![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 7 of 7. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by JohnX2 on February 26, 2002, at 3:29:29
seems like there would be a lot of
interest in a patch form of parnate and nardil.
This worked for deprnyl. I wonder if there is
something about the pharmacology that prevents
it?Anyways, it seems this would be a new patent
I believe and therefore more dollars for the
manufacturers. Also, removing the dietary restrictions
seemingly would generate a substantial amount
of renewed interest in the medications. Seems
like a low risk quick buck to me.Huh. What am I missing?
-John
Posted by Geezer on February 26, 2002, at 10:07:49
In reply to why can't they make a parnate/nardil patch?, posted by JohnX2 on February 26, 2002, at 3:29:29
>
> seems like there would be a lot of
> interest in a patch form of parnate and nardil.
> This worked for deprnyl. I wonder if there is
> something about the pharmacology that prevents
> it?
>
> Anyways, it seems this would be a new patent
> I believe and therefore more dollars for the
> manufacturers. Also, removing the dietary restrictions
> seemingly would generate a substantial amount
> of renewed interest in the medications. Seems
> like a low risk quick buck to me.
>
> Huh. What am I missing?
>
> -JohnHi John
Sure have to agree about the Parnate patch. Sadly, these psychiatric shoemakers I have had to deal with are as MAOI phobic as they are Benzo phobic.
Have you read Bodkins article on the Selegiline patch Harvard University Gazette, Dec. 10, 1998 - bet we never see it. Along with all the economic, political, and ignorance issues, I beleive a big part of the problem is the commitment to the AMERICAN MODEL for the treatment of depressions = Serotonin is the only thing that matters.
I think Bodkin sums up the issue on MAOI (deprnyl & possibly other MAOIs) patches. "It seemed like a no-brainer, I wonder why no one had tried it"?
He goes on to comment on efficacy; "many of the 89 people who received an active patch....enjoyed well-being of a type they had not felt before. Bodkin continues: "That's an improvement rarley seen with Prozac, Zoloft, and other antidepressants and we saw results in only one week".One study I would love to see!! Find out how those who fail to respond to SSRIs compare to the 20% suicide rate for Bipolar II. I have this little malady, I don't respond to SSRIs (maybe not to Remeron), I wasen't mood stabilized until 6 months ago (now age 57)......can't help but be a little curious!!
Hang in there. Thanks for your help in the past.
Geezer
Posted by djmmm on February 26, 2002, at 10:55:56
In reply to Re: why can't they make a parnate/nardil patch?, posted by Geezer on February 26, 2002, at 10:07:49
They don't have patches for most antidepressants because most antidepressants cannnot be absorbed transdermally... (I know buspar and deprenyl can)
there are also limitations..
*Limited time that the patch can remain affixed
*Variable intra- and interindividual
percutaneous absorption efficiency*Variable adhesion to different skin types
*Skin rashes and sensitization
*Bacterial and enzymatic drug metabolism under the patch
*Complex technology/high cost...
Posted by JohnX2 on February 26, 2002, at 15:56:56
In reply to Re: why can't they make a parnate/nardil patch?, posted by Geezer on February 26, 2002, at 10:07:49
I've just witnessed a total marketing miracle
in my own industry by my company, debunking
a myth regarding what makes a computer fast.
No one thought it would work, but all it took
was a little advertising dollars and the payoff
was HUGE.So I think there would be a lot of interest in
this if an intellegent company with good marketing
just went after it. The R & D cost would be really
small because the drugs are already well studied.
Forest Labs would come to mind as a company that
could pull this off. (I play the stock market alot
and follow these companies ploys). What they did
with Celexa after a market was already saturated
with SSRIS was nothing short of amazing.Anyways its such a crying shame.
-John
> >
> > seems like there would be a lot of
> > interest in a patch form of parnate and nardil.
> > This worked for deprnyl. I wonder if there is
> > something about the pharmacology that prevents
> > it?
> >
> > Anyways, it seems this would be a new patent
> > I believe and therefore more dollars for the
> > manufacturers. Also, removing the dietary restrictions
> > seemingly would generate a substantial amount
> > of renewed interest in the medications. Seems
> > like a low risk quick buck to me.
> >
> > Huh. What am I missing?
> >
> > -John
>
> Hi John
>
> Sure have to agree about the Parnate patch. Sadly, these psychiatric shoemakers I have had to deal with are as MAOI phobic as they are Benzo phobic.
>
> Have you read Bodkins article on the Selegiline patch Harvard University Gazette, Dec. 10, 1998 - bet we never see it. Along with all the economic, political, and ignorance issues, I beleive a big part of the problem is the commitment to the AMERICAN MODEL for the treatment of depressions = Serotonin is the only thing that matters.
>
> I think Bodkin sums up the issue on MAOI (deprnyl & possibly other MAOIs) patches. "It seemed like a no-brainer, I wonder why no one had tried it"?
> He goes on to comment on efficacy; "many of the 89 people who received an active patch....enjoyed well-being of a type they had not felt before. Bodkin continues: "That's an improvement rarley seen with Prozac, Zoloft, and other antidepressants and we saw results in only one week".
>
> One study I would love to see!! Find out how those who fail to respond to SSRIs compare to the 20% suicide rate for Bipolar II. I have this little malady, I don't respond to SSRIs (maybe not to Remeron), I wasen't mood stabilized until 6 months ago (now age 57)......can't help but be a little curious!!
>
> Hang in there. Thanks for your help in the past.
>
> Geezer
Posted by Geezer on February 26, 2002, at 16:42:26
In reply to Re: why can't they make a parnate/nardil patch? » Geezer, posted by JohnX2 on February 26, 2002, at 15:56:56
John,
Well said. Must admire your anology to you own industry-illustrates the point quite well. I was in the Cardiac Pacemaker business from 1969 until I was hit with the BIG ONE in 1998. Give an inventive mind a challange, add in some human need, tell the inventor it can't be done-won't work-too expensive, ect, ect and WATCH IT HAPPEN!
I thought the refined Celexa thing was a good deal. If the Celexa patent is extended and some people benifit - hows does that take anything away from me? If a guy like Bodkin believes in the MAOI patch and finds a company willing to do the marketing I may have to go back and eat my words "bet we never see it"-hope so I'm not proud. I'll go with Capitalism over Socialism any day.
Thanks
Geezer
Posted by christophrejmc on February 26, 2002, at 16:48:55
In reply to why can't they make a parnate/nardil patch?, posted by JohnX2 on February 26, 2002, at 3:29:29
> seems like there would be a lot of
> interest in a patch form of parnate and nardil.There was a person on PB who was in the selegiline patch study. He said that Bodkin told him that Parnate was "too toxic" to be used transdermally (whatever that means). Perhaps it's just politics... selegiline is a new drug, the other MAOIs are quite old. As Elizabeth has said before: no-one wants to do new research on old drugs. The drug companies behind Nardil and Parnate (and Marplan) probably don't have much interest in this. (If the selegiline patch is a success, we might see the release of other MAOI patches...)
-chris
Posted by Elizabeth on February 28, 2002, at 16:37:17
In reply to Re: why can't they make a parnate/nardil patch? » JohnX2, posted by christophrejmc on February 26, 2002, at 16:48:55
> There was a person on PB who was in the selegiline patch study. He said that Bodkin told him that Parnate was "too toxic" to be used transdermally (whatever that means).
It might mean that Parnate causes skin problems if you try to administer it transdermally. Or it might just refer to Parnate's apparent pressor effect (which makes it less likely to be considered as a first- or second-line AD even if one could eliminate the food-drug interactions).
> Perhaps it's just politics... selegiline is a new drug, the other MAOIs are quite old.
Selegiline isn't *that* new (its patent has expired). But anyway, regardless of which MAOI was used, the transdermal delivery system would be patentable even though the patent on the drug has expired. (Similarly, controlled release technology is patentable; for example, when the patent runs out on Effexor, you still won't be able to get generic Effexor XR. *sigh*)
> (If the selegiline patch is a success, we might see the release of other MAOI patches...)I believe that Dr. Bodkin told me several years ago that he expected the selegiline patch to be approved within a year. If my memory is correct (I may be thinking of a different drug, mind you), this doesn't bode well.
-elizabeth
This is the end of the 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.