Template talk:Antidepressants

message: by WhereIsMarty (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  American/FDA bias and drug inclusion/exclusion criteria: Refactoring Proposition W1 

message: Yes: My reasons can be read in the "American/FDA bias and drug inclusion/exclusion criteria: Refactoring Proposition W1" section. --WhereIsMarty (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: Classification Refactoring Proposition W1

message: How about breaking this template up into smaller templates? Essentially, have an Antidepressants template that lists the categories (SSRI, SNRI, DARI, MAOI, etc), and an Antidepressant:XXX template for each of the categories, listing the drugs themselves?
That should limit the confusion, and keep the individual templates more manageable, as well as limiting the need for any controversy about what should be included.
As an example, the escitalopram article would have the Antidepressants/SSRI template, as well as the Antidepressants template, on it, giving the user one box with a list of the types of antidepressants covered on WP, and another box with a list of SSRIs.
Zuiram 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for refactoring of template=

message: Should we perhaps archive some of the stale material here? The talk page is getting excessively long.
Zuiram 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Nesting templates is reallly bad for server resources and should be avoided at all costs.  Is there any way contributors to this article can fix this? gren グレン 17:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugghhh - that's one ugly template. The nesting just makes it worse. Anyone care to tidy it up ? Megapixie 06:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unnested the templates. --Arcadian 15:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nesting

message: CNS stimulants are used clinically in treatment refractory depression. In fact, it is most frequently used as an adjunct to other medicines. For example, despite "common sense" labelling to the contrary, it actually occurs that when people have reached the maximum dose of Tranylcypromine, without adequate response, the doctors will augment it with Dexedrine.
I've been treated with about half or so of these categories, and some that are not present here, as well as having read about 70.000 pages of research on pharmacological treatment of depression, particularly treatment refractory depression comorbid to ADHD and autism-spectrum disorders.
The field is too complex to be accurately represented by this template in any way, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to where the line should be drawn between accuracy and usefulness. The articles themselves tend not to be overly accurate, nor overly useful, but I doubt that is a good standard to emulate. I'd like to rewrite a few dozen psychopharmaca-articles, but that'd require more sourcing/citing work than I'm prepared to invest right now (I've got most the fulltext papers lying around, but it's hell to dig them all up).
In any case, removing the CNS stimulant category is decreasing the factual content of the template. You can reduce it to dexedrine, desoxyn, PEA and ritalin, though, as these are the only stimulants that are "widely" used. I'd not be inclined to revert a remove of desoxyn (a better choice than dexedrine for this use, but not very "in" at the moment) and ritalin (as combinations are the general case, the drugs that have been around the longest are preferred as they have been studied more extensively).
Zuiram 13:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding CNS stimulants (reply to Davidruben) 

message: I'd been wanting to do it for some time. The unnesting of the templates made it easier. Anyway, I saw that fluoxetine and atomoxetine were both bicyclic compounds and are classified purely on the basis of chemical structure, so why the others (it was my idea, and I don't remember why I did it with viloxazine anymore).--Rmky87 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither fluoxetine, nor atomoxetine are bicyclic. Polycyclism isn't about overall number of rings in structure, but about the number of rings fused. This is a common misperception in many Wikipedia articles regarding psychopharmaceuticals.--84.163.110.20 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I repositioned [[viloxazine]] and [[venlafaxine]] within the template. 

message: Should really phenmetrazine be included in this template? I know Amphetamine has been used as an antidepressive in the past, but to my knowledge phenmetrazine has only been used as an anorexic. (Although I'm sure it would function  in that role, to some extent.) 213.67.210.135 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would probably be better if it were removed from the template. --Arcadian 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phenmetrazine 

message: There needs to be a better setup, mostly dealing with the TCA/Tetra, as well as the N RI's, and the A RI's current configuration and setup, it's just a wee tad bit confusing; considering that now all of those medications do both.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.127.178 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaner setup

message: I request splitting MAOI because it's hard to keep track of which drugs are which, plus considering the very different actions and effects of A and B inhibitors, it makes sense to do so.  Someone who comes across an article with this template will be intrigued with examining the differences.  I'm not changing it myself because I don't understand if RIMAs are... um... MAO-A Inhibitors, MAO-B Inhibitors, both, either, or something in themselves.  --geekyßroad. meow? 03:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do: request to categorize MAOI into MAO-A inhibitors and MAO-B Inhibitors 

message: I'm not that proficient in Wiki to do that. but can anyone add the [hifrf] link to this template? It is to big and gets too much space. Samuel Sol (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the [hide] link 

message: ...is, that a polycyclic (e.g., bi-, tri-, tetracyclic) compound is made out by the overall number of rings in their structure; this is wrong. In fact, the number of rings fused defines, wheter a compound/molecule is mono-, bi-, tri-, tetra- etc. cyclic. To illustrate this: trazodone is sometimes reffered to as a tetracyclic, but it is bicyclic. Amoxapine isn't tetracyclic, but tricyclic. Haloperidol isn't tricyclic. Venlafaxine isn't bicyclic. etc. etc.. This issue should be cleared with aid of some users contributing to Chemistry.--84.163.110.20 (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A common misinterpretation of polycyclism here 

message: "Agomelatine is known as a norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitor (NDDI) because of its 5HT2C antagonistic properties of inhibiting 5HT, thereby disinhibiting DA and NE release" --Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD author of "Essential Psychopharmacology". Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2007 Oct;10(5):575-8. Epub 2007 Aug 6. 
I wish the abstract would mention it clearly, but it doesn't. A quick googling of the statement shows that Stahl stated it. Dr.Stahl being the authority he is in psychopharmacology, I would think NDDI as a new category and Agomelatine being its first member is warranted. NDDIs and NDRAs are different in that NDRA act directly as releasers while NDDIs act indirectly via disinhibition. One could argue about Agomelatine being a "Melatonergic antidepressant", but it is recognized that Agomelatine antidepressant effects comes from its 5-HT2c antagonistic properties; the melatonergic effects are side effects. Good side effects, sure, but only side effects as melatonergic agonism has never been proven being antidepressive and already has even been theorized to be depressive. The accent on it being the "first melatonergic antidepressant" is only a marketing strategy by Servier to differentiate its product. Other selective NDDIs are being currently developed, like  TIK-301/LY156735.
--WhereIsMarty (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NDDIs and Agomelatine