![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on May 29, 2005, at 16:13:45
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by linkadge on May 29, 2005, at 15:16:34
> Did you know that the primary action of cocaine is a serotonin uptake inhibitor????!!
I don't know if I would agree that it is "the" primary action. However, which of its actions would you say is most responsible for its recreational use? Does this action appear as a property of any antidepressant you can think of?Hint: Wellbutrin is not so good at doing it.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on May 29, 2005, at 18:08:27
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think? » linkadge, posted by SLS on May 29, 2005, at 16:13:45
All these posts are what keeps me from trying a higher dose of AD's. Fondly,Phillipa
Posted by fires on May 29, 2005, at 18:41:02
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by linkadge on May 29, 2005, at 15:33:32
>
> 2. Tollerance is built to the mood elevating
> effect of the drug.
> "Anyone I have talked to who has taken an
> antidepressant for more than 1 year (even
> off this board) say that tollerance to the
> AD effect has almost completely developed.
>Parnate kept me depression free for 14 years -- no increase in the dose.
I had no discontinuation symptoms from stopping Parnate -- went "low and slow".
Posted by fires on May 29, 2005, at 18:49:03
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by Phillipa on May 29, 2005, at 18:08:27
> All these posts are what keeps me from trying a higher dose of AD's. Fondly,Phillipa
Is it these posts, or these posts plus what the whacky cult member Tom Cruise recently said?
Posted by SLS on May 29, 2005, at 19:20:59
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by Phillipa on May 29, 2005, at 18:08:27
> All these posts are what keeps me from trying a higher dose of AD's.
I don't believe that.
Perhaps you are just afraid to try, even without reading such posts?
Not too many people here find remission in lower dosages.
Don't let the negative experiences of the few overshadow the successes of the many. You have too much to lose.
Actually, I really don't know how much it is you have to lose. I have never come across any posts of yours where you describe very much about yourself. (I don't read very much these days, so maybe I could have missed these types of posts from you).
For example:
What mental illness do you suffer from?
1. How are you doing?
2. Are you happy with the way you are currently feeling?
3. What drugs are you taking currently, and at what dosages?
4. If you are not feeling the way you would like to be, what do you think is getting in your way?
Be well.
- Scott
Posted by Mr.Scott on May 29, 2005, at 19:27:52
In reply to Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by rainbowbrite on May 29, 2005, at 12:06:29
I think actually quite few people have 'chronic' or 'nearly chronic' affective disorders. I am one. When you take a medicine for a chronic mood/anxiety disturbance as opposed to a more episodic disturbance the bodies 'normal' adaptation mechanisms may be more problematic so that a bit of tolerance might not bother someone so much who gets depressed twice a year so much as someone who is chronically depressed. The brain is likely more adaptive to the presence of artificial chemicals than other organs and is often refered to as plasticity. What our brain thinks is normal, what is its natural state and what it tries to get back to in the presence of artificial chemicals may be a pathological mood state. I have never seen any antidepressant that was approved for chronic depression, and few 'long-term' studies on antidepressants for dysthymia either (more than a year). Despite the unfortunate neuroadaptive mechanisms of our brains which I'm sure serve great purpose for some reasons (just not chronic mood disorder response to meds!) I would have a hard time calling antidepressants addictive. I would agree and have experienced firsthand damage caused to the brain from long-term exposure to ssri antidepressants. At least that would be the most obvious explanation given the symptoms and their relief (not taking the SSRI!) This after years of efficacy.
Benzos and stimulants are surely addictive however generally speaking anyways, and a great many people continue to take them despite not really needing them anymore either out of compulsion (stims) or to avoid painful withdrawal that mimicks psychiatric disorder (benzos).
Is it possible that something like exists for antidepressants? Maybe in soft bipolars who may get more than just simple relief from taking them, or in drug addicts who are so far into addiction as to compulsively take anything even if all they have is an incorrect assumption it is altering their mood.
I think there are way more questions than answers about all of these things, and while we can all agree to disagree about this that and the other, nobody really knows...
Posted by Mr.Scott on May 29, 2005, at 19:29:53
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think? » rainbowbrite, posted by SLS on May 29, 2005, at 15:06:22
Hello Scott,I saw some very dated posts indicating you either were taking or contemplating taking stimulants for help with your depression. I'm curious to know what ever came of your trial if you indeed had one?
Scott
Posted by Phillipa on May 29, 2005, at 19:43:26
In reply to Question for SLS » SLS, posted by Mr.Scott on May 29, 2005, at 19:29:53
Scott, That's interesting as I remember pdocs referring to my depression as dysthemia. That would explain a lot. I wonder if you replaced them with a placebo what would happen. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by SLS on May 29, 2005, at 19:50:23
In reply to Re: Question for SLS » Mr.Scott, posted by Phillipa on May 29, 2005, at 19:43:26
> Scott, That's interesting as I remember pdocs referring to my depression as dysthemia. That would explain a lot. I wonder if you replaced them with a placebo what would happen. Fondly, Phillipa
I am still looking for the perfect placebo - one that you only have to pretend to take.:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 29, 2005, at 20:01:25
In reply to Question for SLS » SLS, posted by Mr.Scott on May 29, 2005, at 19:29:53
Hi Buddy.
> I saw some very dated posts indicating you either were taking or contemplating taking stimulants for help with your depression. I'm curious to know what ever came of your trial if you indeed had one?
>
> ScottI don't recall what my most recent plans were regarding the use of stimulants. I would like to try Adderall simply because I never have. However, I have added stimulants (Dexedrine and Ritalin) in combination with Parnate + desipramine. I find that Dexedrine is good for about 3 days of relief before I lose the effect altogether. As best as I can remember, Ritalin was without effect.
- Scott
Posted by linkadge on May 29, 2005, at 20:02:24
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by Phillipa on May 29, 2005, at 18:08:27
"Initially, they do little or nothing at all to elevate mood or produce a sense of well-being. That takes 2-4 weeks to happen."
I don't think a substance needs to have an immediate effect to be classified as addictive, perhaps to be classified as an abusable substance.
"I never experienced this when I responded well to antidepressants. Everything actually seemed rather matter-of-fact. It was I who decided how to proceed with life, not the medication. There was nothing "false" about my sense of wellbeing."
Perhaps I respond differently. But all of the antidepressants have made me simply made me apathetic to my problems. Just tamed down the initial blow of the event. The lack of that appropriate reaction was what made me so unable to respond to the situation correctly. The fact that it was litterally impossable to cry, should have been warning sign enough for myself.
"Perhaps this is true for you [tollerance]. More often than not, it has been true for me as well. However, this is not true of many, many others whom do not fit into a treatment-resistent category. That's why we don't see them here."I think this is kind of wishfull thinking. Again feeding into the idea that the drugs are not at fault but that you are at fault. I'll be the first to admit that my life has been lived "in VAIN" if these drugs come up short of what imagination has made them out to be. I think its clear enought by simply looking at the statistics of the situation. The statistics of skyrocketing antidepressant sales, the statistics that the majority of people being treated are now taking muliple drugs. I think the drugs are extremely overrated in their effectivness, and that we try to boost their effectiveness in our minds because we have restricted ourselves to think that they are the only way to treat depression. My little old neighbour was once on just celexa 10mg, now hes on maximum doses of celexa 60mg, wellbutrin 450mg, and zyprexa 15mg. No, he's not on psychobabble, but his likes are much more common than you might think! When somebody reffered to these drugs as "placebo's with a buzz", at first I became extremely defensive (which is usually a sign that my subcontious knows that this statement hit home) That "buzz" is enought to feed the imagination into believing a lot of things about the drugs. Did you know that the only two drugs that have been "proven" to reduce suicide are lithium, ECT, and Clozapine? But lithium is no fun at all!! Why are antidepressants not cutting it statistically ?
"PSYCHOSOCIAL STRESS MUST BE MINIMIZED IN ORDER FOR THESE DRUGS TO WORK LONG-TERM, OTHERWISE, BREAKTHROUGH DEPRESSION IS INEVITABLE!"
I can't argue with you there, but sometimes minimizing psychosocial stress is the biggest hurdle in overcoming depression, not finding the "right drug"
"The animal models represent an extreme form of chronic psychosocial stress. How the intensity of the experimental paradigm equates to the human condition can only be guessed at. However, the lesson is there to be learned: Reduce psychosocial stress. For many people, this will include psychotherapy."
I know for a fact that my depression was caused by too much stress. The courses I was taking were too hard. Oftentimes giving someone a drug and sending them on their way, SIGNIFICANTLY reinforces their bad habbits. Because I was lead to believe that my depression had nothing to do with life, but was all in my head, I began to make even dumber choices about the future.
Have you seen those images of arachnids on prozac?? Oh sure they might be a bit more resisant to "psychosocial stress", but now they can't even spin a proper web, which would create more psycosocial stress in itself."You haven't mentioned cravings anywhere"
To me the fundemental definition of addicting, is the inability to stop a drug when it is appropriate. That is the biggest problem we have at hand. The average depression does not last more than a year or so, especialy in young people like me. But yet, for some reason discontinuing these drugs makes me feel so utterly, inexplicaby, and excrutiatingly terrable worthless, and suicidal (the likes of which I have *never* experiecned even in my deepest prior depressions) that I must continue taking them. As for craving it:... when I am off of it, I think about it day and night.
"I don't know if I would agree that it is "the" primary action (cocaine). However, which of its actions would you say is most responsible for its recreational use? Does this action appear as a property of any antidepressant you can think of?"
I am sure you have read the studies which show that blocking the 5-ht1a receptor seems to block the rewarding effects of the drug. Blocking the 5-ht1a/b receptors also "completely" changes the pattern of self administration in rats, even more so than the blockade of dopamine receptors. Rats will still administer cocaine even if dopamine receptors are blocked, but not if the 5-ht1a/b receptors are blocked. The reason that rats don't inject themselves with antidepressants is because the enhanced serogotonic function doesn't happen immediately. But thats not to say that the enhanced serotogenic function (when it occurs) does not produce rewarding effects. Dopamine is not the magic pleasure chemical. My "nondepressed", drugee friend stole (without my knowledge) my effexor, and then proceeded to later tell me that if he had had effexor, he woudn't have done all of that cocaine. He then asked me what illness he would need to "fake" to get a prescription for effexor. (Yes I suppose he again could be the exception to the rule)
Linkadge
Posted by Phillipa on May 29, 2005, at 20:10:15
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think? » Phillipa, posted by SLS on May 29, 2005, at 19:20:59
SLS, Scott, Well you've got me. I've seen many different pdocs over the years. That's because I lived in Ct, VA, and now NC. They always in the beginning said Panic disorder, then anxiety/dysthemia, then PTSD, then anxiety/depression. I know I have OCD. The kind where I have to do the same things in the same order every day. And I count.
l. I'm not doing well
2.I feel helpless, and hopeless when I used to be able to travel by myself and live on my own. And I was always the best RN.
3. Taking 5mg of valium in am with 25mg of zoloft,and l0mg of valium at HS.
4. Getting in the way? I feel trapped and powerless. And afraid of my shadow. Negative. Afraid to speak up when in the past I would confront people. I even worked in a jail as an RN parttime once. And yes, afraid of the meds.
Afraid of the meds is because I was at first given only l0mg of paxil with 50mg of lopressor, and xanax and drank beer at night which the pdoc said was okay. In three months I felt good again. My hypothroidism had just occurred that year. And I found out I had chronic lymes disease. My chemistry must have changed because I tolerated 250mg of luvox. Then the pdoc switched me to paxil again, then back to luvox at 50mg. I asked why and he said the high dose was because I had been in the hospital. Then he wanted me to take part in a celexa trial. I said no so he said that I was catatonic on the luvox and dc'd it and put me on celexa. I'd never felt worse in my life. So after a month he took me off of it and put me on 5mg of ativan divided. Now comes menopause. New pdoc and anxiety off the scales. Couldn't tolerate even one day of AD;s she put me on. Goes on and on. Now nothing seems to even bother me. When you went on cymbalta last year I found Pbabble and routed you on daily. Will Scott feel better? I was crushed when it didn't work. I took up to 60mg for around 3 months and then quit as I saw no results. So that's enough for now. I went to your website in the beginning but it's closed. You are the reason I got involved in Pbabble. I didn't even know how to use a computer at the time. I would come home and say to my husband let's see how Scott is doing. He'd find the site. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by linkadge on May 29, 2005, at 20:18:48
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think? » Phillipa, posted by fires on May 29, 2005, at 18:49:03
Parnate kept me depression free for 14 years -- no increase in the dose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there is a *tremendous* tendancy to attribute things (both good and bad) to the drugs. When things go good, "praise the drugs!!!" When things go bad, "my drug is pooping out!!"We will believe ****"ANYTHING"**** if it gives us a sence of controll over our situation. Its the same reason that I sleep better just knowing I have a benzodiazapine at my bedside. If I don't have the benzodiazapine sitting on my nighttable, I won't sleep.
Its just like religion. When things go good, "praise God", when things go wrong.. "where were you god??". Putting contoll in the hands of the drug, or God is a way that our temporal lobes can take the responsablility (at least temporarily anyway) off our shoulders. But like I said, that doesn't mean the drugs don't have a buzz.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on May 29, 2005, at 20:35:12
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by Phillipa on May 29, 2005, at 20:10:15
I am the same as you. I am afraid to take what the doctor prescribes. I was on 20mg of celexa for a while, but I did **much** better when I decreased it to 10mg. My body thanked me for it too.
I am certainly not trying to persuade you one way or the other, but I know that I felt my ABSOLUTE WORST, when I took the medication I was prescribed: ZOloft, Lithium, Depakote, clonazepam, and clomipramine, cogentin, and zyprexa. Like what in Goodness sakes is that.
I have also seen first hand (with my mother) how most doctors don't know much about which they are talking. My mother has probably been on over a 60 different medications, and has been hospitalized many times. Finally, one doctor listed to what she wanted to do, and guess what?? she got better.
In the end, her recovery was a product of fewer drugs, more help from the community, love, and of course time.
I really think that the whole drug trial is this:
The fact that you are always trying new drugs give you enough hope to continue. Eventually that hope gets you over a hurdle in your life, and you end up settling on some drug that you can tollerate.Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on May 29, 2005, at 20:44:28
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by Mr.Scott on May 29, 2005, at 19:27:52
"I would agree and have experienced firsthand damage caused to the brain from long-term exposure to ssri antidepressants"
I know exactly what you are talking about. People are very quick to tell you that the drugs don't cause brain dammage (probably because they're on the drugs and they don't want to think of that possability) Or because they don't want you to do anything rash.
But in the end, I am the one who has to lived in the F*d up brain. So if you don't really have a better explaination than I'm going to stick to mine than you very much.That "big study" that eveyone likes to refer to, you know the one that says that antidepressants are neuroprotective. Thats is kind of not the whole truth. The fact is that the study used tianeptine, (which was indeed neuroprotective) but fluoxetine (prozac) offered no such protection.
The picture is not as clear cut as the drug companies would like you to think.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on May 29, 2005, at 20:58:57
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think? » Mr.Scott, posted by linkadge on May 29, 2005, at 20:44:28
As well, the same study showed that yes prozac increased BDNF in certain brain areas, but infact BDNF was increased in any mouse that was "held" for that duration of time. Of course they only broadcast the fact that "prozac increases BDNF"
Linkadge
Posted by SLS on May 30, 2005, at 7:40:34
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by Phillipa on May 29, 2005, at 20:10:15
Hi Phillipa.
:-(I'm sorry you are feeling so bad and have been so disappointed by medication.
:-)You still manage to put a smile on my face when I read your posts. You are one of the sweetest people we have ever had here. My hopes are that you and I will both find something on PB that will lead us in the direction of our healings.
Things must be especially difficult for you because of all the changes made in your life that have required you to start with a new doctor, a new diagnosis, or that you come to display a new set of symptoms to be reckoned with. One of the things that I am most grateful for is the stability I have in my life. I have managed to stay in the same area and see the same doctors. I have been forced to move only once in the last 15 years.
A dear friend of mine is an RN in NC. She, too, was a very self-confident and outgoing person whom performed her job with excellence. Then came double-depression / bipolar disorder. She had to drop out of work and count pennies. I met her while we were both research patients at the NIMH 12 years ago. We were guinea pigs. Of course, we had had such high hopes that the foremost medical institution in the world would have been able to get us well. No such luck, I'm afraid. I do not look unfavorably upon the NIMH. They used what they had at their disposal, including drugs that we will never see in the marketplace. I was given a drug called clorgyline. It is without a doubt the most demonstrably powerful MAOI antidepressant that exists. At a time when I was basically intractable, it was potent enough to break through the wall. I felt better for a month or so and responded episodically and partially to it thereafter. Eventually, it was withdrawn for lack of interest.
For many of us who have been treatment-resistant for many years, I think our confidence in medicine waxes and wanes. It is hard not to be bitter and to trust doctors and medications that apparantly make us feel worse instead of better. Perpetual failure produces helplessness. Combined with perpetual pain and depression comes hopelessness. What are we to do? I guess each of us as individuals find support in different places. PB represents support and encouragement to me. With all of the deficits that exist in modern medicine and its impotence to treat everyone successfully, still comes hope. There is the hope that there already exist treatments that will work, but have yet to be tried. There is the hope that new treatments will be developed that will yield remission. I can't help but to want to remain of positive outlook and extoll the virtues of the treatments we have now and the altruism that still drives many researchers to find new ones.
Try to avoid cynacism. Stay away from cynical people. Cynacism is an insidious contagion that can kill.
- Scott
Posted by ed_uk on May 30, 2005, at 13:23:53
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think? » Phillipa, posted by SLS on May 30, 2005, at 7:40:34
Hi Scott,
RE clorgyline. What do you think of this.......
Hokkaido Igaku Zasshi. 2001 May;76(3):133-42. Related Articles, Links
[A behavioral and neurochemical study on the mechanism of the anxiolytic effect of monoamine oxidase inhibitors]
[Article in Japanese]
Maki Y.
Department of Psychiatry, Neural Function, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo 060-8638, Japan.
The author examined the acute anxiolytic effects of monoamine oxidase inhibitors on freezing behavior, a putative index of anxiety, induced by conditioned fear stress. The selective serotonin1A receptor agonist inhibited freezing dose dependently. The irreversible, non-selective monoamine oxidase inhibitors tranylcypromine (3 and 15 mg/kg) and phenelzine (30 and 80 mg/kg) reduced freezing significantly. Clorgyline (10 mg/kg, irreversible selective monoamine oxidase A inhibitor), Ro 41-1049 (30 mg/kg, reversible selective monoamine oxidase A inhibitor), selegiline (3 mg/kg, irreversible selective monoamine oxidase B inhibitor) and lazabemide (10 mg/kg, reversible selective monoamine oxidase B inhibitor) had no effect on freezing behavior. However, combined administration of clorgyline (10 mg/kg) and selegiline (3 mg/kg) reduced freezing significantly, as well as combined administration of clorgyline (10 mg/kg) and lazabemide (10 mg/kg), Ro 41-1049 (30 mg/kg) and selegiline (3 mg/kg), or Ro 41-1049 (30 mg/kg) and lazabemide (10 mg/kg). These effects of monoamine oxidase inhibitors on freezing were not due to non-specific motor effects. These results suggest that acute inhibition of both monoamine oxidase A and B reduces anxiety or fear, while inhibition of monoamine oxidase A or B alone fails to reduce anxiety or fear.
*****In vivo microdialysis studies showed that the irreversible monoamine oxidase A inhibitor clorgyline and the irreversible monoamine oxidase B inhibitor selegiline induced a mild increase and no increase in extracellular serotonin, respectively.******
Interestingly, the combined treatment with clorgyline and selegiline resulted in much larger increases in extracellular serotonin in the medial prefrontal cortex than did either monoamine oxidase inhibitor alone. Our previous studies have indicated that facilitation of 5-HT neurotransmission decreases conditioned freezing, i.e., anxiety or fear. The results of these in vivo microdialysis studies may account for the results of this study that the simultaneous blockade of both monoamine oxidase A and B reduced conditioned freezing, whereas blockade of either monoamine oxidase alone failed.
Kind regards,
Ed.
Posted by Phillipa on May 30, 2005, at 16:30:30
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by Phillipa on May 29, 2005, at 20:10:15
Scott, Thanks for the truly compassionate and understanding post. I really keep hoping you will one day post your success. But now I don't know how you find the strength to do the research you do, and to give the atta boys to fellow babblers when they find success. You are truly a very strong and good person to me and I know others. The last thing I will say about myself is that one year ago I lost my taste and smell. So now where is the pleasure in life? I went to Wake Forrest Taste and Smell Center and they worked me up for 8hours. Conclusion you must have had a virus that destroyed the neurons in your nose. The only hope is try prednisone starting at 60mg and titrate down over 2 wks. That didn't work. Then I was told to take Theophylline up to 4 or 600mg a day for 4-6monts and see if it helped. That was all that could be done. I have the pills but just can't take a med like this for taste and smell. It doesn't make sense to me. I looked on the internet and saw they use it in Washington at the Taste and Smell Center too. I'm too afraid. Show me some people who have taken it that it worked for first. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by linkadge on May 31, 2005, at 16:31:31
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? To SLS, posted by Phillipa on May 30, 2005, at 16:30:30
My intent is not to unnecessarily depress people,
I just hope that we can learn to embrace the drawbacks of these medications. Psychiatry likes to focus on the posative of medication, and as much as we need euphoric optimism in the psychiatric community, I think we are more desparately in need of prudence.Linkadge
Posted by SLS on May 31, 2005, at 18:17:23
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think? » SLS, posted by ed_uk on May 30, 2005, at 13:23:53
> Hi Scott,
>
> RE clorgyline. What do you think of this.......
I'm not sure what to make of it. I guess it argues in favor of using non-selective MAOIs to treat anxiety disorders. However, William Z. Potter and others have suggested that it is MAO-A that is most likely to be the key site for antidepressant effects.What I found most important about this study is that 5-HT1a agonists were effective in relieving anxiety. That's where gepirone should have been placed as an anxiolytic, not an antidepressant. It might have made a good adjunct to antidepressants to treat depression rather than monotherapy, but now we'll never know.
- Scott
> Hokkaido Igaku Zasshi. 2001 May;76(3):133-42. Related Articles, Links
>
> [A behavioral and neurochemical study on the mechanism of the anxiolytic effect of monoamine oxidase inhibitors]
>
> [Article in Japanese]
>
> Maki Y.
>
> Department of Psychiatry, Neural Function, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo 060-8638, Japan.
>
> The author examined the acute anxiolytic effects of monoamine oxidase inhibitors on freezing behavior, a putative index of anxiety, induced by conditioned fear stress. The selective serotonin1A receptor agonist inhibited freezing dose dependently. The irreversible, non-selective monoamine oxidase inhibitors tranylcypromine (3 and 15 mg/kg) and phenelzine (30 and 80 mg/kg) reduced freezing significantly. Clorgyline (10 mg/kg, irreversible selective monoamine oxidase A inhibitor), Ro 41-1049 (30 mg/kg, reversible selective monoamine oxidase A inhibitor), selegiline (3 mg/kg, irreversible selective monoamine oxidase B inhibitor) and lazabemide (10 mg/kg, reversible selective monoamine oxidase B inhibitor) had no effect on freezing behavior. However, combined administration of clorgyline (10 mg/kg) and selegiline (3 mg/kg) reduced freezing significantly, as well as combined administration of clorgyline (10 mg/kg) and lazabemide (10 mg/kg), Ro 41-1049 (30 mg/kg) and selegiline (3 mg/kg), or Ro 41-1049 (30 mg/kg) and lazabemide (10 mg/kg). These effects of monoamine oxidase inhibitors on freezing were not due to non-specific motor effects. These results suggest that acute inhibition of both monoamine oxidase A and B reduces anxiety or fear, while inhibition of monoamine oxidase A or B alone fails to reduce anxiety or fear.
>
> *****In vivo microdialysis studies showed that the irreversible monoamine oxidase A inhibitor clorgyline and the irreversible monoamine oxidase B inhibitor selegiline induced a mild increase and no increase in extracellular serotonin, respectively.******
>
> Interestingly, the combined treatment with clorgyline and selegiline resulted in much larger increases in extracellular serotonin in the medial prefrontal cortex than did either monoamine oxidase inhibitor alone. Our previous studies have indicated that facilitation of 5-HT neurotransmission decreases conditioned freezing, i.e., anxiety or fear. The results of these in vivo microdialysis studies may account for the results of this study that the simultaneous blockade of both monoamine oxidase A and B reduced conditioned freezing, whereas blockade of either monoamine oxidase alone failed.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Ed.
Posted by Declan on May 31, 2005, at 19:32:39
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think? » ed_uk, posted by SLS on May 31, 2005, at 18:17:23
It would I guess be taking it too far to hope that a judicious combination of moclobemide and deprenyl might be useful. Freezing behaviour, I like that...
Declan
Posted by linkadge on May 31, 2005, at 19:50:28
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by Declan on May 31, 2005, at 19:32:39
I lost a lot of hope when they through gipirone out the window.
Linkadge
Posted by 4WD on May 31, 2005, at 22:36:20
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think?, posted by linkadge on May 31, 2005, at 19:50:28
> I lost a lot of hope when they through gipirone out the window.
>
>
> Linkadge
Why was that? Because of the short half-life?Marsha
Posted by ed_uk on June 1, 2005, at 3:23:17
In reply to Re: Meds need vs addiction?? what do you think? » ed_uk, posted by SLS on May 31, 2005, at 18:17:23
Hi Scott,
>William Z. Potter and others have suggested that it is MAO-A that is most likely to be the key site for antidepressant effects.
It sounds like clorgyline worked much better for you than moclobemide!
Ed.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.