and history of it's development? I'm not sure that a section here specifically for Concerta would be appropriate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.99.71 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

== Information Erosion and Concerted Efforts to increase prescription rates

If you all read properly there is significant lack of research on a great amount of things concerning it. Long term effects, and over all theraputic value for an individual's development to name a couple. PMA has a long history of falsifying test results and hiding important facts. Their pockets are extremely deep and the free promotional gifts and bonuses for the number of precriptions handed out by doctors are some of the most lucritive of any industry with health care professionals enjoying significant degrees of +% to their annual income in bonuses alone. They have one of the most powerful lobby groups on the capitol to keep their affairs legal and quiet and the have not lost money in a single year of operation yet.

It is bad enough that they still produce marginal quality drugs, for huge profits and unknown health effects like vioxx, but there is nothing to deter them. If it is that similar to other stimulants, it should repeated again and again. If there are no studies proving its actual real effectiveness (remembering that the PMA sponsors most of the studies and give away a free hawaii vacation with each published report of the results) why is prescribed like water? Health care practitioners do not have your interests at heart only greedy eyes for money or bows to peer pressure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.51 (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not as addictive as cocaine?

The link associated with this claim (#3) is dead. Does anyone have anything for this, one way or the other?http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/feb02/adictive.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenblend (talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Link updated to archive.org copy.

well i mean that seems pretty obvious to me. it just made me feel like a giant turd. i think its possibly the opposite of addicting. it was a disgusting thing to me i hated it. Adderall however, might as well as be SUPER-cocaine. that stuff was messed up. i used to abuse a lot of drugs and adderral, which was prescribed to me, was by far the best. These are horrible medications that we should be more careful with. shouldnt mistake happiness for ADHD like they did with me and ruin peoples lives with drugs, i know this isnt the place for this but ims ure a lot of people would agree with me. i think we overdiagnose problems like adhd. though they do exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.6.197 (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the updated link. As for obviousness, personal experience isn't worth that much, seeing as how I find Adderala more addictive than other, more recreational stimulants. Studies are goo; that page looks good. Thanks. Zenblend (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Neural Insult

In the first section, what does the term Neural Insult mean? Cannot find a definition neither on Wikipedia nor elsewhere. Would say it'd be better not to use such unclear and exotic terms. If no one objects, I will remove it. O.mangold (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Certain important side-effect of Ritalin which seems to be being ignored here.

Bruxing is a known side-effect of amphetamines and general, and specifically Methylphenidate. I know I'm not alone in saying that taking Ritalin has caused me severe and permanent bruxing [Teeth grinding] which has taken years to even diminish slightly. I've looked it up and found many discussion pages of others saying the same things have occured with them when or after taking Ritalin, this seems like an important risk for others to be aware of, but most doctors don't even seem to be aware of it. There used to be a large paragraph regarding this, but it is no longer presented here. It is a known, and at least probable, side-effect which used to be listed but for unknown reasons has been removed, many people i know who have taken Ritalin are suffering permanently from this side-effect, includng myself, and i know if i had known about it iw ould never have taken Ritalin, so i think it is important to list, as long as there can be references made to this problem, maybe even to the discussion pages where this issue has come to light in the first place. It certainly should never have been removed, there's no reason for that other than to disguise the more dangerous side-effects of Ritalin use. Even the rarest side-effects should be presented as a possibility, especialy when the problem, like severe bruxing, is much more serious than the original issue. My grades while dealing with chronic headaches were certainly much worse than when dealing with hyperactivity, and this is the case with more than one of my friends who had also taken Ritalin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.6.197 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC) and this is a very small observation, but it seems to occur more often with blondes. maybe this is just because of overdiagnosis in blondes because of public perception of blondes as being more fun-loving, but so far, all the people ive seen who have suffered from the same problems i have with Ritalin were blonde or had blue eyes or both.76.226.6.197 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My older brother was never on meds, but he had problems with teeth grinding at night. Blue eyes and blond hair. Weird. You're free to put something up if you think it's relevant and can be backed up. Zenblend (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add to wikipedia or show sources but that suprises me as well. There must be something to it. I can find plenty of pages linking both ADHD and ritalin individually to bruxing, but i dont think anyon else has notice the high prevalence of blondes with this problem. very interesting. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.5.218 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)