Posted by JohnX2 on June 16, 2002, at 11:30:09
In reply to Re: Best New Drugs for Depression/Anxiety » JohnX2, posted by JonW on June 16, 2002, at 10:22:06
> > Basically the medicine has a low response rate.
> > But the side effect profile is quite good.
>
> Dr. Liebowitz says that moclobemide is far less potent than other drugs (for SP, at least) and this would certainly explain the inconsistent clinical trials.
>
> > I've seen small writeups from doctors however that
> > indicated the medication really needed to be pushed over
> > 1000-1200+ mg/day. (The usual recommended dose is 300 mg).
> >
> > It would be interesting to see how people would
> > respond at the higher strengh, but dunno about
> > safety.
>
> When I was seeing Dr. Apter he told me that's what he was hearing from his colleagues -- that you really have to push the dose. That's far from a controlled trial, of course. I'll tell you one thing, 1200mg+ of moclobemide would be expensive! Which, actually, makes me think that Roche would conduct clinical trials with 1200mg if they thought they would get good. Every doctor I've asked seems to agree that moclobemide doesn't have the "magic" that the classic MAOIs seem to have. Why can't they make something just like Nardil without the side-effects or interactions? Why can't lunch be free? :)
>
> JonYeah but moclobemide is off patent in the US. No way Roche will
fund a clinical trial for a medicine that is immediately a generic.
It's too bad. I think they punted the introduction in the US way way
back because of the stigma surrounding MAOI hypertensive crisis (the pdocs
would never understand the reversable MAOI concept, duh).
You'd think they could make a minor inert tweak to the chemical structure to
get Patent status.John
poster:JohnX2
thread:109964
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020609/msgs/110047.html