Talk:Pethidine

message: I have a question about the mechanism of action listed in this article. It says in the article that pethidine's main mode of action is as a kappa receptor agonist. However, to me the structure looks typical of other mu-agonists, such as methadone and morphine. Also, I thought that all kappa agonists were inherently dysphoric, yet pethidine causes euphoria and sedation just like morphine, and is easy to get addicted to. I know that other kappa agonists like Salvinorin A (in Salvia) have very different effects from the typical mu-opioid one, resulting in dysphoria, hallucinations and discomfort. Is pethidine's main mode of action really as a kappa agonist, or does the drug also have a high affinity for the mu\delta receptors? Thank you for any responses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Dinneen (talk • contribs) 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. The psychic effects of pethidine are typical for µ-agonists and differ from kappa agonists like pentazocine or nalbuphine. --FK1954 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pethidine as a Kappa agonist?

message: I'm not a doctor, but there is not much confusing or unclear stuff for me in the article. What parts exactly are confusing for some readers? Who are those "some readers"? Thanks.--84.163.123.27 02:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing or unclear for some readers? 

message: Meperidine: a critical review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11782820&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
:Already there — reference no. 6 as of this writing. You're right; it's a fantastic reference. Porkchopmcmoose 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a good reference to add 

message: I would like to see something about the recreational use of this drug.
michael jackson died of this drug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rQZ-L8KC_A&feature=related  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.22.1 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreational use 

message: At the beginning, it says the drug may be administered intravenusly while at the end it says that it should never be given intravenously... which is right? soldierx40k (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be, if, on the doctor's decision be administered cautiously, slowly i.v., titrating the dose. Pethidine should, however, be used only if there is a reason not to administer morphine or other analgesic available and it certainly shouldn't be abused "recreationally".--84.163.96.20 (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet this isn't that it shouldn't be used because it can be fatal due to route alone, like codeine or hydrocodeine (vicodin) due to having a severe histamine reaction that causes anaphylaxis and/or pulmonary edema resulting in most certain death... but rather a very potent cumulative effect of maintained potency in a titrated means unusual seeing as norpethidine; it's human metabolite is also it's human precursor (so based on your own particular human metabolism; demerol can be an endless chain where it metabolizes into it's own precursor in your body and the molecule is made anew, based on how many of your metabolic enzymes that make this function in that part of your body show bio-availability at that time in your metabolic cycle, increasing potency dramatically and in a way unlike other opioids. . . . Does that stand true as a good explanation? If true anyone feel free to alter what I just typed here in any manner and add it to the article in whatever way deemed necessary to explain the dangers of IV use in this regard and its alternate considerations over other opiates of potential abuse to its Pethidine's metabolite also being its precursor (Norpethidine) which is a very notable and necessary of consideration facet of the drugs nature: A feedback loop in the body. Very dangerous and unpredictable. 4.242.174.200 (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Intravenous?!

message: The chemical structure and name used in the article appear to be inaccurate. A piperadine structure has a N in the cyclical ring with 5 carbons. The number 1 structure has the methyl group and the number 4 carbon has the phenyl group and the ethyl ester. The structural name and picture didn't make sense to me so I looked on the web for other articles on meperidine which corroborated my curiosity. I suggest the name and structure be corrected.--Ajschindler (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The chemical structure and the names are correct. Сасусlе 01:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both structural formula and the name are correct.--84.163.96.20 (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The chemical structure and name in the article  

message: I've been editing out the MJ info.  There is no official quotes or confirmations, leaving this info as gossip.  I removed random quotes that had a reference, but did not reference the quotes nor the information.  The reference attributes to legal challenges in 2005.  IF this page continues to be changed with incorrect info and so far only minor vandalism, the rest of this day could see worse and might be necessary for slightly increased security.
:I'm going to suggest that you leave (or insert) a comment under notable personages, that indicates that MJ has died, and that it might be due to an overdose of demerol, which he was known to be using.  Otherwise, you might spend the next two weeks reverting this article.  I've inserted the "current event" tag, which ought to be enough to inform people that the referenced event is, in fact, rumor and/or gossip. Norm Reitzel (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up the edit that discussed it rumor as fact.  The tag you added is necessary at this time, and I changed it to rumor.  Removed an allusion to other drugs, reference cited did not state anything about other drugs and is unsourced/unfounded rumor at this time.  Current edit is sufficient when coupled with your tag. Seola (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is as good as we can do until the flap dies down, short of just locking down the article. Norm Reitzel (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed events to chronological.  Re-added his death.  It's a fact he is dead.  The current statement does not allude to the use of this drug as a cause of death, as it is still speculation, but stating the fact that he is dead is in line with Wiki standards.  Agree, this is the best expansion or detail needed at this time. Seola (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no harm in letting the Michael Jackson material run for a little while. It should not be included, in the long term, imo. In a few months it will be easier to see it as either notable for posterity or subject to deletion according to WP:NOTNEWS. We'll all still be here. I doubt very much the story will be, though. I do not support immediate deletion, nor do I support indefinite inclusion at this time. I think the editors here have done a good job of it. Anarchangel (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:LEAD, we have to include notable controversies in the lead, and this is as notable as it gets. The information is sourced to the Los Angeles police, and was reported by ABC News. His family has also discussed it, so this isn't some dodgy rumour that will disappear shortly. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a rare thing that I find myself on the deletion end of a discussion. And I agree that as far as WP:V goes, and the event itself goes, the event is notable. And I take back my tone of prognostication. The information seems to be perched on the edge of relevance to the article, but it all depends on what new evidence arises. What I am having difficulty with is the connection between the drug and his death. It is way too early to tell, but if no new evidence arises linking the two, then I would have to say, delete. The connection between something and a notable event is not itself notable if the connection is weak, see what I am saying? Side note: LAPD RS? Anarchangel (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Et voila. Latest Wikinews report is that the LA Coroner's office has ruled MJ's death to have been caused by Propofol, not Pethidine. Now we can decide whether it is notable that early reports were of Pethidine. Again, I vote against. Anarchangel (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: And if you're going to include a "list" of notable users, I feel that the character Don Gately from Infinite Jest merits mentioning.--Sem;colon (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Jackson edits

message: Like many others, I came here following the death and rumors of one MJ to see what could be learned about "Demerol", and referenced from sources.  Aside from all the wrangling over putting MJ himself in the intro as an example, I could not get past the penultimate sentence of the intro: "Several countries, including Australia, have put severe limits on its use or curtailed it outright".  Maybe it is a "down under" lingo thing, or perhaps I am unusually off today, or maybe I am always "off" and just haven't noticed until now, but I cannot find a significant difference, at least in the common usage, between "put severe limits" and "curtailed it outright".  Did it previously say "banned it outright" and then there was a disagreement?.  Just wondering, thanks in advance.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what it said long ago, but as of MJ's death (about 100 edits back) that sentence read the same. When adding an existing reference to replace a cite tag earlier, I reworded the part in question to "...have put strict limits on its use(period)" since the reference didn't specify any countries that had outright banned it. At least not that I could find (too much medical language and I start experiencing symptoms like headaches, dizziness, etc). I think just using the word strict is sufficient; I think you made a valid point; but I have no idea if you are "off". Perhaps we both are ;) Zephyrnthesky (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro:  "put severe limits" vs "curtailed it outright"  - -  ?? 

message: Currently
 This article uses the terms "hazardous use," "harmful use," and "dependence" in accordance with Lexicon of alcohol and drug terms published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1994.[18] In WHO usage, the first two terms replace the term "abuse" and the third term replaces the term "addiction."[18]
While I can see the case for both this use and the more everyday use, I find
the current situation confusing: Most people will not have the background
to get the right associations for e.g. "harmful use". Correspondingly, I
suggest that either the note be moved to the beginning of the article
(to be brought to the readers immediate attention) or that the language
be changed.
188.100.204.157 (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed.  This seemed very out of place with the article.   It should be removed. --128.227.83.71 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   Lexicon of alcohol and drug terms /Terminology 

message: The article states "...relative to other available opioid analgesics have seen it fall out of favor in recent years for all but a very few, very specific indications.[5]"   Reference 5 no longer exists.   What are the "very few, very specific indications"?   --128.227.83.71 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  indications 

message: I don't believe this sentence is correct: "Unlike morphine, a potent mu opioid receptor agonist, pethidine exerts its analgesic effects by acting as an agonist at the kappa opioid receptor, primarily.[citation needed]"  My understanding is that meperidine (pethidine) is a full mu AND kappa receptor agonist.  Could someone either source the citation for the sentence above, or remove it from the article? --159.178.228.148 (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  mu or kappa opioid receptor agonist? 

message: It would be nice if there was some commentary about typical dosage.  An article on Michael Jackson mentioned 900 milligrams of Demerol , I was hoping this article would give me some clue how that amount compared to typical usage. Kevink707 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical Dosage? 

message: The reference to  "Use of pethidine for pain management in the emergency department: a position statement of the NSW Therapeutic Advisory Group" doesn't point to a valid web page any more. Joreberg (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: His correct name is "Otto Eisleb". --FK1954 (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventor 

message: Medical uses.... since the mid-2000s.
Is that 2000-2009, or 2000-2099, or.......? It may have been clear at the time, but time gets foggy. : PRR (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mid-2000s" is ambiguous 

message: Medical uses.... replaced largely by hydromorphone since the mid-2000s.[16]
[16] "Pain relief in labour - Pregnancy and baby guide - NHS Choices". www.nhs.uk 
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/pain-relief-labour.aspx'''
That link has NO historical information. And seems to say "pethidine ... less commonly, ...diamorphine". 
PRR (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical uses.... replaced largely by hydromorphone