From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Adderall has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
December 3, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of psychoactive and recreational drugs 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Huge problem![edit]

This article says "there is no systemic evidence that amphetamines produce aggression or hostility" or something to that effect--but the source says that while that is the case, the patient SHOULD BE AWARE FOR SIGNS OF AGGRESSION AND HOSTILITY, REGARDLESS, while taking Addderall. Check the citation yourself and you will see.

This is a CRUCIAL part of information that has been excluded from that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:06, 15 March 2015‎ (UTC)

"Aggressive behavior or hostility is often observed in children and adolescents with ADHD, and has been reported in clinical trials and the postmarketing experience of some medications indicated for the treatment of ADHD. Although there is no systematic evidence that stimulants cause aggressive behavior or hostility, patients beginning treatment for ADHD should be monitored for the appearance of or worsening of aggressive behavior or hostility."
This literally states that there's an effect associated with ADHD individuals to watch for, nothing more. Stimulants may, in fact, reduce aggression in ADHD individuals, but there's no systematic evidence of that either. That said, there's no reason to change the sentence. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Although there is no systematic evidence that stimulants cause aggressive behavior or hostility, patients beginning treatment for ADHD should be monitored for the appearance of or worsening of aggressive behavior or hostility."

My friend, do you not see the implication that stimulant treatment may worsen the symptoms? It's very clear. That's why they begin with "although"--because even though there's no "systematic" evidence, it's still a possibility.

Look at this citation from one of the largest licensed pharmacies in the USA: Adderall may cause mental problems, such as new or worse behavior and thought problems, including increased aggressive or hostile behavior. People with bipolar disorder need special care when taking Adderall.

Why not include the entire sentence from the FDA page, instead of a portion of it? It won't hurt the article. One could simply include the rest of the sentence for the sake of clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I'm not is because: "stimulants may, in fact, reduce aggression in ADHD individuals, but there's no systematic evidence of that either."
The other material is all covered in the contraindications section. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 18:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

repeated content[edit]

Many sections of this article are repeated several times, making the page incredibly long. (e.g. the "addiction" paragraph appears 5 times in the table of content, each pointing to duplicate instance of the content) It must be some sort of editing glitch, I imagine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is all the transcluded templates that copy in material from amphetamine. Some of them are apparently broken. This complex structure makes it difficult for editors to edit and maintain this article. IMHO, these templates should be substituted and redundant material between articles should be minimized. {{main}} templates pointing to the relevant sections of amphetamine should be sufficient for readers interested in more information. Boghog (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Whenever a transclusion breaks on this page, the amphetamine page should just be reverted until someone can address the changes that the reverted edit(s) made. In this case, it was this edit that removed the selective transclusion parameters (the triple bracketed text), which made every selective transclusion on this page a full-page transclusion. This is why it repeated multiple sections. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for being so harsh, but this page is over engineered and unmaintainable. How on earth is some one supposed to figure which edit on amphetamine is supposed to be undone? At a bare minimum, the cross links should be documented with in-line warnings of unintended consequences if these templates are edited. However it would be much better to substitute these templates so that such warning become unnecessary. Finally these transclusions are needlessly duplicating material. Boghog (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The syntax is actually pretty simple. Any material that is nested between "onlyinclude" tags in the amphetamine article is a selective transclusion. The following two lines create a selective transclusion from amphetamine:

  1. <onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|section-name}}}|section-name|
    Article text goes here...
  2. }}</onlyinclude>

In this example, the target article would then transclude this particular content using {{:amphetamine|transcludesection=section-name}}

That's literally all there is to it. Every transclusion error that has occurred up to this point has arisen from the closing syntax being deleted (i.e., the "}}</onlyinclude>") or the parameter syntax (i.e., the "{{{transcludesection|section-name}}}") being deleted. That's really the only part of the source code that needs to be checked to address/fix transclusion errors. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Added: the only reason these transclusions exist is because of content overlap in lisdexamfetamine, dextroamphetamine, this article, and amphetamine. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Chemical Study Aid[edit]

Why is there no Controversy section for this article? For a number of years Adderall (and now the web-sold Addium) have been abused by college students using its stimulant effects for a chemical study aid:

When you combine the above with the existing brief section about Adderall and athletes it seems to me there really ought to be a Controversy section. Opinions? (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies in advance if I'm replying to your question the wrong way. I just clicked on "edit source".

I never care what the newspapers say, however, I do care about what evidence based medicine says. In my personal opinion, Addium is nothing but a glorified vitamin. Please take a look at its active ingredients, and you'll notice that it's basically caffeine, L-tyrosine, GABA, and a bunch of other controversial herbals that have zero science behind them (Huperzine A comes to mind). The company is essentially saying that "well, we know the precursors to dopamine in the brain - let's dump them together and make a pill out of it, and cross our fingers and hope that they get converted to dopamine".

With that being said, it almost makes me sound like I'm saying that Adderall is even a dopamine-reuptake inhibitor, which it isn't - it's so much more complicated, particularly when we start talking about trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) and vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2). And still, there is still research going on about how Adderall works. There is some very heavy science behind it. But I don't know if what I'm saying means that you're not right and that Addium shouldn't be added to the article. I have no idea honestly. I can just tell you that there is science behind Adderall, and pretty much nothing backing up Addium. Heck, if I swallowed a whole bottle of Addium, I'd be surprised if I get anything more than some mild diarrhea.

An article worth looking into:

As I mentioned though, I am not sure if this means that a "Controversy" section shouldn't be opened. It's just that when I see people abusing these vitamins, I can't help but laugh at them because you'd be surprised how powerful a placebo effect can be. I guess I just feel like it's almost an insult to the many years of biochemical research it took to make Adderall by mentioning some glorified vitamin in the same article. But this is just my personal opinion and I don't agree or disagree with you about adding the section. I'm just not too familiar with the way people decide on adding sections or what the requirements are. Have a good rest of the weekend!

Boonshofter (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@, Wikipedia strongly discourages Controversy sections because everyone who has an ax to grind adds to it and it becomes overbloated in violation of WP:WEIGHT. Instead, criticisms should be discussed in other relevant sections of an article, which is the case here. There are also criticisms of this and other stimulant medications in other ADHD-related artciles. ADHD in general is a complex and controversial topic. Look around at related articles; you'll find information on controversies. Secondly, this is a medical article, and the sources you link do not meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. Sundayclose (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually Sundayclose, respectfully, the sources I provided DO meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. Please note:
The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[21] costs, and risks versus benefits,[22] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[23] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[24] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources.
A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the |laysummary= parameter of Empty citation (help) .
Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article. [emphasis added]
The wide-spread abuse of this medication is definitely both a social and a current-affairs topic appropriate to be in this article. (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly agree more with your assessment. They were all newspaper articles that were quoting Addium. I didn't even bother reading them honestly. My cousin is doing her biochemistry thesis on one of those receptors, which is why I felt that I had to chime in. She's been through hell and back to get actual results she can now publish after 4 years. She defends her thesis in a few weeks actually. Thanks for your input :)

Boonshofter (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually the illicit use of Adderall by students is already briefly mentioned in the Adderall#Performance-enhancing and cites Adderall#cite_note-pmid16999660-50. Perhaps this could be expanded a bit with this more recent review:
Boghog (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is a great article, from a respectable journal. I actually read it before... but I believe that the original person who asked to create the "controversy" section was more interested in talking about Addium. But I agree, it's a very well established article in the scientific community.

Boonshofter (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that the original editor who started this thread was more interested in Adderall than Addium. All the four links provided at the beginning of this thread concern Adderall and not Addium. Addium was only mentioned in passing. Finally to state the obvious, this article (and talk page) is about Adderall and not Addium. Boghog (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I wasn't taught my medicine from newspaper articles - we were taught evidence based medicine in medical school - residency was based on solid peer-reviewed articles. So the second I noticed he was quoting sites like CNN, I didn't bother even looking at them. I was also under the impression that he was more interested in Addium than Adderall, and it seems I misread what he was trying to say (which I apologize for).

Regardless, I never intended to offend, and please accept my apologies if I did. Your point is very well taken, and your insight is very much appreciated.

Boonshofter (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being so terse. I just wanted to make sure that the discussion on this talk page remained focused on Adderall. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see how this drug is controversial. It has well-established ergogenic and nootropic effects and associated adverse effects, which are all comprehensively covered in this article and cited to current reviews of medical research. Unlike the 4 sources at the top of this section, this article does not include value-based opinions as to whether or not a certain behavior (i.e., recreational drug use, doping in sports, or the use of diverted controlled substances as a nootropic) should be practiced, based upon cultural norms and the author's perception of the risks/benefits. As these behaviors aren't specific to this drug, any content relevant to one of these 3 uses would be more appropriate in the associated article than in this one. That said, any medical claims/justifications added to an article would still require WP:MEDRS compliance for the citation. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The increasing illicit use of Adderall to enhance academic performance is certainly notable and is somewhat unique to this drug. Furthermore just stating the prevalence of this use is not a medical claim, but nevertheless, there is a MEDRS complaint source (PMID: 22694135) that can be used to support this statement. Finally this article already mentions this use in the Adderall#Performance-enhancing section. I agree that we do not need to create a separate controversy section, but instead expand the existing performance-enhancing section. Boghog (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I'll read through it over the next day or two and update either this page or the amphetamine transclusion, depending on what it says. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest that if the current Performance-enhancing section is modified that it include named subsections of Academic Enhancement and Athletic Enhancement for ease of access to these topics by non-medical readers looking for information on these issues. We also could refactor the article entirely to group both Performance enhancing and Recreational use under an umbrella topic of Non-prescription use or Illicit use (Are there any cases of Adderall being used for performance enhancement under medical supervision?). If agreeable I would be willing to do the section reorganization work myself. (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I realize that this is primarily a medical article but knowledge does not live in a vacuum. This medical substance has real-world effects on human behaviour and human lives. That information is found in newspaper articles and should not be excluded just because it is not strictly medical in nature. I selected only well established and vetted journalistic news sources for reference. WP is not a medical encyclopedia, it is a comprehensive encyclopedia.

As for my sources not meeting the standards of WP:MEDRS please see my comment above in response to user Sundayclose.

The drug itself is not controversial as far as I can determine, but the human abuse of the drug in both sports and academia is. I am fine with avoiding a section labeled Controversy as long as the topic is given its due weight in light of the scope and scale of the abuse issue. How much weight would be given to such a topic if the same number of people were being harmed by a side-effect rather than by abuse?

One thing to keep in mind is that people come to Wikipedia for information. They may not be medically oriented readers. Imagine a high school kid comes to WP looking for information on the use of Adderall for sports enhancement or getting good grades. How easy is it going to be for that kid to find the information he needs to realize that such uses are both illegal and unsafe? No, we are not trying to be social workers, just an information provider, but we need to make that information accessible to ALL types of readers, not just subject specialists. (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a medical encyclopedia, but by long-standing consensus it has certain standards for medical articles. And those standards are not intended for the article to be only for "specialists"; they are intended to maintain unbiased accuracy (as much as is possible within current scientific research) that does not put undue weight on current newspaper and magazine articles which are very prone to publishing information without enough scientific validity. Medical review articles in peer reviewed journals are far more likely to reflect the current status of a particular medical topic compared to the headlines of newspapers and magazines. Wikipedia is not written for specialists only, but it also is not written for high school students who rely on an encyclopedia rather than medical advice to make a decision about drug use. I also oppose dividing the Performance-enhancing section. It is not a lengthy section, and it gives adequate WP:WEIGHT to the topic. Additionally, as has been pointed out (but largely ignored) Adderall is one of a number of drugs related to ADHD. Controversies are included in those related articles. Our goal is not to concentrate all of the discussion of controversies into the Adderall article, but it is to provide an overview of those issues with links for the reader to follow for more details. Sundayclose (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that Adderall is being illicitly used by students as a academic performance enhancing drug is not a medical claim and hence is outside the scope of WP:MEDRS. Adderall appears to be one of the most widely used drugs for this purpose and that statement is backed up by a reliable secondary source (see PMID: 22694135) and hence is fair game to included in this article. Sources like the New York Times are also acceptable sources to support this statement. Boghog (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Boghog, I don't disagree with a well sourced statement about Adderall being one of the most widely used drugs by students as an academic performance enhancing drug. But I emphasize one statement; not a paragraph and certainly not a separate subsection, per WP:WEIGHT. Sundayclose (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think what Boghog mentioned about a brief statement on diversion prevalence is worth adding simply because some readers (including me) would probably be interested in knowing about it. I downloaded the paper Boghog linked, but I haven't read through it yet. I'll get around to this soon though. Anyway, I think it's probably fairly obvious to readers that both the recreational use and the diversion of Adderall (or any other drug) is controversial; I actually can't think of any victimless crime that doesn't involve some form of controversy at the moment. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added the diversion prevalence data to that statement. Seppi333 (Insert ) 12:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: Adderall vs Addium[edit]

I just wanted to clarify a small point in my original post: Above some of the Editors seem to have keyed in on my parenthesised comment, "(and now the web-sold Addium)", as if that was my primary concern, for the record it is not. Respectfully the very fact that my comment was in parentheses should have been a clue about the level of significance I attached to the sub-topic. Furthermore, contrary Boonshofter's comment about the four source links ("They were all newspaper articles that were quoting Addium.") NONE of these articles even mention Addium by name, though there is a brief mention about "fake Adderall" in one of them.

The sole reason I mentioned Addium in passing is because it is being called "legal Adderall" in web advertisements and email spams for the product. In fact the reason why I came to this article was to find out what Adderall is. Prior to seeing one of these spams I didn't even know about the history of the abuse issue. I would suspect that our "customers" (people who come to the encyclopedia looking for information) would likely do much the same. (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We got it (see our follow-up comments above). Boghog (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Ooops! missed that. Thanks Boghog. (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I'm honestly blown away - although there's disagreement at times as I read the comments above, I love the professionalism, and I love even more how passionate everyone is in making Wikipedia a better resource. I have no clue how I would've gone through medical school if it weren't for Wikipedia. I'm not very technologically savvy, so I felt bad that I couldn't do edits like everyone else (without screwing up the article somehow). So when I graduated from medical school, I decided to make a huge donation to Wikipedia instead -- to make up for my lack of edits. I just felt so bad. At the end of the day, it boils down to each and every one of you guys making these comments above - you guys are the reason Wikipedia has been my primary source (and literally the source of every medical student in my class, and probably the majority of students in any discipline across the country). Thank you for being so passionate about your opinions and not backing down, regardless if someone disagrees with you or not. It's all about respecting each others' opinions. Boghog, you were not terse at all -- you were passionate about your opinion, and that alone deserves a lot of respect. Thanks again! Boonshofter (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


The article "mixamphetamine" is basically just a copy of this article but with a different name. It was decided earlier that the brand name "Adderall" should be used to describe the drug. Andrea Carter (at your service | my evil deads) 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Mixamphetamine is a made up word that is not supported by reliable sources. Furthermore mixamphetamine is almost an exact copy of Adderall, so there is nothing to merge. Rather than "merging" with a redirect left behind, mixamphetamine should be simply deleted (and salted to prevent it from being recreated). Boghog (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Seppi333 (Insert ) 04:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposing a name change to Mixed Amphetamine Salts[edit]

So I recognize that I'm kinda beating a dead horse here, but titling this page "Adderall" is really not justified (and yes, this needs to be brought up again, hear me out). I know there's a lot of generic names, and that it has no INN/USAN/etc, but that's still no excuse! Mixed Amphetamine Salts (MAS) is the generic name pretty much universally used in the scientific literature on this drug. Why don't we use that? Here's a sampling of some of the major mentions in the literature:

I have numerous examples that'd fall under WP:OR, so I won't include them, but I hope it's pretty clear just how common the use of brand names is and how well recognized they are vs generics. I've spent too much time on this already to research further, but I'd be surprised if there isn't more research on consumer recognition and usage of brand names out there that'd back this up even more strongly.

My argument is basically that you cannot use the lack of a INN/USAN as justification to use the brand name -- this is not at all consistent with other drug articles. Yes, it's a semi-unique case, but even then, consistency demands the use of the accepted generic name, which appears to be either "Mixed Amphetamine Salts" or "mixed salts of a single-entity amphetamine product", with the former having better evidence to support its use, but the latter being slightly more official due to its use in FDA documents and the monograph. There is no remaining justification for the continued use of Adderall. As with other drugs, a redirect from Adderall to the correct page name should be created, and that is more than enough to address the issue of it being more familiar to people -- this is what every other drug article does about brand names.

So, here's my arguments, my evidence to support the usage of "Mixed Amphetamine Salts", etc. I think this makes a very strong case for the name change. Garzfoth (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm being simplistic, but my understanding is that Adderall is a mixed amphetamine salt, but a mixed amphetamine salt is not necessarily identical to Adderall. I'm not just referring to current drugs, but also those that could be developed in the future. Sundayclose (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
True, but with some limitations. Adderall formulations are the only approved forms of Mixed Amphetamine Salts in existence, and will likely remain that way long-term. In the event that some other form of mixed salts is approved in the future, the page could extend to cover both drugs (which is pretty viable IMO), or another solution could be worked out, but that isn't a current concern. Given the widespread usage of MAS in the literature (usually preferred over the brand name), it's clear that the naming is widely accepted/used with little concern for conflicts. There's a lot of methylphenidate formulations, but we only have one page to cover all of them despite the large differences between methylphenidate formulations. Garzfoth (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Special:Permalink/682022807#Changing Title Back to "Amphetamine Mixed Salts" Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Methylphenidate is a generic name, which is why all the formulations can be included in one article. Thanks for bringing this up for discussion, but I think the title should remain as it is. This is a unique situation that requires a unique solution, not using a title that may at some point be inaccurate or obsolete. Sundayclose (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Clearly 'Mixed amphetamine salts' has some usage in literature as Garzfoth has quite extensively documented above. Since this isn't the official generic name, the question is whether 'Amphetamine mixed salts' is represented more in literature than 'Adderall'. I am inclined to believe 'Adderall' is more prevalently used, although I am open to numbers showing otherwise. Sizeofint (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually MAS may be more commonly used in research literature because researchers try not to use brand names. It is not incorrect for a researcher to use MAS if Adderall is studied because Adderall is a MAS. But it would be potentially inaccurate, in my opinion, to title a Wikipedia article on Adderall "Mixed amphetamine salts" because there could be MAS drugs that are not Adderall. Sundayclose (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion gives me the urge to facepalm.
But WP:PHARMOS does not support using it, and neither does WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. - I have no clue what this is referring to in either of these policies. MOS:MED/MOS:PHARM were revised after the previous discussion closed to ensure exceptional drug articles with brand name titles like Heroin and Adderall don't have to follow their nonproprietary names in the title.
AMS and MAS are both names for the generic formulation. They are not nonproprietary names for Adderall. As for pubmed prevalence, 95 pubmed articles include the term "mixed amphetamine salts" and 0 include the term "amphetamine mixed salts" while 177 include the term "Adderall". In practice, I've never seen the AMS or MAS terms used outside of pubmed. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Edit: and 178 articles include the term "Obetrol" Obetrol is apparently indexed to "Adderall" on pubmed. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good grief! I thought the previous discussion put this issue to rest. My biggest problem with the name "amphetamine mixed salts" is that it is imprecise. Yes, generally we have only one article to represent different formulations of the same drug. However we also have different articles to represent racemic mixtures or optically pure versions of the same parent compound. Adderall is special case which is neither racemic nor optically pure but optically enriched. Furthermore the ratio of enantiomers in the mixture does result in subtle but none-the-less important pharmacological differences. The precise generic name for Adderall is "dextroamphetamine saccharate, amphetamine aspartate monohydrate, dextroamphetamine sulfate and amphetamine sulfate" which is way too long to be used as an article name. The only practical way to name this article is Adderall. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This may settle the debate over the generalizability of MAS: pubmed 25973928 - "Amphetamine (AMP) drug substance refers to the racemic 1:1 mixture of two enantiomers with central nervous system stimulant activity: dextroamphetamine [D-AMP; S-AMP (IUPAC)] and levoamphetamine [L-AMP; R-AMP (IUPAC)]. Mixed AMP salts (MAS) products are nonracemic combinations of four salts in a 1:1:1:1 ratio (by weight): D-AMP sulfate, D-AMP saccharate, AMP aspartate, and AMP sulfate. The ratio of D-AMP salts to L-AMP salts in MAS products is 3:1, whereas the ratio of base D-AMP to base L-AMP is approximately 3.15:1. This combination of AMP salts was approved for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Adderall IR (NDA 11522) is an immediate-release (IR) tablet formulation of MAS, and Adderall XR (NDA 21303) is an oral formulation of MAS consisting of two types of pellets in the ratio of 1:1 (in terms of drug load) in a gelatin capsule: an IR pellet and a delayed release (DR) pellet.6" Garzfoth (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this typical usage of the terms or are these just definitions for the purposes of that paper? Sizeofint (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
That is not clarified explicitly, but given that this is a publication produced by FDA researchers and classified as U.S. Government work, the explicit definitions of MAS products used here are extremely significant to this discussion. Garzfoth (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There are two problems with that argument. First, the FDA position does not necessarily represent a world view and the scope of Wikipedia is wider than the U.S. Second, the FDA has arbitrarily defined amphetamine mixed salts as identical to Adderall. There are an infinite number of possible mixed salts of amphetamine. Adderall is only one. Boghog (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Adderall is marketed exclusively or almost exclusively in the United States (and to a limited extent, Canada). It's unclear if it's actually available to any significant degree outside of these two countries, there's enough supporting evidence to strongly suspect the drug is literally not marketed internationally at all! Thus the US-centric view is more than appropriate here, in fact, it is the only appropriate view to take here, as we are the only country where this drug is marketed and sold. The use of generic names is intended to remove the specific formulation-drug ties, hence, a mixed amphetamine salts article would cover any mixed amphetamine salts products in the same way that the methylphenidate article covers any methylphenidate products. This is exactly the current usage of wikipedia. The action of Concerta is substantially different to the action of Ritalin, but as both use methylphenidate as the active ingredient, they do not get separate articles. The method and action of bupropion differs substantially with formulation, but we don't have separate articles for IR/SR/XL, nor do we for Zyban. The same applies to any generic drug or just any drug with multiple release forms. We only have separate articles under certain conditions. The split of this article out of the amphetamine article is justified on the basis that the mixed amphetamine salts formulation is a separate entity from the generalized superset of amphetamine pharmaceutical products, which includes lisdexamfetamine, dextroamphetamine, and even methamphetamine. It now includes racemic amphetamine too, which did not get its own article, although that may be an issue worth addressing. At any rate, I am not really disputing the legitimacy of having an article for MAS, I am disputing the legitimacy of considering Adderall to be a specific MAS formulation deserving its own article when the generic term always applies to numerous possible formulations, many of which differ substantially in their effects! Your argument rests on the assumption that we cannot consider MAS to be a generic name due to its broadness, but the only reason for this that you have been able to produce is a hypothetical new formulation of amphetamine salts that also uses the name MAS, which would either just fall under this page anyways due to the use of MAS, or not use the name MAS in the first place due to MAS being very firmly defined as the 1:1:1:1 mixture of specific amphetamine salts.
It is also noteworthy that in this particular document relating to Adderall XR, the "Established Name" is defined as "Mixed Amphetamine Salts". In this letter, Adderall is again defined as "mixed amphetamine salts". This noteworthy document demonstrates that MAS is considered the generic term for equivalent products. This older document shows the FDA's use of MAS alongside the lengthier "mixed~salts of a single entity amphetamine product" definition (followed by using it throughout the document instead of the longer definition", which is also interesting for defining that any non-equivalent formulations of amphetamine salts would require another ANDA -- which does not mean that the same generic name could even be used, and if so, if it would be any different from the usage of the same generic name for multiple branded drugs that is widespread. We have no evidence to support the claim that another drug would use the same brand name, and we have no justification to split apart the drug pages in the unlikely event of that happening. This is in part an issue that the FDA would be expected to handle, and the way they handle it would have a significant impact on how the naming of this article could function. We still do not have anything to support not combining multiple MAS drugs with different ratios -- especially as there are multiple amphetamine formulations covered under single pages. The only difference is that there may be a different change in the pharmacological action with different ratios -- but how is this different from the changes depending on release mechanism? I'm not denying the difference, I'm just saying that it's not substantial enough to not combine these hypothetical drugs into a single article, and that it should be treated no differently from brand names of other generic drugs.
Sorry, this turned into a whole wall of text, it's hard to explain this clearly. I can see your argument, but I don't agree that it works here, especially given how broadly acknowledged the term "mixed amphetamine salts" is by the FDA and in the literature, including in many many major papers, a Cochrane review, publications from Shire employees, etc. The papers that do not immediately cite MAS when citing Adderall have an entirely different composition to the ones that do, and many only show that the use of the brand name is popular among clinicians, and as the research I included earlier shows, clinicians suffer from a universal brand-name bias. This also applies to other users who are not familiar with the field, who revert to the brand name -- and much of the research papers where the only mention of Adderall is in passing, and it is notable that a large number of these are also using the brand names for other drugs (especially stimulant drugs), indicating that the use of brand names over generics is not exclusive to Adderall in many cases. Widespread usage of a brand name by this population is not a counterpoint, as this is common with drugs, and the usage of only brand names for these papers (both in not defining/using an Adderall generic name, and in only using brand names for multiple mentioned drugs) is supportive of this view. As I have quite extensively illustrated in my initial post (which was close to thirty-thousand character and contained an extremely impressive slice of the research literature), MAS is the accepted generic name in a very large amount of high quality literature across a long span of time. A crucial point from the literature I mentioned is that the term MAS is usually used in place of the brand name with few exceptions, indicating that not only is it the generic name, but it is the preferred name for researchers! This is important too, because the other potential generic names are NOT preferred by researchers in this way in other literature, they are only mentioned in passing and are not used further. Again, it's important to highlight the drastically different composition of the literature not using MAS, as well as the differences in how brand names are used in this set of research, especially in cases where other drugs are defined by brand names too.
I could go on and on about this... The contrast between the two groups of literature is stark. I will admit that it illustrates the widespread usage of the brand name among the broader population, but it fails to disprove that MAS is the preferred generic term, and most importantly, it does not allow you to claim that Adderall should be used over MAS because this usage difference is no different from any other case of a drug name vs a drug generic! This is a major point -- we do NOT name wikipedia articles solely to attract the largest number of people for a large number of reasons, because if we did, every other drug article would not be using the generic name. Methylphenidate is a good example once again, as most people know it as Ritalin or Concerta. Wellbutrin is a pretty good example (I think I already mentioned this), there are countless others, Vyvanse is a particularly good illustration of a case where the generic name is rarely used and will likely never become frequently used, yet we name it lisdexamfetamine all the same. Poorer but quick examples I can think of include certain antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Lexapro, Luvox, Celexa, Paxil, Cymbalta, Effexor (this is a good example), etc), a number of PPIs (Nexium, Prevacid, Prilosec, Losec, etc), antipsychotics (Abilify, Geodon, Invega, Latuda, Risperdal, Seroquel, Zyprexa, Thorazine, etc), drugs like Viagra/Cialis, a number of benzos (Xanax, Ativan, Klonopin, Valium, etc), Z-drugs (Ambien, Lunesta, etc), AEDs/mood stabilizers (Lamictal, Topamax, Depakote, Keppra, etc), and that's just a tiny slice of the drugs out there focusing primarily on psych/neuro drugs... I know that Adderall is a slightly different case, and that the usage of the brand name is somewhat unusually prolific with it, but the difference does not justify this, the same policy should apply, especially so given that this drug has been available as a generic for so long. We should not be using a brand name over a generic name whenever possible, and this drug is far different from the very rare exceptions to the policy of using generic names. I strongly dispute the claim that usage of the brand name in any way supports using Adderall.
So... Why not go with Mixed Amphetamine Salts? Like methylphenidate (MPH), it has a useful shorthand form (MAS). It's very well supported by certain major sources, much more so than any other generic name or even the brand name itself. The argument that popularity alone overrules this fails in light of the countless drugs where the generic name is used irregardless of how popular it is or is not, establishing quite firmly that this should not be a consideration here when we have evidence supporting this broadly-accepted generic name. We may not have a USAN or INN to guide the naming of the article, so this is a unique case, but it is my view that we should handle this unique case by using the name that the FDA had defined as the "Established Name", the name used by so many widespread sources, by researchers behind the most major papers (representing a large chunk of the literature), by a Cochrane review, by publications from Shire employees, by the FDA itself, and by numerous third-parties too... It appears to be a drug that is only available in US/CA, so international issues do not even apply, and in particular there are no issues with using the FDA as a major source.
So anyways, there's my response. Garzfoth (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
TL;DR If you have something to say, say it succinctly. Boghog (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
He summarizes his argument in the last paragraph. Sizeofint (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that Sizeofint, I suppose that does summarize most of it. Boghog, it's like 1600 words, that shouldn't take too long to read, and I covered a lot of stuff in the detail it needed rather than making inaccurate oversimplifications. Don't use Tl;Dr as an excuse, that's complete bullshit here. Garzfoth (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Adderall a psychoactive drug itself or a mixture of psychoactive drugs?[edit]

@Sundayclose, Seppi333, and Garzfoth: With this diff I proposed identifying Adderall as a mixture of salts of levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine rather than as a psychoactive drug. Sundayclose subsequently reverted so I am opening this discussion. Possibly this is splitting hairs but I am under the impression that Adderall refers to a specific mixture of amphetamine salts. Adderall being psychoactive follows from it containing these salts. Hence dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine are the psychoactive drugs in Adderall while Adderall refers to mixture. Essentially it is the difference between whether Adderall "is" a psychoactive drug or Adderall "contains" psychoactive drugs. Sizeofint (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit and accidentally did not leave an edit summary (apologies). I reverted for two reasons. First, you removed "a psychostimulant drug of the phenethylamine class", and there is no reason to remove it. "Psychostimulant of the phenethylamine class" should remain regardless of whether we call it a drug or a mixture. Secondly, Adderall is considered a brand-name drug by the U.S. FDA and should be identified as a drug. Other drug mixtures are identified by their brand-name rather than their individual components (e.g., Percocet). There's no reason Adderall should be an exception. Thanks for discussing here. Sundayclose (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with the first reason, we should definitely make sure to include that bit. However, you are completely wrong about how drug mixtures are handled, and your comment is actually extremely relevant given what I was discussing above in the renaming section, it's a great example that just reinforces my point even further. Garzfoth (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I cut that portion because it is in the relevant constituent drug articles but the article can be phrased to keep it. Percocet is in bad shape but we currently never explicitly identify it as a drug. Currently the drug article says drugs are [[chemical substance]s which are differentiated from mixtures. It may be there is a technical sense to the word drug referring to chemical substances and a colloquial sense referring to chemical substances and mixtures. In any case I think we should stay consistent with the drug article. There is also combination drug which would seem to apply here given the fixed ratio. Sizeofint (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You're correct Sizeofint, Adderall is a drug product but not a drug, so the current version is clearly wrong. Garzfoth (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about the drug vs. mixture issue, so I don't object if someone wants to change it. Sundayclose (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Adderall is a drug. Adderall is a drug product. Adderall is psychoactive. Let's not be overly pedantic. Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)