Talk:Tricyclic antidepressant

message: These drugs are not heterocyclic compounds, as the first sentence of the article suggests. See page on heterocycles
71.192.117.165 (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

message: Does anyone else find this section to be harmful and incorrect. Are we redefining the definition of withdrawal just for these types of drugs? I've had withdrawals from caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, tricyclics, ssri's, snri's, dnri's. Here's the thing, all of those I just mentioned, the withdrawal has been worse, some by a significant margin, than opioids. The language in that section is very dangerous ignorance and false. Please delete it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.255.241.170 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Discontinuation

message: What would the main differences between this and SSRIs, if anyone has the knowledge? I know that MAOIs are used as a last choice, but I'm unsure why these types are being replaced, and the outstanding features of SSRIs which make this the predecessor. Daily Rubbings 03:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally SSRI's replaced the TCA's because of the latter's side effects (dry mouth, drowsiness, blurred vision etc). Although subsequent random controlled studies have suggested that the difference in tolerability is not as much as commonly assumed. Also TCA's more toxic in overdosage, and so SSRIs safer to initiate in depressed patients (i.e. safer in over dosage - recognising that despite some concerns for increased tendency to attempt suicide on starting treatment, this is small compared to far larger rates of suicide from the non-treated or under-treated condition itself). That said, the less sedating TCAs eg lofepramine still have a role. The TCAs have a much greater effectiveness in low-dosages (especially amitriptyline) as pain moidifiers and migraine/headache preventers (Fluoxetine perhaps just 30% as effective according to one consultant I spoke to - but that of course does not constitute a reliable encyclopaedia source) David Ruben  Talk  11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between this and SSRIs

message: I tried to confirm the table from other sources available on the net, but every source I dug up puts a slightly different spin on things.  I ended up referencing only the source that put matters in numerical terms based on recent radioligand surveys, which seemed most authoritative, but also incomplete.  If my material on secondary and tertiary amine classification is retained, it would probably be better placed in the table, but I didn't wish to mess (too much) with the MeSH claim.  I did add one TCA that wasn't mentioned.  
In general, it is problematic to determine whether drugs are being classified, or individual metabolites.  MaxEnt 09:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selectivity 

message: I added a chunk on the development history.  The two useful sources I found were hard to mesh, and one would given a person and a time, and the other a corporation and a place, but not so as you could confidently match one to the other in declarative sentences.  I intended to unearth the key patents.  Google is quick to pull up an expensive source which I don't have access to.  Using the free patent search I was able to get close, but was hampered by the lack of fully electronic forward/backward references in patents prior to 1976.  I searched one chain backwards by hand and thought I had it (the patent for amitrip), but then I noticed it was the wrong firm.   Perhaps Smith Kline licensed to Merck.  I can't find any TCA introduced by Smith Kline, yet they seem to hold a patent that almost exactly describes amitrip and in roughly the right time period (plus/minus my amateur chemistry).  MaxEnt 11:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: "Although norepinephrine and dopamine are generally considered stimulatory neurotransmitters, tricyclic antidepressants also increase the effects H1 histamine, and thus most have sedative effects.[5]"
Makes no sense. Histamine H1 antagonists according to the wikipedia article make people sleepy - anti-histamines. Thats why allergy medication is advertised as non-drowsy these days. Perhaps it means to say "tricyclic antidepressants also decrease the effects of H1 histamine"? Would also make sense since it says it is a H1 ANTagonist. 81.104.186.166 14:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Histamine 

message: General reviews have determined that TCAs have no abuse potential. Rarely, in case reports, use of TCAs to "fortify" alcohol or opioids is reported. I removed such case reports per WP:MEDMOS, as they are no peer reviewed source, but letters to the editor.
70.137.151.133 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an excerpt from a book, Drugs of Abuse by Simon Wills: "There have been several reports of abuse of amitriptyline71-74. This is a drug with significant antimuscarinic effects and the abuse potential may derive solely from this pharmacological property." etc etc  The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Recreational use or abuse of prescription drugs is usually noted in WP articles, even if it is very rare. See, for example, featured article bupropion#Abuse liability. As for diphenhydramine, there is a whole chapter Diphenhydramine#Recreational_use. The "Drugs of abuse" book I referred to was published by Pharmaceutical Press (see ), a well known scientific publishing house. Pharmaceutical Press also publish Martindale, for example.  To call the "Drugs of Abuse" book self-published is incorrect. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: TCA abuse

message: The "Drugs of Abuse" ref pp213 says:(about antidepressants in general) "However the number of cases reported in the past 30 years is very small". If you think several is equally good...
70.137.151.133 (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tricyclics are much more dangerous in overdose - they are cardiotoxic and people can have a cardiac arrest which is resistant to reversion with paddles. Abuse as such with these drugs is extremely rare. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Very small number of abuse cases

message: Are these topics be treated on a single page, or separately? In all the pharm books I've read so far, the term "tetracyclic" almost never is used (they're usually called "atypical tricyclics", or given some more precise name discussing their mechanism.) --Arcadian (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen them referred to separately. Regardless though, they are separate entities, and hence I believe should be separate. They have both a markedly different chemical structure as well as quite different pharmacology. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 20:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a source supporting the idea that tricyclics have a common pharmacology, and that tetracyclics have a common pharmacology that is distinct from the tricyclics. --Arcadian (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh it doesn't matter. It's obvious they're different. None of them have any significant SRI actions, they tend to have higher a2-adrenergic affinity, some of them lack anticholinergic activity, and a few are potent 5-HT3 antagonists. They also lack the ion channel-regulating effects of the TCAs and so forth. Anyway, can I please revert the pages back? el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 12:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tricyclic/tetracyclic antidepressant

message: Does TCA in this context mean "tricyclic antidepressant" or "tricyclic amine" ??   I understood TCA to refer to the chemical entity (that is, tricyclic amine), and it was entirely coincidental (and nice) that antidepressant also starts with the letter 'a'.   --98.70.128.14 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: TCA stands for TriCyclic Antidepressant.TL36 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCA abbreviation 

message: I looked up desipramine (the TCA I'm trying to find something out about) and could not find anything about its pharmacokinetics, so I checked imipramine, which in addition to being an AD in its own right is a pro-drug from desipramine.   (All it said under "Metabolism" was that desipramine is a metabolite of imipramine, which I obviously knew already since it was the reason I had dared hope to find something useful there.)  So, pleeeeeeeeeeeze. Someone must know something about this.  Really, all the individual drug articles and this article should include sections.  I was frankly shocked to find a Wikipedia article so lacking on so major a subject.  (True, others are lacking, but a lot of those have to do with celebrities.  While I admit to using that sort of stuff occasionally, I strongly believe that science (including medicine and other applied sciences) articles ought to be given priority over this sort of thing.  Mia229 (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  pharmacokinetics! 

message: For instance, until I edited it with HCR data from a recent journal, Desipramine was listed as having a weaker (higher number) Norepi transport affinity than Nortriptyline, which is wrong.   I fixed desipramine's, but I would not be surprised if there are other inaccuracies.   Best the use the most recent HCR data, as pre-HCR data was either guesses or based on animal experiments rather than on human cells.  starting point: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2014120/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.74.53 (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  binding affinities are somewhat wrong 

message: Acorrding to this study, clomipramine does not bind to muscarinic receptors
https://estudogeral.uc.pt/bitstream/10316/104522/1/pharmaceutics-15-00230.pdf
Accordingly, muscarinic acetylcholine receptor is not affected by Clomipramine other than M1 
https://www.psychdb.com/meds/antidepressants/tca/home Leskzzmmet (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clomipramine and  Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor receptors