Posted by jojo on August 23, 2001, at 23:37:46
In reply to Re: Temgesic » JahL, posted by Elizabeth on August 23, 2001, at 11:02:44
> > Thanx (as per usual) for yr answers.
>
> You're welcome. I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful.
>
> > I started out on half a pill the previous day but felt nothing. 0.2mg & then 0.3mg also had no positive effect upon any of my symptoms & exacerbated one or two of them.
>
> What I would do is take 0.1 mg for a few days (at least), then go up to 0.2 mg for a bit, then try 0.3, and so on until it works (or you get to ridiculous doses, I guess!). This way you develop tolerance to the side effects so you can get up to an effective dose (if there is one for you). I started out with 0.5 mL of the injectable sol'n (0.3 mg/mL), which wasn't really optimal for me but did help some, and then increased it to 1 mL after about 10 days (IIRC). When I missed it for a few days and then tried taking 1 mL without titrating, I was vomiting all day. (The story is really kind of funny: I went to see _The Matrix_ that day, and I threw up before the movie and again several hours afterwards, but not during or shortly after the movie. With the FX in that movie, I would have expected to be throwing up through the whole thing without even taking anything! < g >)
>
> FWIW, I've heard of people taking as much as 16 mg/day of the SL formulation (these are addicts, mind you, so their tolerance is through the roof).
>
> I have serious doubts about the reliability of the sublingual route, though. Seems to me you'd end up swallowing an unpredictable amount of the pill before it got absorbed.
>
> > No way could I handle more than 0.3. I'd be comatose.
>
> Tolerance is your friend here.
>
> > If Bupe was going to be of any benefit wouldn't I have at least *some* idea by now (given that opioids are fast-acting)? As yet no indication whatsoever.
>
> I would expect so. But then again, I have no idea what the effective dose range would be for SL buprenorphine. For all I know, taking 0.2 mg SL is like taking 0.1 mL (0.03 mg -- it's potent, but not *that* potent) IN!
>
> Something from another post of yours, BTW:
> > I've seen plenty of stuff on this. Certain races being slower metabolizers etc. In the future yr racial background could well influence yr treatment.
>
> I doubt it. The various "races" aren't really as easily distinguishable as all that. In the USA, at least, most "black" people really have some "white" ancestry, for example. I was always in favour of the melting pot idea (i.e., the "races" aren't distinguished, we're all just human beings), but that's become unfashionable lately. :-P
>
> -elizabethElizabeth-
That's why I put the word "race" in quotes. Whatever scientific meaning that it may posses is statistical and says nothing about the individual, but it does refer to one's chance of possessing certain genes, which has an effect on their disease susceptibility and drug response, and is more than just being a fast or slow metabolizer. As to individual drug response, the proof is still in the pudding, as they say.BTW, it sounds like you and JahL (don't know about Neal) would make really lousy heroin addicts. Do either of you know if you respond to amphetamine with euphoria. There was an article some years ago about that being a predictor of one's chance of responding to imipramine vs amitriptylene, if one was going to respond to one of them. I don't know if anyone claims that as being a predictor for the newer ADs.
jojo
poster:jojo
thread:75246
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010822/msgs/76190.html