Posted by Michael Bell on March 11, 2006, at 10:57:32
In reply to Re: New Nardil - Ed, read this. » Michael Bell, posted by ed_uk on March 10, 2006, at 14:35:20
Ed, no offense but you are patently mistaken, buddy. Bioequivalency has nothing to do with absorbancy rate. Bioequivalency means that the same amount of an active ingredient is delivered using the same method. Absorbance rate is affected by BIOAVAILABILITY, which is the amount of time the drug takes to be absorbed in the body. Pfizer itself has stated that there is a difference in peak time of absorbance between the new and old nardil. If a reformulated drug is not absorbed properly by a percentage of people, the fact that it has the same amount of the active ingredient will not matter because the active ingredient is not being absorbed as it should be. So simply raising the dosage will not be a curall to the problem. Some people
may not be able to metabolise the new nardil as well due to the changes in excipients.
And, yes, old nardil did have a sugar coating which slowed down its rate of dissolution. New nardil does not have this.
Finally, have you taken new and old Nardil Ed? What are you basing your observations on?
> >There are a lot of people who had no idea about the change in Nardil but experienced a serious return of anxiety and depression right when the drug was reformulated.
> How many is a 'lot'? Probably a small proportion of Nardil users. Inevitably, those who are not having problems will not seek information on the internet.
> >Absorbancy rate.........are all effected by the type of excipients added to the drug.
> In which case, adjusting the dose or frequency of administration would be effective. The 'new' Nardil is claimed to be bioequivalent to the 'old' Nardil, suggesting that if the dose did need to be altered, it would not need to be altered very much.
> The 'old' Nardil did not have a complex formulation. It was not enteric coated, it was not controlled release.