Talk:Dextropropoxyphene/Archive 2

Legal status of coproxamol (from merge)

coproxamol has not yet been withdrawn - it's in the process of being withdrawn, and will cease being prescribed in the UK sometime late 2007 early 2008. For example, in Gloucestershire the primary care trust prescribes about 100,000 tablets per month, about 1 million per year. (This is april 2007) but they're working on stopping prescribing. Dan Beale-Cocks 03:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is now withdrawn. It is available outside the UK as digoxin, but this is formulated in slightly different proportions. It has been withdrawn because some total genius at NICE found that coproxamol is more associated with suicide than paracetamol, which is the active ingredient. The fact that coproxamol is prescribed to people with chronic pain and paracetamol is a non-prescription drug does not appear to have occurred to the intrepid researchers as a better explanation of this phenomenon than the alternative that the drug is in itself intrinsically evil. Many sufferers of arthritis say it is a better drug and relieves their pain, but apparently some geek with a row of biros in his white coat says that they are wrong and only think they feel better.--Streona (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Suicide Risks

I just want to clear up that the suicide risks aren't related to a person being suicidal already and then taking propoxyphene. The suicide risks are actually related to the drug itself. Here in the US any product with propoxyphene carries a black-box warning regarding the potential for increased suicidal thoughts. So, there shouldn't be any confusion between someone committing suicide with Darvocet and the Darvocet actually causing depression. This needs to be made clear because propoxyphene is a very dangerous drug and the side-effects need to be understood. It seems that too many doctors prescribe this drug because of the limited abuse potential...but who cares if it can cause suicidal tendencies? I am very hopeful that the FDA bans this drug. Here's a link to the black-box warning for this drug - http://www.formularyproductions.com/master/showpage.php?dir=blackbox&whichpage=141 (Jpk314 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)).

Systemic bias: article POV is skewed

This article seems to be written with respect to opiate-lovers. It is just a little overwhelming when each of the given sections somehow refers back to 'recreational use', 'opioid detox', etc.. I would like to see some mention of the receptor affinities, like the mu-opioid receptor, as opposed to more subjective comments like 'weak' or 'strong'. Furthermore, references to extraction, under the recreational section, should be removed as this is not appropriate. Also the many references to paracetamol toxicity need to be toned down. 68.41.109.202 (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

POV, particularly on the UK status of the drug

This section is incredibly biased. "Many UK citizens now in untreated pain" - far too emotive language, and sources, please! And "to make matters worse" is not an appropriate paragraph opening for one which goes on to say people cannot now get coproxamol. Stating that not being able to get coproxamol is bad is inherently POV. After all, the decision to withdraw it was taken in the interest of public health, and those decisions are not taken lightly: you need evidence to say that it was a mistake, and none of these statements are sourced.

For what it's worth, the current BNF rationale on co-proxamol is as follows: "Co-proxamol tablets (dextropropoxyphene in combination with paracetamol) are no longer licensed because of safety concerns, particularly toxicity in overdose. Co-proxamol tablets [unlicensed] may still be prescribed for patients who find it difficult to change, because, for example, alternatives are not effective or suitable." (BNF.org, BNF edition 57, accessed 28th August 2009) The EMC does not have a PIL or SPC for either coproxamol or dextropropoxyphene. --Dandelions (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, added quite a lot of sources for the things I could, and citation-needed tags for the things I couldn't. A lot of them appear to be weasel words - not specifying who thinks this drug works and safely, just "patients" or "doctors", while all the sourced clinical evidence says it doesn't. -- Dandelions (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The current news about it

If more refs are needed, the St. Petersburg Times (Tampa Bay area) Sat Nov 10 2010 edition has an article on the whole current, as of this date of course, situation. Lots42 (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Propoxyphene Hydrochloride/Napsylate

Propoxyphene commomly known as Darvon was originally developed for patients who could not tolerate Codeine. The natural opiate Codeine would cause swelling of the skin, reddening and itching in any part of the body. Darvon was developed and was believed to have the same analgesic effect similar. For example,65mg of Darvon was equivalent to about 30mg (1/2 grain) of Codeine without the side effects of Codeine and had less incidence of addiction and the unpleasant itching (pruritus). Initially when developed, it was further believed to be non-addictive and non-narcotic after its development(when taken at reccommended doses). Darvon is a relative of methadone which is a narcotic. But certain derivatives of narcotics had no euphoria producing effects regardless of dosage. For example,papaverine which is a derivative of opium has no habit-forming properties. In the mid-seventies patients had started to increase the dosages on their own because of its fairly mild analgesic effect on the Central Nervous System commonly referred to as "CNS" but not long after, the drug would produce a euphoria similar to that of Methadone. Methadone was believed to be the result of a Nazi medical experiment in 1942. Unfortunately, some patients became so tolerant that doses as high as 390mg of Darvon (about 6 capsules) per dose were taken for the methadone like euphoric effect, but it did not produce the same analgesic (pain killing)effect. Addictionologists have used Propoxyphene Napsylate as an alternative to methadone with reasonably satisfactory results. Propoxyphene Napsylate (because of the molecular structure) was called Darvon-N. 100mg of propoxyphene napsalate was equivalent to 65mg of propoxyphene hydrchloride. Also,because of the structural nature of the napsylate vehicle it was possible to make it in a suspension. By 1978 Darvon products were used recreationally and soon after followed by "propoxyphene related" deaths (usually as a result of respritory depression or convulsions or worse ciculatory collapse).As a result,propoxyphene was listed as a controlled substance in schedule IV and some health officials believed it to have schedule II potential. By around 1979 the FDA gaveEli Lilly an ultimatum either place the drug in schedule II or remove it from the market. This put Darvon under heavy fire from health care officials. In recent years, the health care industry reported that propoxyphene was no more effective than aspirin and that patient would use it more as an intoxicant. But some physicians believe otherwise. It is safer than hydrocodone and oxycodone (a sub-derivative of opium) and has less of an abuse potential than propoxyphene, but the safety margin is still questionable. But the drug can still be beneficial for opiate addiction,diarrhea and headaches. The drug lays in the balance safety and the effect on the heart.68.62.232.194 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)bmaddrums@comcast.net68.62.232.194 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Legal filing against FDA concerning propoxyphene

PDF legal Document Filed against FDA concerning propoxyphene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.96.236 (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sweden translation

It looks to me like the section on Sweden was run through a translator. The language is rough and both sources are in swedish. This section is in need of cleanup, either a better translation of the sources or at least rewording.--Rock soup 18:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock soup (talk • contribs)

Local anesthetic

"propoxyphene and its metabolite norpropoxyphene have local anesthetic effects at concentrations about 10 times those necessary for opioid effects." ??? The local anesthetic effect is a local one, the opioid effect is systemic. How can you compare them? --FK1954 (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong date, wrong names

"Dextropropoxiphen was first synthesized in 1976". Dextropropoxyphene was patented in 1955... "p-Diphen Butyrate Propionic Acid" This name doesn't even exist. "p-Diphen 4-(dimethylamino) Butyl Propianoate" Wrong too. Removed. "IUPAC rules establish that it is to be called desoxypropiophen." Does IUPAC know this? ;-) --FK1954 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dextropropoxyphene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101122093848/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-1120-fda-darvon-web-20101119,0,6525838.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-1120-fda-darvon-web-20101119,0,6525838.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)