Talk:Pseudoephedrine

Can anyone get any info on possible hazards, symptoms of overdose, etc? Also it would be worth mentioning that pseudoephedrine can be dangerous to users of dextromethorphan as it is found in many brands of cough syrup that also contain DXM. DryGrain 20:55, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to say paracetamol here? I am not sure what region this should be targeted to but the name used in the states is acetaminophen.

It is very appropriate to say paracetamol. Wikpedia is not exclusively a U.S. reference so the World Health Organization's International Nonproprietary Names (INN) should be used, and paracetamol is the INN. Acetaminophen is a USAN only, and only used in the United States (or anyone else who uses the USP) - the wikiarticle title is an anomaly. -Techelf 00:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The monograph reference seems to be broken

Misuse and illicit use questions

The wording here seems strange to me, in that it claims that some people use it for the stimulant effect but it probably doesn't work unless they are "sensitive" to it. As it is written, it appears to be supposition, but also the sentence itself appears to ultimately become a truism since wouldn't any drug only have effect on those sensitive to it?

All know is, that thanks to the government playing the blame game, sticking htier nose where it dosen't belong, & campaigning on the unwinnable war against drugs (one ingredient at a time) while there are more important things they could be doing, millions of serious allergy sufferers have to suffer even more, because they can only purchace one box every two weeks (at least in Washington State). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first part of your comment is well put; I must agree. The second half isn't really the type of discussion these pages are for, but since it's there I feel a response isn't out of the question: Pseudoephedrine is an ingredient in the clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine, but it is also somewhat dangerous by itself. Studies have linked it to heart problems and stroke (as you can see in the article), and the anxiety and potential for hallucinations (also mentioned in the article) make pseudoephedrine a rather "hard" drug by OTC standards. I personally won't touch the stuff; it always makes me feel psychologically unstable.

Referred to by consumers as Sudafed?

That must be in North America, I suppose. Shouldn't we be more universal? I never heard such a name for pseudoephedrine before --164.77.84.202 16:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed it to be more universal. --Wirbelwind 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here in Oklahoma, for as long as I can remember, it's been quite common to call it Sudafed regardless of the actual brand name on the package. It's like referring to any nose-blowing paper as "Kleenex" or any cola as "Coke". But of course they reformulated name-brand Sudafed so it doesn't contain pseudoephedrine anymore, and thus the generic trademark isn't really appropriate now. Also it doesn't work as well. Grrr... Bouncey 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Phenylephrine?

The Sudafed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudafed article already mentions the PE formulation, and it might be worth noting the possibility of the market moving toward Phenylephrine to avoid the misuse as a precursor for meth. I thougt about adding it but am not sure how to work it into the existing article structure.

I'd suggest adding a section to the end of the article stating precisely that. You might like to mention that the switch is a purely marketing- and politically-driven decision. Techelf 16:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another thing worth mentioning with Sudafed "PE" is rebound congestion; after the drug wears off, your congestion is worse than when it began. This is not a problem with the pseudoephedrine version. Hurray for the war on drugs.

Only topical phenylephrine is associated with rebound congestion. Techelf 11:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sudafed PE seems to not work for me. I am sorry if that is not relevant here, but I hope that any mention of Sudafed PE does not exagerate it's effectiveness. I think that the existing article about Pseudoephedrine is quite reasonable and therefore I am confident that any mention of Sudafed PE will also be reasonable.

Looking at the links on the Phenylephrine page, the British appear to have at least had a debate about this substitution, with some comments casting serious doubt on the effectiveness of Phenylephrine. This is mostly due to the extensive gut metabilism of the molecule, leaving virtually nothing left for systematic delivery. I found relief by doubling the directed dose. Of course, it was in a multi-symptom preparation which meant I also doubled the dosage of the other drugs as well, which is dangerous when acetaminophen is in the mix. I'm of the opinion that this is really a back-door market withdrawal in an attempt to avoid PPA-type class action litigation. Apparently Pseudoephedrine has been significantly linked to an increased risk of stroke. You sign up to buy it now so the pharmaceutical companies will have a solid record of who actually purchased it when the inevitable litigation arises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.113.47 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Pseudoephedrine limitations

Is the U.S. state of Tennessee the only state with a law that limits the sale of pseudoephedrine? I live in Tennessee and would like to know if there are other such laws in other states. Maxistheman 18:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The law in Washington State has recently been changed to limit the sale [1] and possession [2] of pseudoephedrine. -- Jwinters | Talk 28 June 2005 16:26 (UTC)

In New South Wales, products containing pseudoephedrine are in Schedules 2 (Pharmacy Medicine), 3 (Pharmacist Only Medicine) and 4 (Prescription Only Medicine) depending on pack size, strength, and other active constituents. There is some push to make all pseudoephedrine-containing medicines Schedule 3 or 4 only - therefore requiring the intervention of a pharmacist in every sale. -Techelf 13:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In Illinois, retailers are now required to keep not only basic pseudoephedrine behind the counter, but any drug containing pseudoephedrine - including gelcaps with other drugs (such as guaifenesin or dextromethorphan) - must be kept behind the counter, and buyers must sign a log that includes their address, as well as showing a government ID. [3] -Snoopy369 04:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only are the above states just a few of many localities that limit PSE, as of Sept. 31, 2006, controls will go in place across America, as part of a meth control act that was passed with the recent renewal of the Patriot Act. Sales can only be made at a pharmacy counter, you must have federal ID, must sign a log, and are limited to (IIRC) 3.6 grams a day, 9 grams a month of PSE, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine (if that's even available in anything any more). Stricter local laws will override this, of course. Student Driver 16:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The restrictions in NSW referred to above are now in force - all pseudoephedrine-containing products are classified schedule 3 or 4, and details of every purchase must be recorded. I've added the detail to the article. Phil500 10:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions?

The following were placed in the main article by 24.82.186.72

How is Pseudoephedrine made ? is it made ? How is it different from the Ephedrine, I support the Paseudo version is not from the plant,... then from what ? How different would be the Methamphetamine created from those two ? Does the end product will be the exact same ? What would be the official way of creating Methamphetamine ? I mean, the chemistry way, without *ephedrine, the way people can not do themself at home. How different this Methamphetamine would be ?

I added a section titled "Manufacture" to the article. Essentially, pseudoephedrine occurs naturally along with other ephedrine-related compounds in certain plants. However, the pseudoephedrine found in most pharmaceutical products is not derived from plant matter, but instead is produced by yeast fermentation of dextrose in the presence of the enzyme pyruvate decarboxylase.

As for methamphetamine, I believe this is produced commercially (see Desoxyn, for example) by very similar methods to at least one of the illicit production methods: ephedrine or pseudoephedrine is used as a precursor, which is then reduced and catalytically hydrogenated using raney nickel and gaseous hydrogen, perhaps. As for the result, there is theoretically no difference between methamphetamine produced in this manner and methamphetamine produced illicitly; in practice, however, most "street meth" likely is less refined than commercially produced batches, and may contain contaminants such as unreacted precursors, lingering intermediates (such as iodomethamphetamine, for example), and the like. While there are ways to produce methamphetamine without using ephedrine, it would be my guess that commercial pharmaceutical manufacturers nonetheless probably do use ephedrine as a precursor, given its very low cost in bulk. —Ryanaxp 15:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Brand names redirecting here?

Some of the brand names listed at the end redirect to this page (like Contact, which I was actually trying to look up for its early use of time-release capsules). Seems inaccurate to me. Outside of Sudafed and the like, it's a bit imprecise to list things like Contac or Actifed as being PSE-based; some have been (or will be) reformulated to not contain PSE, and the trade names (unlike Sudafed) don't refer specifically to pseudoephedrine-- Contac is a trade name for cold medicines in general, Actifed for triprolidine/decongestant mixture, etc. Student Driver 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Appetite suppressant?

Does anyone know anything about the effect of pseudoephedrine on appetite? A Google search turns up a good number of articles investigating this and even arguing for the use of PSE to suppress appetite. However, I don't have the expertise to evaluate them. I just got curious because every time I take PSE for sinusitis etc., I can barely eat anything & was wondering if that's peculiar to me or a common side effect. Possible off-label use, misuse, or--? PoetrixViridis 01:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

"- Top Care brand mfg. by Topco" doesn't sound very neutral to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.104.147 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling / Usage Suggestions + Questions

Under 'Chemistry,' the article states "does not reduce to D-methamphetamine (which is the enatiomer used as a recreational drug), and..." Make that enantiomer.

Also under 'Chemistry,' the article reads "L-Pseudoephedrine ... has fewer side-effects, fewer central nervous system (CNS) stimulatory effects, does not reduce to D-methamphetamine ... and yet it retains its efficacy as a decongestant. However, the patent holder for L-pseudoephedrine (Pfizer/Warner-Lambert) has not yet sought or received government approval for its sale to the public."

The key thought here is that it's just as effective, but can't be used as a precursor to methamphetamine. That certainly catches people's attention. And because interest in this topic is high (since many find pseudoephedrine very effective and phenylephrine a total dud), the first thought is "Great - let's have it!". So the immediate question occurs in the reader's mind "Why not?" when (s)he reads that Phizer / Warner - Lambert "have not yet sought..." (after knowing now for several years that the existing enantiomer would be restricted). Does the author feel it is 'out of scope' to comment on this point - illumination of which would be of high interest? Has Phizer issued any comments (such as "We're working on it" or...)?

Under "Mode of action," the article states "The displaced noradrenaline is released into the neuronal synapse where it is free to activate the aforementioned postsynaptic adrenergic receptors." Since 'postsynaptic' is already implicit in the notion of 'adrenergic receptor,' perhaps 'postsynaptic' is superfluous / redundant / confusing to those not well versed in such details, and should be eliminated. To leave the wording as written gives the impression (since 'postsynaptic' adrenergic receptors are mentioned) - that there must also be 'presynaptic' adrenergic receptors.

Under "United States federal law" the article states "The Federal statute included the following requirements for merchants ("regulated seller") who sell these products:

- Required verification of proof of identity of all purchasers

- 30 day (not monthly) sales limit not to exceed 7.5 grams if sold by mail-order ...

It may be so (that this is the way the statute reads), but isn't there something jarring about seeing "proof of identity" juxtaposed with "sold by mail order"? How can a mail order sale be compatible with "proof of identity"?

Not the author's issue, but side comment on classic bureaucratic gobbledygook: "verification of proof of..." (cringe).

Also, should 'for merchants ("regulated seller")' read 'for merchants ("regulated sellers)?

In all other ways I found the article very informative / helpful - thanks!

Steve Ferris

SDFerris@PatMedia.net

24.149.176.158 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

List of brand names

I have removed the list of brand names, as it seems to be unencyclopedic and doesn't fit in a Wikipedia article. --DaniAmaranth (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)