Talk:Sodium oxybate

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Off-label and European usage?

Is there any information on this drug's current or future availability for off-label in the USA? Proponents see GHB as a safe, non-toxic, borderline wonder drug, with dozens of potential uses including: treatments for depression, anxiety, obesity, alcoholism, drug abuse/dependence, insomnia, ADHD, bipolar disorder, social anxiety disorder and many others. However, the DEA really seems to fear this compound because of its media-fueled notoriety, so despite its being Schedule III, it's tightly controlled. Information on the European use of GHB, whatever name it goes by there would be very informative, and would help tone down the danger rhetoric currently making up a large part of the article. Kel - Ex-web.god 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kel, I'm a GHB sympathizer but I wrote this article with as strict NPOV as I was able. The sources of the claims made here are clearly cited, and as you note the problem is that there isn't any information representing the other side of the debate. You'd need to funnel in info from credentialed experts in biology, pharmacology, public policy, or similar fields. Probably that info would be more useful on the main GHB page, anyway -- it's just bald-faced reefer madness over there. I figured I'd make a small contribution here, rather than wading into that maelstrom.

I'm not aware of the status of GHB in Europe. I agree that the information would be useful, though! Inhumandecency 20:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I apologize if my comment insinuated that you weren't remaining NPOV. I actually agree with everything you just said. I guess we're caught in a catch-22, as credentialed experts willing o say something positive about the substance are rare. I guess that's just the nature of the beast. It also doesn't help that even the Xyrem's own prescribing information is packed, if not consumed, with the reefer madness rhetoric you spoke of. Add to that the ridiculous cost, support program and central pharmacy thing, and it's clear the powers that be don't want the substance out there, even as a prescription.

As for GHB's status in Europe, I'm pretty sure it's banned for recreational use n more than a few countries. WHat I'm hoping someone will add is its use and status as a prescribed medicine. Rare as it may be, the US occasionally takes cues from European medicine trends, and any information of novel uses for existing compounds couldn't hurt. I have lots of anecdotal evidence of GHB being used to spectacular effect for the conditions mentioned above, but nothing citable, hence its absence. Anyway, good job on the article. :) Kel - Ex-web.god 08:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATC Code

Xyrem falls within N07XX04 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.209.161 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles?

Is it really necessary to have two separate articles about the exact same chemical Xyrem™ and gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid? This had also been done with the Morphine and MSIR articles (and since been merged). --- W5WMW (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think it is best to have two separate articles because of the length of the GHB article. There is sufficient length in each article to keep them separate. --Tea with toast (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-I have to disagree, the Xyrem™ article should be merged with the gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid article. As a medical professional, I have found that patients often rely upon Wikipedia as an initial source of information about medications, and I find the Xyrem™ article incomplete without the mechanism of action information discussed in the gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid page. (talk)

I have address your concern about the mechanism of action by creating a section that links to the content found in the GHB article so that it is more accessible to patients. I still believe it is best to keep that articles separate since Xyrem has it's own history that is separate from GHB. I think it would be more difficult for patients to find the information they need if this article was merged with GHB. --Tea with toast (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xyrem should most definitely be a separate article from GHB. GHB has the odd distinction of being both a schedule 1 and schedule 3 substance, with Xyrem being the approved schedule 3 use (even though it is a GHB salt). --98.70.56.46 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]