Talk:Dexmethylphenidate

more information

can someone who is qualified track down more information on this subject? More and more doctors are prescribing this drug every day.

What sort of information would you like to see? -Muugokszhiion 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Would the information I have added be what you are looking for? I focused mainly on FocalinXR capsules instead of Focalin tablets. Takaian 12:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Variability of side effects

The article states that dexmethylphenidate's side effects are "highly variable among users". A comparison with normal methylphenidate is needed here, since the exclusion of the inactive isomer should generally lead to more consistency of side effects among users.

Blatantly Biased

This article reads like an advertisement. No, really. I feel like if I was a parent Id get a strong urge to get this prescribed to my unruly kid. Did the pharmaceutical company write this itself or what?

~Yeah I feel the same way. It is very VERY biased. Someone needs to look into this.

Agreed, this article definitely took a turn for the worse. Reads like a PDR with an agenda right now. -Muugokszhiion 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like most of it was parphrased from here: [1], down to the bit about the applesauce. Marcusito 02:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the right way to handle this would be to create a separate page for Focalin, following the conventions for other drugs. I'll start it off. Inhumandecency 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reception" section

I hate to delete someone else's work outright, but the "reception" section seemed to be entirely based on the page from minreference.com, a natural health site that was making lots of vague and unfounded claims. I judged that the most significant parts were about the side effects, and that topic is already covered. Inhumandecency 08:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, mindreference.com appears to be shilling for Serenity, a non-prescription lithium drug! Inhumandecency 08:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong stereoisomer

Apologies if I have gone about this wrong, or broken some etiquette rule, but I thought I would point out that the molecule shown as dexmethylphenidate, is in fact the (S,S) isomer, which is the enantiomer of the actual drug, which is properly named as the (R,R) isomer. Also, the ball-and-stick (3D) model is the wrong isomer. I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, and I haven't the time to learn right at the moment, but I have drawn and posted the proper isomer at this address:

http://www.thisisruss.org/chemistry/dexmethylphenidate.gif

Anyone who has the time and knowhow to change the entry is welcome to use this image (preferably download and repost, rather than hotlink). I do not need credit, or care about rights to the image. Unfortunately, I haven't got access to software to draw the 3D model, so someone else will have to redraw that one, but in the meantime, perhaps the 3D image ought to be taken down, or a note indicating that the it is the enantiomer would be appropriate.

Cheers, Russ Viirre, Assistant Prrofessor, Dept. of Chemistry and Biology Ryerson University —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.15.83 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was rather levmethylphenidate. I changed the 2D image to proper one and removed the 3D until someone draws the (R,R) for that one.

User:Angsaar 20:30, 13 October 2007

Comparison vs. Methylphenidate

I feel this article would benefit most greatly from an expansion of the differences between this compound and methylphenidate. Almost all of the current content, aside from the table listing receptor affinities, is equally easy to say about methylphenidate. Perhaps a physician with experience prescribing both to a variety of patients could contribute some personal insight into what this translates to for the actual patient (Note: FDA approval studies that compare the compound with placebo are usually quite nearly useless for deciding what the difference between the compound and methylphenidate might be, because there is no direct comparison, evaluation criteria may differ, and the study was conducted only to determine if the compound(s) work well, and are safe enough.) Zaphraud (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to suggest the same thing. How is this different from Concerta? I've had both of them prescribed to me, and I'd like to know. I have absolutely no idea what the following means: "Dexmethylphenidate" is a preparation of the RR enantiomer of MPH. In theory, d-TMP can be anticipated to be twice the strength of the racemic product. Could this technical explanation be followed by a gloss that a liberal arts student like myself could understand? I'd appreciate it, 74.115.41.36 (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Abuse potential

In regards to the phrase at the end of the Therapeutic Use section:
"Importantly, the propensity for "abuse" with d-TMP is much less than for the corresponding racemic product."
The citation for this phrase is a link to a patent for dexmethylphenidate's use (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=5908850) - at the end of the patent there is a claim made that it has lower abuse potential than racemic methylphenidate. In my opinion, this doesn't constitute evidence, as the patent doesn't cite any studies specifically related to its abuse potential. Furthermore, it would logically seem that dexmethylphenidate has a higher potential for abuse, considering that the abuse potential for racemic threo-methylphenidate is most often attributed directly to its properties as a dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and the d- enantiomer is much more effective as a DRI by weight. 76.4.0.151 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)