ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community  

Go Back   ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community > TREATMENT & MANAGEMENT > Medications > General Medication Discussion
Register Blogs FAQ Chat Members List Calendar Donate Gallery Arcade Mark Forums Read

General Medication Discussion This section is to be used for general medication discussion and other medications not broken out in their own respective forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-12-05, 01:23 AM
yupyup1128's Avatar
yupyup1128 yupyup1128 is offline
ADDvanced Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: new england
Posts: 244
Thanks: 15
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
yupyup1128 has disabled reputation
Question ever heard of Desoxyn?

has anyone ever heard of or tried Desoxyn? any imput will help
__________________
i can see with 1 eye
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-14-05, 12:49 AM
saskman's Avatar
saskman saskman is offline
ADDvanced Member
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 149
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
saskman is an unknown quantity at this point
"Methamphetamine ( Desoxyn ) an amphetamine used to treat narcolepsy and attention-deficit-disorder in children". Used in hard to treat cases I believe. Is kind of getting a bad name.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-14-05, 01:59 AM
stanzen's Avatar
stanzen stanzen is offline
ADDvanced Contributor
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 740
Thanks: 0
Thanked 89 Times in 11 Posts
stanzen has a spectacular aura aboutstanzen has a spectacular aura about
Desoxyn is probably a fine drug for ADHD.

It is smoother and lasts longer than regular amphetamine, so you don't need a special patented expensive extended-release mechanism for all-day delivery. It also is a effective as dex.

Due mainly to the availability of precursor chemicals and ease of bootleg manufacture for methamphetamine vs. amphetamine, methamphetamine (desoxyn) predominates the black market in abused amphetamines. It gets a bad rap because of an abundance of clandestinely manufactured purified product provided in high dose forms compounded to be abused.

If regular amphetamines were more easily manufactured than meth in clandestine labs throughout the US, than regular amphetamines would have the bad rap instead of meth.

Having said that, if you already have a problem with amphetamine dependance, you will certainly have the same dependance issues with desoxyn (methamphetamine).
__________________
Bedazzled? Confused? Destitively not Bonnaroo? Have those Science Posers Broken your Heart? Again? Check out: How to Avoid InfoCrush

Dr. Pangloss: "There is a concatenation of all events in the best of possible worlds . . ."

"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our garden."


Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #4  
Old 11-05-05, 01:02 AM
attention attention is offline
Contributor
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: sydney
Posts: 334
Thanks: 1
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
attention is an unknown quantity at this point
Exclamation



Ovation Pharm has since made Desoxyn, the superior Abbort version, used to be made in 5mg tabs to 15mg SR forms


It is the strongest, nost potent, longest lasting CNS stim their is, also has GREAT PNS to CNS effects-a very safe, effective med
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-05-05, 10:20 AM
UnleashTheHound's Avatar
UnleashTheHound UnleashTheHound is offline
ADDvanced Contributor
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 501
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
UnleashTheHound will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanzen
Desoxyn is probably a fine drug for ADHD.

It is smoother and lasts longer than regular amphetamine, so you don't need a special patented expensive extended-release mechanism for all-day delivery. It also is a effective as dex.

Due mainly to the availability of precursor chemicals and ease of bootleg manufacture for methamphetamine vs. amphetamine, methamphetamine (desoxyn) predominates the black market in abused amphetamines. It gets a bad rap because of an abundance of clandestinely manufactured purified product provided in high dose forms compounded to be abused.

If regular amphetamines were more easily manufactured than meth in clandestine labs throughout the US, than regular amphetamines would have the bad rap instead of meth.
.
Is methamphetamine inherently more harmful or addictive than regular amphetamine? Or is it only perceived this way due to how commonly it's abused? I haven't found a definitive answer to this.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-05-05, 03:03 PM
JHarman16 JHarman16 is offline
Jr Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
JHarman16 is on a distinguished road
The meth part is just a type of molecular group attached to the ampthetamine molecule. They can both be abused when missused. The reason methamphetmaine is ossociated with drug abuse and manufactorering is because it is easier to derive from common OTC stimmulents and cheaper. The meth is also more potent in it's stimulant qualitites, when compared gram for gram to amphetamine, so the illegal drug manufactors get more bang for there buck. This is why desoxyn is prescribed at lower doses. They both have great possibilites as medicine for adhd. Along with problems when abused with high doses by snorting or smoking or the less common oral method. Which is something people wouldn't do unless they wanted to get high. Please don't think that because the media stimatizes meth as a abused recreational drug that it can only be associated with abusing it. I hope this answered your questions and if you have any more i can try to help demystify them
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-06-05, 03:02 PM
stanzen's Avatar
stanzen stanzen is offline
ADDvanced Contributor
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 740
Thanks: 0
Thanked 89 Times in 11 Posts
stanzen has a spectacular aura aboutstanzen has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Is methamphetamine inherently more harmful or addictive than regular amphetamine? Or is it only perceived this way due to how commonly it's abused? I haven't found a definitive answer to this.
I wondered about this question, as well.

There is neurobiological evidence that methamphetamine (mAMPH) is very similar to d-amphetamine (AMPH), but there are also subtle differences. Both can cause some neurological degeneration in test animals. For example, mAMPH in high neurotoxic doses was shown to cause object recognition memory depletion in rats. AMPH in the same trial caused dopamine tranporter damage and cortical neurodegeneration.(1) In other studies, the two compounds were found to damage slightly different systems of the brain, but both were neurotoxic (2,3).

The great addictive potential of mAMPH is taken for granted in many articles, without substantiation. For example: "Although METH is generally accepted to be more addictive and potent than its analogue AMPH, there are no known neurobiological differences in action between the two drugs that may account for such differences." (3)

This quote reveals the underlying bias in this kind of drug reasearch. That mAMPH is inherently more dangerous and, thus, qualitatively different than AMPH. The researcher trys to find out what neurobiological properties distinguish the compounds.

This persistant acceptance of the superior addictive potential (and danger) of mAMPH is due to the common misapprehention that the widespread use of a specific intoxicating drug analogue, is due to consumer preference.

Do amphetamine abusers prefer methamphetamine to d-amphetamine? Or do they use whichever of the two analogues they can get their hands on? I think the answer is obvious.

There were some early studies (1970s) concerning the relative preference of humans and animals to various drugs. (4,5,6) I haven't read these, but I assume that mAMPH was shown to have a slightly greater addiction potential (however that was defined) than AMPH. These thirty year old studies provide poor evidence to base entire series of research projects upon.

If both AMPH and mAMPH were Schedule I compounds, there would no quibbling: they would both be declared equally neurotoxic (in high doses) and prone to dependence.

The drug-enforcement literature certainly lumps these two compounds together.

There is an interesting report online, compiled by the NIDA (1989), which discusses measures of drug abuse potential in a DEA context: http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/92.pdf See the table on page 179 which shows the relative preference for amphetamine.

This report illustrates the difficulty of evaluating the addictive and abuse liability for drugs, especially when comparing two closely related compounds.


IMHO, the theraputic community has magnified the differences between mAMPH and AMPH in order to sanitize AMPH (my good drug/bad drug hypothesis). If mAMPH were so demonstrably different, addictive, and harmful, it would not be available by perscription.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-medication. The preponderance of evidence is that theraputic doses of either compound taken for ADHD is beneficial. Taking either compound regularly in inappropriately high doses and concentrations, will do psychological and neurological harm.
1. Belcher, A. M.; O'Dell, S. J., and Marshall, J. F. Impaired object recognition memory following methamphetamine, but not p-chloroamphetamine- or d-amphetamine-induced neurotoxicity. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005 Nov; 30(11):2026-34.
Abstract: Repeated moderate doses of methamphetamine (mAMPH) damage forebrain monoaminergic terminals and nonmonoaminergic cells in somatosensory cortex, and impair performance in a novelty preference task of object recognition (OR). This study aimed to determine whether the memory deficit seen after a neurotoxic mAMPH regimen results from damage to dopamine (DA) and/or serotonin (5-HT) terminals. Animals were given a neurotoxic regimen of mAMPH, p-chloroamphetamine (PCA, preferentially damages 5-HT terminals), d-amphetamine (d-AMPH, preferentially damages DA terminals), or saline. After 1 week, animals were trained and tested for OR memory. Rats treated with mAMPH showed no recognition memory during the short-term memory (STM) test, whereas both PCA- and d-AMPH-treated rats showed OR STM scores comparable to controls. . . . By contrast, d-AMPH-treated animals showed marked depletions in striatal DAT and cortical neurodegeneration, but HC and pRh SERT were unaffected. This pattern of results indicates that no single feature of mAMPH-induced neurotoxicity is sufficient to produce the OR impairments seen after mAMPH treatment.


2. Ellison, G. and Switzer, R. C. 3rd. Dissimilar patterns of degeneration in brain following four different addictive stimulants. Neuroreport. 1993 Oct 25; 5(1):17-20.
Abstract: Patterns of neural degeneration were compared following continuous administration of four drugs of addiction, each of which induces model psychoses in chronic addicts. D-amphetamine (D-Amph), cocaine (Coc), or phencyclidine (PCP) were administered continuously over a 5-day period. Both D-Amph and Coc induced pronounced degeneration in fasciculus retroflexus, but only D-Amph further induced substantial degeneration in striatum. Continuous PCP produced entirely different degeneration largely confined to the posterior entorhinal cortex, ventral dentate gyrus, and cingulate cortex. Methamphetamine (Meth) administered in the very high dose but less prolonged drug regimen often employed in studies of dopamine toxicity induced pronounced degeneration in striatum, but widespread degeneration in many other regions as well. These results indicate that drugs of abuse with psychotomimetic properties induce distinctively different patterns of neural degeneration, a finding with implications for theories of addiction and psychosis.


3. Shoblock, J. R.; Sullivan, E. B.; Maisonneuve, I. M., and Glick, S. D. Neurochemical and behavioral differences between d-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2003 Feb; 165(4):359-69.
Abstract: RATIONALE: Methamphetamine (METH) and amphetamine (AMPH) are both abused psychostimulants. Although METH is generally accepted to be more addictive and potent than its analogue AMPH, there are no known neurobiological differences in action between the two drugs that may account for such differences. RESULTS: METH and AMPH raised NAC DA levels to a similar degree. In the PFC, both METH and AMPH raised DA levels, but METH was less effective than AMPH. In the NAC, AMPH raised GLU levels but METH did not. In the PFC, METH raised GLU levels but AMPH did not. The locomotor activity dose response curve for METH had a lower peak than that of AMPH. This difference was blocked by pretreatment with either the GLU NMDA antagonist AP5 or the GLU AMPA antagonist DNQX locally in the NAC. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals several previously unknown neurochemical and behavioral differences between METH and AMPH. Based on these results, it is suggested that new pharmacotherapeutic agents that produce augmentations of NAC GLU or PFC DA activity, or perhaps inhibition of PFC GLU activity, may someday be useful for the treatment of METH addiction.

4. BaIster, R.L., and Schuster, C.R. A comparison of d-amphetamine, lamphetamine and methamphetamine self-administration in rhesus monkeys. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1:67-71, 1973.

5. Martin, W.R.; Sloan, J. W.; Sapira, J.D.; and Jasinski, D.R. Physiologic, subjective and behavioral effects of amphetamine, methamphetamine, ephedrine, phenmetrazine, and methylphenidate in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 12:245-258, 1971.

6. Martin, W.R. Assessment of the abuse potentiality of amphetamines and LSD like hallucinogens in man and its relationship to basic animal assessment programs. In: Goldberg, L., and Hoffmeister, F., eds. Psychic 155. Dependence Bayer Symposium IV. New York: Springer, 1973, pp. 146-155


__________________
Bedazzled? Confused? Destitively not Bonnaroo? Have those Science Posers Broken your Heart? Again? Check out: How to Avoid InfoCrush

Dr. Pangloss: "There is a concatenation of all events in the best of possible worlds . . ."

"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our garden."


Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-07-05, 12:29 PM
Chadwick's Avatar
Chadwick Chadwick is offline
Contributor
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 467
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Chadwick has disabled reputation
Where is the scientific proof, if you don't mind my asking, that amphetamine at low doses taken chronically is not neurotoxic?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-07-05, 01:50 PM
UnleashTheHound's Avatar
UnleashTheHound UnleashTheHound is offline
ADDvanced Contributor
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 501
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
UnleashTheHound will become famous soon enough
Thanks for the info, Stanzen. In those studies, any info on what constitutes a 'high' dose?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-08-05, 02:46 AM
stanzen's Avatar
stanzen stanzen is offline
ADDvanced Contributor
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 740
Thanks: 0
Thanked 89 Times in 11 Posts
stanzen has a spectacular aura aboutstanzen has a spectacular aura about
Unleash: I believe that a high dose starts at 5mg/kg to 10mg/kg a day, translating to a 350mgs to 700mgs for a 70Kg human. A low dose would be 1mg/kg, equivalent to a theraputic human dose.

Chadwick: Safety?
The studies where they give animals these huge doses of drugs, are attempts to mimic the potential harmful affects on human drug-addicts. But, drug addicts don't take huge amounts of drugs the first time they try a substance; they build up to large doses.

Here's one of the few "longer-term" studies in mice given d-AMPH. They give the rats escalating doses starting at a human-theraputic level all the up to 20mg/kg a day (1.4 grams human= 70 X 20mg dexidrine tablets, 95 X 20mg adderall). This regimine appears to have no neurotoxic affects (I suspect a similar trial with d-mAMPH would have a similar result):
Robinson, T. E. and Camp, D. M. Long-lasting effects of escalating doses of d-amphetamine on brain monoamines, amphetamine-induced stereotyped behavior and spontaneous nocturnal locomotion. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1987 Apr; 26(4):821-7.

Abstract: The repeated intermittent administration of relatively low doses of amphetamine (AMPH) produces an enduring hypersensitivity to the motor stimulant effects of AMPH (behavioral sensitization), and this is accompanied by enhanced mesotelencephalic dopamine (DA) utilization/release. In contrast, chronic treatment with very high doses of AMPH does not produce sensitization, but is neurotoxic, resulting in the depletion of brain DA (and often other monoamines). However, gradually escalating doses of AMPH provide protection against the neurotoxic effects of higher doses given later. Therefore, the purpose of the present experiment was to determine if a regimen of gradually escalating doses of AMPH, culminating in much higher doses than usually used to study sensitization, would produce neural and behavioral changes associated with AMPH neurotoxicity (DA depletion) or behavioral sensitization (increased DA utilization). Female rats were given 60 injections (2/day) of increasing (1 to 10 mg/kg) doses of d-AMPH, culminating in rats receiving 20 mg/kg/day for four consecutive days. This treatment did not deplete brain DA or serotonin, but did produce a long-lasting enhancement (at least 12 days) in striatal and nucleus accumbens DOPAC concentrations, and DOPAC/DA ratios. These neurochemical changes were accompanied by an enduring hypersensitivity to the stereotypy-producing effects of a subsequent AMPH 'challenge.' In contrast to this enhanced response to a challenge, AMPH-pretreated rats showed a marked reduction in spontaneous nocturnal motor activity. It is concluded that rats can be given escalating doses of AMPH, which mimic to some extent the AMPH 'runs' common in addicts and that this produces neural and behavioral changes consistent with the development of sensitization; not neurotoxicity.
__________________
Bedazzled? Confused? Destitively not Bonnaroo? Have those Science Posers Broken your Heart? Again? Check out: How to Avoid InfoCrush

Dr. Pangloss: "There is a concatenation of all events in the best of possible worlds . . ."

"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our garden."


Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-08-05, 11:29 AM
Chadwick's Avatar
Chadwick Chadwick is offline
Contributor
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 467
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Chadwick has disabled reputation
Thank you Stan. There is a more recent study using human therapeutic doses in monkeys I believe (rhesus I think but I could be wrong). They showed neurotoxicity at that level of dose. I'm too pressed for time this morning to go looking for it now but I'll try to do it tonight. We should keep in mind that neurotoxicity is a kind of fuzzy term -- nobody's really sure what it is.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-09-05, 10:54 PM
stanzen's Avatar
stanzen stanzen is offline
ADDvanced Contributor
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 740
Thanks: 0
Thanked 89 Times in 11 Posts
stanzen has a spectacular aura aboutstanzen has a spectacular aura about
Chadwick, if you find that article, please post.

Quote:
We should keep in mind that neurotoxicity is a kind of fuzzy term -- nobody's really sure what it is.
I am confused about that term, as well. In these types of studies, many of the effects called neurotoxic are reversible and do not indicate nerve cell death.

When I think neurotoxic, I think MPTP (a synthetic impurity of MPPP- a reverse-ester of Demerol). MPTP selectively kills the dopamine producing cells in the substantia nigra. This destruction produces Parkinson's Syndrome in young adults.

This was first noticed among China White (synthetic opiate) users in LA. Even among the users who exhibited the onset of PS, many showed a reversal of symptoms over time.
__________________
Bedazzled? Confused? Destitively not Bonnaroo? Have those Science Posers Broken your Heart? Again? Check out: How to Avoid InfoCrush

Dr. Pangloss: "There is a concatenation of all events in the best of possible worlds . . ."

"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our garden."


Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-27-05, 09:39 PM
yupyup1128's Avatar
yupyup1128 yupyup1128 is offline
ADDvanced Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: new england
Posts: 244
Thanks: 15
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
yupyup1128 has disabled reputation
wow thanks for all that information, i went to the doc and was told i needed to see a specializet because he wasnt comfertable perscribing it to me, o well, ill have to work at that, but has anyone ever taken this medication???
__________________
i can see with 1 eye
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-29-05, 12:55 AM
Frangible Frangible is offline
ADDvanced Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MT
Posts: 226
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 5 Posts
Frangible is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanzen
Chadwick, if you find that article, please post.


I am confused about that term, as well. In these types of studies, many of the effects called neurotoxic are reversible and do not indicate nerve cell death.

When I think neurotoxic, I think MPTP (a synthetic impurity of MPPP- a reverse-ester of Demerol). MPTP selectively kills the dopamine producing cells in the substantia nigra. This destruction produces Parkinson's Syndrome in young adults.

This was first noticed among China White (synthetic opiate) users in LA. Even among the users who exhibited the onset of PS, many showed a reversal of symptoms over time.
The "neurotoxicity" of methamphetamine (and amphetamine) has little to do with the drug and everything to do with oxidative stress from increased extracellular dopamine levels from several studies I read. According to one study's authors the dose required to achieve this in humans is very high, at least several grams of methamphetamine per day. It does not kill the cell but instead damages the dendrites, which slowly regrow over a period of 1-2 years. It did not seem to be a risk at any theraputic level of the drug from the data and studies I saw.

I personally would be reluctant to take methamphetamine for ADD due to its long half life which can lead to long-term sleep deprivation, and pursue other options first. I've only read a few anecdotes of Desoxyn used in ADD treatment but they all reported this occuring.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-29-05, 11:45 AM
UnleashTheHound's Avatar
UnleashTheHound UnleashTheHound is offline
ADDvanced Contributor
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 501
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
UnleashTheHound will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by yupyup1128
wow thanks for all that information, i went to the doc and was told i needed to see a specializet because he wasnt comfertable perscribing it to me, o well, ill have to work at that, but has anyone ever taken this medication???
Is there a reason you want desoxyn as opposed to the more popular ADHD drugs?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Dexedrine or Desoxyn better than Adderall a5alive2000 Dexedrine/Dextrostat 20 02-21-12 01:16 PM
Has anyone heard about the new patch? KRB1974 General Parenting Issues 8 06-23-06 01:21 PM
Desoxyn!!!!!!!! Uncle_Bob General Medication Discussion 2 05-18-06 04:40 PM
Switching to Dexedrine or Desoxyn! a5alive2000 Adderall 10 06-30-05 04:22 AM
Annie Armen has anyone heard of her ? Mee Personality Disorders 0 02-13-05 03:38 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) 2003 - 2015 ADD Forums