![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 37. Go back in thread:
Posted by yxibow on January 31, 2007, at 1:41:00
In reply to Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by saturn on January 30, 2007, at 21:49:14
> Reputation? It would seem to me that all other things considered equal (anxiolytic capability, side effects) that it would be a good long-term benzo due to its long half-life and active metabolite (which I believe itself has a long half-life).
>
> Perhaps my analysis is oversimplistic.
>
> Phillipa, I know you have lots of experience with it. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks...Peace...Saturn.
Probably because as said it had the burden of "Mother's Little Helper" in the 70s but in reality it is no different than other long half life benzodiazepines such as Klonopin, Librium, etc. In fact it replaced Librium as the second benzodiazepine because Librium was found to be on the weak side. Librium is still used in detox situations, but for anxiety relief one would probably need a hefty dose.
I currently take a fair dose because I tend to metabolize things faster, I converted from Klonopin which I felt was a bit too subtle and not as anxiolytic. We are currently in the process of slowly reducing the dose but it definately does make a difference in my Somatiform NOS condition.
There's no real reason why people should not take it if it benefits them over other benzodiazepines -- frankly from the stories of depression with Klonopin, which I never experienced but I see mentioned all the time, and Klonopin really is only around 16 hours of half life, Valium should remain a viable choice with around a 24+ hour half life. It is listed with longer half lives because one of its less active metabolites, Restoril, has a theoretical very long half life.
As noted, there are people on here who have taken it nearly since it came out with out problems.
Posted by ronaldo on January 31, 2007, at 3:12:22
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular? » saturn, posted by yxibow on January 31, 2007, at 1:41:00
I take 5 mg Valium to help me over my w/d from Olanzapine. It seems to work.
Wasn't there a class action against Roche because people were saying that Valium was addictive? I think that was in the late '80s or maybe the early '90s. I don't think they got very far.
Has anyone got an opinion on how to come off two month's worth of 5 mg Valium? I will hopefully be doing so next month.
Posted by Cecilia on January 31, 2007, at 3:14:09
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular? » saturn, posted by yxibow on January 31, 2007, at 1:41:00
I've heard that before, that Restoril (temazepam) is a metabolite of Valium, so theoretically has an even longer half-life, yet it is marketed as a sleeping pill, with presumably the goal of it wearing off in 8 hours, while Valium is marketed for anxiety. Makes you wonder if the drug companies decide where the market niche has the greatest potential for profit and then decide what drug to fit into that niche rather than the other way round. Cecilia
Posted by Phillipa on January 31, 2007, at 11:42:09
In reply to Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by saturn on January 30, 2007, at 21:49:14
Used to relax me for years not it doesn't but it does let me sleep. Love Phillipa I think it is out of vogue.
Posted by Quintal on January 31, 2007, at 12:52:35
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular? » saturn, posted by yxibow on January 31, 2007, at 1:41:00
Restoril (temazepam) is a minor metabolite of diazepam and has a half-life of around 8 hours. The metabolite responsible for diazepam's long half-life is nordiazepam:
__________________________________________________Diazepam is a muscle relaxant and antianxiety drug. Peak blood levels are achieved within an hour after oral dose. Half-life in adults is 21-37 hours. The major metabolite (nordiazepam) has a half-life in adults of 50-99 hours. It is the major metabolite also of clorazepate and prazepam. Minor active metabolites of diazepam are temazepam (3-hydroxydiazepam) and oxazepam (3-hydroxy-N-diazepam).
http://www.labcorp.com/datasets/labcorp/html/chapter/mono/td033900.htm
__________________________________________________Q
Posted by yxibow on January 31, 2007, at 12:56:46
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular? » yxibow, posted by Quintal on January 31, 2007, at 12:52:35
> Restoril (temazepam) is a minor metabolite of diazepam and has a half-life of around 8 hours. The metabolite responsible for diazepam's long half-life is nordiazepam:
> __________________________________________________
>
> Diazepam is a muscle relaxant and antianxiety drug. Peak blood levels are achieved within an hour after oral dose. Half-life in adults is 21-37 hours. The major metabolite (nordiazepam) has a half-life in adults of 50-99 hours. It is the major metabolite also of clorazepate and prazepam. Minor active metabolites of diazepam are temazepam (3-hydroxydiazepam) and oxazepam (3-hydroxy-N-diazepam).
> http://www.labcorp.com/datasets/labcorp/html/chapter/mono/td033900.htm
> __________________________________________________
>
> QMy bad.. yeah.. you're right, I was trying to think of the active one. But regardless its about 24 to 24+ hours. And yes, Restoril was discovered from it in one fashion or another -- that would make sense for a sleep agent to have a small half life.
Posted by Quintal on January 31, 2007, at 13:01:54
In reply to Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by saturn on January 30, 2007, at 21:49:14
Valium is a good drug for long-term use. I've taken it many times myself and liked it. There's really nothing wrong with Valium that justifies its reputation in America. Generic diazepam is the most commonly prescribed benzo here in the UK. As with other benzos, some people find it depresses them and makes them groggy but this is individual preference and doesn't make Valium a 'bad drug' per se. Some people respond better to short-acting benzos and others to long-acting ones. If you're looking for a long acting benzo that's gentle and kind to both mind and pocket then Valium is an excellent choice.
Q
Posted by ed_uk on January 31, 2007, at 17:40:52
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by Cecilia on January 31, 2007, at 3:14:09
Hi
Temazepam (Restoril) has a relatively short half-life compared with most other benzodiazepines, certainly shorter than that of diazepam itself.
Ed
Posted by ed_uk on January 31, 2007, at 17:43:11
In reply to Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by saturn on January 30, 2007, at 21:49:14
>Why is valium relatively unpopular?
Old drugs are rarely popular in the US. The Americans prefer meds which are new, shiny, heavily-advertised, expensive, and which come as 'samples' ;)
Ed
Posted by saturn on January 31, 2007, at 18:39:42
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by shadowplayers721 on January 31, 2007, at 0:26:54
> I think it's, because people would have a depressive hangover the next day. Klonopin doesn't do that.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're taking it daily for a level effect how would this result in a hangover?
Posted by alienatari on January 31, 2007, at 19:22:00
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by shadowplayers721 on January 31, 2007, at 0:26:54
> I think it's, because people would have a depressive hangover the next day. Klonopin doesn't do that.
Long term valium user here and i have never had a depressive hangover the next day
Posted by UgottaHaveHope on January 31, 2007, at 20:28:01
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by alienatari on January 31, 2007, at 19:22:00
Valium is a med that has helped thousands and thousands of people who use it strictly for medicinal purposes. It gets bad rap from people who use it for recreational purposes. Dont fear it if you need it.
Posted by notfred on January 31, 2007, at 21:23:25
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by ed_uk on January 31, 2007, at 17:43:11
> Old drugs are rarely popular in the US. The Americans prefer meds which are new, shiny, heavily-advertised, expensive, and which come as 'samples' ;)
>
> EdThat is a very unfair generalization. HMO's do not pay for new drugs if older version are just as good.
Posted by yxibow on January 31, 2007, at 23:52:24
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by notfred on January 31, 2007, at 21:23:25
> > Old drugs are rarely popular in the US. The Americans prefer meds which are new, shiny, heavily-advertised, expensive, and which come as 'samples' ;)
> >
> > Ed
>
> That is a very unfair generalization. HMO's do not pay for new drugs if older version are just as good.
>
>Its just a different model of consumerism in the US. I would love for us to have universal health care like NHS. But NHS also has problems just like in Canada where sometimes people take out American HMO/PPO insurance just to have a procedure crossborder without waiting for their kidneys to fail or something.
Sometimes "shiny new drugs" are a lifesaver for people. You can look to all the new retrovirals, chemotherapy agents, arthritis medications, etc. If I were to make a generalisation about the UK, it is that stodgy doctors hate benzodiazepines and use old drugs that have gathered dust on the shelves here in the US because of lack of sales and bad side effects. But I'm not living there so I won't make that generalisation.
I agree, we have overadvertizing which pumps up the cost of medication. Doesn't mean that people don't respond to new medications. My [nameless] PPO charges more for new medications, yes, sometimes doubles copays for medications it deems only fits a certain dosage or will only pay for part of the dosage. Medications are not as heavily regulated in pricing as Canada and definately not as regulated in England and probably to an extent in the EU.
Posted by notfred on February 1, 2007, at 0:52:12
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by yxibow on January 31, 2007, at 23:52:24
"I agree, we have overadvertizing which pumps up the cost of medication."
The US consumer pays more for meds than anywhere else. This allows other countries to have more affordable meds. In a normal economy things tend to get cheaper when you buy more, but not in this case.
I see it more as the cost of meds in the US drives the need to shameless flogging in every media.
Posted by XanyADDam on February 1, 2007, at 2:56:27
In reply to Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by saturn on January 30, 2007, at 21:49:14
> Reputation? It would seem to me that all other things considered equal (anxiolytic capability, side effects) that it would be a good long-term benzo due to its long half-life and active metabolite (which I believe itself has a long half-life).
>
> Perhaps my analysis is oversimplistic.
>
> Phillipa, I know you have lots of experience with it. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks...Peace...Saturn.Well, the reason I don't care for Valium is because, though I'm not exactly familiar with the dosage, I was given 15 mg and quite frankly it did very little for me. I have a rather bad case of generalized anxiety disorder, and I can honestly say it barely took the edge off of it. I suppose I could have gone higher, I don't know. I'm prescribed 2 mg of Xanax, which continues to work like a charm to this day.
Posted by tensor on February 1, 2007, at 11:08:55
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular? » saturn, posted by XanyADDam on February 1, 2007, at 2:56:27
My opinion is that Valium produces more euphoria and grogginess than for e.g. clonazepam and therefore have a higher street value and thus has a worse reputation. For me, clon feels like a clean drug. I'm not saying it is a better drug though. They target somewhat different symptoms.
As for the different use of older vs. new drugs in US and EU, I wonder what the arguments are for why bupropion is not approved for depression here in the EU and why milnacipran and reboxetine are not approved in the US. The seizure risk is hardly an argument since it's approved for smoking cessation and the risk for doses of max. 450mg is not higher than for a high dose of TCA, escpecially clomipramine.
/Mattias
Posted by ed_uk on February 1, 2007, at 17:02:08
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by notfred on January 31, 2007, at 21:23:25
>That is a very unfair generalization......
Not at all. Just look at the posts on this board for a start. Notice everyone seems to be starting on drugs like Lexapro when they might as well have started on generic fluoxetine or citalopram?
Ed
Posted by notfred on February 1, 2007, at 18:00:03
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular? » notfred, posted by ed_uk on February 1, 2007, at 17:02:08
> >That is a very unfair generalization......
>
> Not at all. Just look at the posts on this board for a start. Notice everyone seems to be starting on drugs like Lexapro when they might as well have started on generic fluoxetine or citalopram?
>
> Ed
This board is not representative of the general population, nor their med choices. Patients here
tend to be treatment resistant so judging a whole countries use and choice of meds on a very limited
sample and a sample that is not random is flawed.The best persons to judge the correct meds are patients and their docs, and not other lay people
or medical professionals.
Posted by Phillipa on February 1, 2007, at 22:34:09
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by notfred on February 1, 2007, at 18:00:03
Just got home no valium has never ever made me euphoric and xanax is what I'm planning on switching back to. Discussed it with my pdoc today as the xanax acts as a mild ad too. And klonopin makes me feel suicidal. Ativan is good too. Love Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2007, at 3:26:43
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by ed_uk on January 31, 2007, at 17:43:11
> The Americans prefer meds which are new, shiny, heavily-advertised, expensive, and which come as 'samples' ;)
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others (such as Americans).
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by sdb on February 2, 2007, at 10:33:36
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by ed_uk on January 31, 2007, at 17:43:11
> >Why is valium relatively unpopular?
>
> Old drugs are rarely popular in the US. The Americans prefer meds which are new, shiny, heavily-advertised, expensive, and which come as 'samples' ;)
>
> EdMaybe true. But worse here. A big company sold an old non psych. med as a totally new one for a higher price. Bad for the consumers, better said sufferer and good for the purse of some managers. It's perverse. Roche is is more innovative than its brother.
~S
Posted by sdb on February 2, 2007, at 10:45:08
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular? }} ed, posted by sdb on February 2, 2007, at 10:33:36
> > >Why is valium relatively unpopular?
> >
> > Old drugs are rarely popular in the US. The Americans prefer meds which are new, shiny, heavily-advertised, expensive, and which come as 'samples' ;)
> >
> > Ed
>
> Maybe true. But worse here. A big company sold an old non psych. med as a totally new one for a higher price. Bad for the consumers, better said sufferer and good for the purse of some managers. It's perverse. Roche is is more innovative than its brother.
>
> ~SI just ate a xanax IR 1mg because its weekend and it's time for research. I experienced the following:
-no muscle relaxation
-something like a spacey feeling, tiny symptoms of motoric ataxia, dyskinesia
-seems to have more hallucinogen properties than valium
-onset of action gradually, good remarkable after 20 minutes.
-no kick, just nothing but no depression also.
-drug disappears very fast, after 2h I felt just as normal.
-I would say that Valium 20mg is stronger than 1mg Xanaxsdb
Posted by ed_uk on February 2, 2007, at 14:47:01
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by notfred on February 1, 2007, at 18:00:03
Well bugger me
Posted by ed_uk on February 2, 2007, at 14:50:12
In reply to Re: please be sensitive » ed_uk, posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2007, at 3:26:43
Oh for God's sake. Now I have to be sensitive to the feelings of Americans. My post was intended to be humerous. Typical, Americans take themselves too seriously.
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.