Posted by MrBrice on October 6, 2006, at 8:04:04
In reply to Re: Nicotine and Depression » MrBrice, posted by Questionmark on October 6, 2006, at 1:35:31
> Brice,
> I have to say what a few others have in that I have never heard of a doctor advocating one year on a psychiatric drug in order for it to be effective or even fully effective. And it really makes very little practical sense to me-- much less pharmacological sense (though of which of course i am no expert). Even with complex receptor changes and adaptations, it seems like *any* drug would begin to show benefit after several months or so.
> That said, however, the confidence that your doctor has in this treatment route makes me wonder if he actually has some substantiated basis for it-- as in, maybe previous patients have, for whatever reason, derived benefit from this medication after such a length of time. ... Either that or he is displaying another extreme example of psychiatric hubris.
> I really think you should ask him, though, why he thinks that it will or should begin to work after 3 or 4 more months-- is it anecdotal experience with past patients, a convincing body of literature, or something else?. It might be helpful to know if he has any good reasons for this recommendation.
>
My doc indeed has a LOT of expercience and qualifications and so far he really hastn't done a bad job with me, so i guess his choice will probably be well overtought and based on his experciences.
But i share your scepticism, it's unlikely for a med to take effect after 1 year, when it doestn't after 6 months...
> Oh and just so you know, I must tell you that nicotine is relatively nothing like an MAOI, especially Nardil.
>
> And in regard to nicotine's actions: one of its most well-known and probably significant (and definitely addictive) properties is its stimulation of dopamine release in the reward areas of the brain (e.g., nucleus accumbens). This is almost definitely the primary reason behind its euphoric properties as well. Also, the (cholinergic) nicotine receptors are involved in cognition, and their stimulation/agonism promotes enhanced cognitive capabilities (enhanced focus, etc.).
> I don't know of any direct involvement with norepinephrine (but there very well may be)-- or any other specific actions, although I'm sure there are. But the two mentioned above are I think two of the most significant if not the most.
>Aren't you speaking contradictious here? The nicotine raises the dopamine and thus gives a feeling of calm- and contentness.
Nardil also raises the dopamine levels, so one would expect it to have similar effects...it's a reasonnable theory right?greets,
Brice
poster:MrBrice
thread:686441
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061003/msgs/692339.html