Posted by ed_uk on April 16, 2005, at 15:05:43
In reply to was old nardil enteric coated?, posted by Michael Bell on April 13, 2005, at 21:06:33
Hi,
I think it was sugar coated but I don't think it was enteric conated. I'm not certain though.
There seems to be some confusion on the site provided by willyee...............
>We believe that, due to removal of additional protective excipients such as pharmaceutical wax, hard-shell coating and buffers that allowed a slower and more constant, timed release into the bloodstream and beyond, and also protect the active ingredient during its course of travel beyond the bloodstream.........
The excipients in the tablet did NOT protect the drug (phenelzine) during it's course of travel beyond the blood stream- this is not the purpose of excipients. In some cases, excipients can affect the rate and extent of absorption. If a person is transfered to a different formulation of the same drug, adjustments to the dose and the frequency of administration may be necessary.
I do not believe that the 'new' Nardil is ineffective. Nevertheless, patients transfered from the 'old' Nardil to the 'new' Nardil might theoretically require the dose (or the frequency of administration) to be adjusted.
Aditionally, fear of the 'new' Nardil might have led to a relapse in some patients- almost like the exact opposite of a placebo effect.
Since many people have relied on Nardil for many years, I think it was extremely foolish of Pfizer to change the formulation!
Ed.
poster:ed_uk
thread:483920
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050413/msgs/485112.html