![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by ross on December 17, 2001, at 17:07:08
lilly is also working on a new antidepressant in phase 2 trials called dualoxetine. i guess its the prozac molecule along with a new twist like effexor.
they claim low sexual side effects and less anxiety etc...
would be nice.
but esctilopram suppose to be stronger than celexa, with less side effects
anyone hear anything??
ross
Posted by ross on December 17, 2001, at 17:15:58
In reply to anyone kwow when the new celexa is due to market?, posted by ross on December 17, 2001, at 17:07:08
Depression: In March 2001, we submitted a NDA for escitalopram for the treatment of depression. Escitalopram is the single enantiomer form of Celexa. Studies suggest that this new drug may provide enhanced selectivity and efficacy and a still more favorable side effect profile than its predecessor. We hope for approval from the FDA in early 2002.
Posted by bonnie_ann on December 17, 2001, at 21:16:33
In reply to anyone kwow when the new celexa is due to market?, posted by ross on December 17, 2001, at 17:07:08
> lilly is also working on a new antidepressant in phase 2 trials called dualoxetine. i guess its the prozac molecule along with a new twist like effexor.
> they claim low sexual side effects and less anxiety etc...
> would be nice.
> but esctilopram suppose to be stronger than celexa, with less side effects
> anyone hear anything??
> rossI regulary check the forestlabs.com site hoping that they will get an approval soon. I'm looking forward to trying it out- sounds very promising to me.
Bonnie
Posted by IsoM on December 18, 2001, at 1:37:27
In reply to Re: anyone kwow when the new celexa is due to market?, posted by bonnie_ann on December 17, 2001, at 21:16:33
How is this new Celexa different than the Celexa already on the market? Curious, as that's the SSRI that I'm on.
*************************************************************************************************
> > lilly is also working on a new antidepressant in phase 2 trials called dualoxetine. i guess its the prozac molecule along with a new twist like effexor.
> > they claim low sexual side effects and less anxiety etc...
> > would be nice.
> > but esctilopram suppose to be stronger than celexa, with less side effects
> > anyone hear anything??
> > ross
>
> I regulary check the forestlabs.com site hoping that they will get an approval soon. I'm looking forward to trying it out- sounds very promising to me.
> Bonnie
Posted by Bill L on December 18, 2001, at 8:57:33
In reply to What's with this new Celexa?, posted by IsoM on December 18, 2001, at 1:37:27
Many chemical coumponds, including Celexa, have enantiomers. That means that the coumponds exist in pairs. Each pair has a molecular structure that is the mirror image of the other. So half of the coumpound exists as the first enantiomer, and the other half as the second (mirror image) enantiomer.
In Celexa, only the first enantiomer (which is called the S enantiomer) is active against depression and anxiety. The second enantiomer does not help with depression or anxiety, but it contributes to side effects.
The lab that makes Celexa for Forest Labs (I forgot the name of the lab - it might be Lundbreck?) found a way to strip out the inactive enantiomer leaving only the S enantiomer. They then did clinical trials. These trials confirmed that the S enantiomer worked at a lower dose than Celexa and had less side effects.
Since the new drug is the S enantomer only, it's call S citalopram. But actually they decided to make it one word and they are calling it escitalopram. I'm sure they will come up with a trade name before it hits the market but I don't know what that name will be.
> How is this new Celexa different than the Celexa already on the market? Curious, as that's the SSRI that I'm on.
>
> *************************************************************************************************
>
> > > lilly is also working on a new antidepressant in phase 2 trials called dualoxetine. i guess its the prozac molecule along with a new twist like effexor.
> > > they claim low sexual side effects and less anxiety etc...
> > > would be nice.
> > > but esctilopram suppose to be stronger than celexa, with less side effects
> > > anyone hear anything??
> > > ross
> >
> > I regulary check the forestlabs.com site hoping that they will get an approval soon. I'm looking forward to trying it out- sounds very promising to me.
> > Bonnie
Posted by Simcha on December 18, 2001, at 9:13:07
In reply to anyone kwow when the new celexa is due to market?, posted by ross on December 17, 2001, at 17:07:08
Gee,
This will be just in time. Forest Labs will lose exclusivity on Celexa soon. The generics will come out and whammo! They have another drug. "The new and improved Celexa!" They can milk this profiteering wave for another ten years.
Does anyone else find this disgusting? Those of us who currently take Celexa are taking an inferior product to the new one. The new one only includes the effective S isomer. It produces less side effects and you have to take less of the stuff.
Will insurance companies allow us to switch to the less side-effect producing "New and Improved Celexa" or will they force us to take generic citalopram because it's cheaper? What about those without insurance? Surely all they might be able to afford is the inferior version of Celexa....
Why don't we see this for what it is... It's a marketing ploy to keep Forest Labs' profits up. They cannot admit that they are making an inferior product and correcting the mistake they made. Why should we pay for their lack of research on a form that would produce less side-effects and be more efficacious?
Does anyone else find it disconcerting that those of us who use Celexa are taking a form of the drug that includes an isomer that does not do anything for our depression but it ADDS to the side-effect profile? Does anyone else find Forest Labs sudden "discovery" at all suspicious?
Posted by Optimistic on December 18, 2001, at 10:38:24
In reply to New Celexa -- Scam, posted by Simcha on December 18, 2001, at 9:13:07
> Gee,
>
> This will be just in time. Forest Labs will lose exclusivity on Celexa soon. The generics will come out and whammo! They have another drug. "The new and improved Celexa!" They can milk this profiteering wave for another ten years.
>
> Does anyone else find this disgusting? Those of us who currently take Celexa are taking an inferior product to the new one. The new one only includes the effective S isomer. It produces less side effects and you have to take less of the stuff.
>
> Will insurance companies allow us to switch to the less side-effect producing "New and Improved Celexa" or will they force us to take generic citalopram because it's cheaper? What about those without insurance? Surely all they might be able to afford is the inferior version of Celexa....
>
> Why don't we see this for what it is... It's a marketing ploy to keep Forest Labs' profits up. They cannot admit that they are making an inferior product and correcting the mistake they made. Why should we pay for their lack of research on a form that would produce less side-effects and be more efficacious?
>
> Does anyone else find it disconcerting that those of us who use Celexa are taking a form of the drug that includes an isomer that does not do anything for our depression but it ADDS to the side-effect profile? Does anyone else find Forest Labs sudden "discovery" at all suspicious?>why limit it to celexa and forest labs..this probably applies to many AD's
Posted by IsoM on December 18, 2001, at 18:54:59
In reply to Re: What's with this new Celexa?, posted by Bill L on December 18, 2001, at 8:57:33
Thanks Bill for the explanation. I'm pretty familiar with chiral molecules from some knowledge of chemistry. Interesting that Celexa has been found to be one of the compounds with an inactive chiral form. Seeing I don't get ANY side-effects from Celexa (thank goodness), the newer version wouldn't be important to me but I sure can understand how people with side-effects on it would welcome the newest version.
I read recently about thalidomide making a comeback, being used in the treatment of leprosy. It's one with both right- & left-handed isomers & apparently the horrible side-effects that caused the seal-limbs in babies born to mothers taking the drug during pregnancy was caused by the inactive form of it.
At one time, it wasn't possible when making a chemical to separate the two versions but advances have made it possible now. Glad to hear about Celexa.
> Many chemical coumponds, including Celexa, have enantiomers. That means that the coumponds exist in pairs. Each pair has a molecular structure that is the mirror image of the other. So half of the coumpound exists as the first enantiomer, and the other half as the second (mirror image) enantiomer.
>
> In Celexa, only the first enantiomer (which is called the S enantiomer) is active against depression and anxiety. The second enantiomer does not help with depression or anxiety, but it contributes to side effects.
>
> The lab that makes Celexa for Forest Labs (I forgot the name of the lab - it might be Lundbreck?) found a way to strip out the inactive enantiomer leaving only the S enantiomer. They then did clinical trials. These trials confirmed that the S enantiomer worked at a lower dose than Celexa and had less side effects.
>
> Since the new drug is the S enantomer only, it's call S citalopram. But actually they decided to make it one word and they are calling it escitalopram. I'm sure they will come up with a trade name before it hits the market but I don't know what that name will be.
>
> > How is this new Celexa different than the Celexa already on the market? Curious, as that's the SSRI that I'm on.
> >
> > *************************************************************************************************
> >
> > > > lilly is also working on a new antidepressant in phase 2 trials called dualoxetine. i guess its the prozac molecule along with a new twist like effexor.
> > > > they claim low sexual side effects and less anxiety etc...
> > > > would be nice.
> > > > but esctilopram suppose to be stronger than celexa, with less side effects
> > > > anyone hear anything??
> > > > ross
> > >
> > > I regulary check the forestlabs.com site hoping that they will get an approval soon. I'm looking forward to trying it out- sounds very promising to me.
> > > Bonnie
Posted by Bill L on December 19, 2001, at 8:53:05
In reply to Re: What's with this new Celexa? » Bill L, posted by IsoM on December 18, 2001, at 18:54:59
I think it's a fair question that Simca is posing about Forest's motives. But IsoM is pointing out that the ability to separate out enantiomers is relatively new technology. Also, I think that it's just a fact of life that the profit motive is always going to drive newer and better products and the public will have to pay outrageous prices until the patent wears off. People in the US have it the worst since there are no government price controls on drugs as there are in most advanced countries which have national health insurance.
> Thanks Bill for the explanation. I'm pretty familiar with chiral molecules from some knowledge of chemistry. Interesting that Celexa has been found to be one of the compounds with an inactive chiral form. Seeing I don't get ANY side-effects from Celexa (thank goodness), the newer version wouldn't be important to me but I sure can understand how people with side-effects on it would welcome the newest version.
>
> I read recently about thalidomide making a comeback, being used in the treatment of leprosy. It's one with both right- & left-handed isomers & apparently the horrible side-effects that caused the seal-limbs in babies born to mothers taking the drug during pregnancy was caused by the inactive form of it.
>
> At one time, it wasn't possible when making a chemical to separate the two versions but advances have made it possible now. Glad to hear about Celexa.
>
> > Many chemical coumponds, including Celexa, have enantiomers. That means that the coumponds exist in pairs. Each pair has a molecular structure that is the mirror image of the other. So half of the coumpound exists as the first enantiomer, and the other half as the second (mirror image) enantiomer.
> >
> > In Celexa, only the first enantiomer (which is called the S enantiomer) is active against depression and anxiety. The second enantiomer does not help with depression or anxiety, but it contributes to side effects.
> >
> > The lab that makes Celexa for Forest Labs (I forgot the name of the lab - it might be Lundbreck?) found a way to strip out the inactive enantiomer leaving only the S enantiomer. They then did clinical trials. These trials confirmed that the S enantiomer worked at a lower dose than Celexa and had less side effects.
> >
> > Since the new drug is the S enantomer only, it's call S citalopram. But actually they decided to make it one word and they are calling it escitalopram. I'm sure they will come up with a trade name before it hits the market but I don't know what that name will be.
> >
> > > How is this new Celexa different than the Celexa already on the market? Curious, as that's the SSRI that I'm on.
> > >
> > > *************************************************************************************************
> > >
> > > > > lilly is also working on a new antidepressant in phase 2 trials called dualoxetine. i guess its the prozac molecule along with a new twist like effexor.
> > > > > they claim low sexual side effects and less anxiety etc...
> > > > > would be nice.
> > > > > but esctilopram suppose to be stronger than celexa, with less side effects
> > > > > anyone hear anything??
> > > > > ross
> > > >
> > > > I regulary check the forestlabs.com site hoping that they will get an approval soon. I'm looking forward to trying it out- sounds very promising to me.
> > > > Bonnie
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.