Strattera

http://100777.com/node/1512

heres a few interesting articles about strattera and its benefits

http://www.informati...highlights&p=80

I'd ignore that single item of research, Salesman..it's certainly interesting...but I think it's best to focus on what you find in peer reviewed data. Below is a review of 65 studies.

Definition of peer review:

peer review

Peer review is a process used for checking the work performed by one's equals (peers) to ensure it meets specific criteria. Peer review is used in working groups for many professional occupations because it is thought that peers can identify each other's errors quickly and easily, speeding up the time that it takes for mistakes to be identified and corrected. In software development, peer review is sometimes used in code development where a team of coders will have a meeting and go through code line by line (even read it aloud possibly) to look for errors. Generally, the goal of all peer review processes is to verify whether the work satisfies the specifications for review, identify any deviations from the standards, and provide suggestions for improvements.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

Health Technol Assess. 2006 Jul;10(23):1-162.

A systematic review and economic model of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents.

        * King S,
        * Griffin S,
        * Hodges Z,
        * Weatherly H,
        * Asseburg C,
        * Richardson G,
        * Golder S,
        * Taylor E,
        * Drummond M,
        * Riemsma R.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oral methylphenidate hydrochloride (MPH), dexamfetaminesulphate (DEX) and atomoxetine (ATX) in children and adolescents (<18 years of age) diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (including hyperkinetic disorder). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases covering 1999--July 2004 for MPH, 1997--July 2004 for DEX and 1981--July 2004 for ATX. REVIEW METHODS: Selected studies were assessed using modified criteria based on CRD Report No. 4. Clinical effectiveness data were reported separately for each drug and by the type of comparison. Data for MPH were also analysed separately based on whether it was administered as an immediate release (IR) or extended release (ER) formulation. For all drugs, the data were examined by dose. Data for the core outcomes of hyperactivity (using any scale), Clinical Global Impression [as a proxy of quality of life (QoL)] and adverse events were reported. For crossover studies, the mean and standard deviation (SD) for each outcome were data extracted for end of trial data (i.e. baseline data were not considered). For parallel studies, change scores were reported where given, otherwise means and SDs were presented for end of trial data. In addition, mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each study. For adverse events, self-ratings were reported when used, otherwise, parent reports were utilised. Percentages of participants reporting adverse events were used to calculate numbers of events in each treatment arm. All the clinical effectiveness data and economic evaluations (including accompanying models) included in the company submissions were assessed. A new model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative treatments in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year. To achieve this, a mixed treatment comparison model was used to estimate the differential mean response rates. Monte Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: In total, 65 papers met the inclusion criteria. The results suggest that MPH and DEX are effective at reducing hyperactivity and improving QoL (as determined by Clinical Global Impression) in children, although the reliability of the MPH study results is not known and there were only a small number of DEX studies. There was consistent evidence that ATX was superior to placebo for hyperactivity and Clinical Global Impression. Studies on ATX more often reported the study methodology well, and the results were likely to be reliable. Very few studies made direct head-to-head comparisons between the drugs or examined a non-drug intervention in combination with MPH, DEX or ATX. Adequate and informative data regarding the potential adverse effects of the drugs were also lacking. The results of the economic evaluation clearly identified an optimal treatment strategy of DEX first-line, followed by IR-MPH for treatment failures, followed by ATX for repeat treatment failures. Where DEX is unsuitable as a first-line therapy, the optimal strategy is IR-MPH first-line, followed by DEX and then ATX. For patients contraindicated to stimulants, ATX is preferred to no treatment. For patients in whom a midday dose of medication is unworkable, ER-MPH is preferred to ATX, and ER-MPH12 appears more cost-effective than ER-MPH8. As identified in the clinical effectiveness review, the reporting of studies was poor, therefore this should be borne in mind when interpreting the model results. CONCLUSIONS: Drug therapy seems to be superior to no drug therapy, no significant differences between the various drugs in terms of efficacy or side effects were found, mainly owing to lack of evidence, and the additional benefits from behavioural therapy (in combination with drug therapy) are uncertain. Given the lack of evidence for any differences in effectiveness between the drugs, the economic model tended to be driven by drug costs, which differed considerably. Future trials examining MPH, DEX and ATX should include the assessment of tolerability and safety as a priority. Longer term follow-up of individuals participating in trials could further inform policy makers and health professionals. Such data could potentially distinguish between these drugs in a clinically useful way. In addition, research examining whether somatic complaints are actually related to drug treatment or to the disorder itself would be informative.

    PMID: 16796929 [PubMed - in process]

The data seems to say that Ritalin [methylphenidate hydrochloride (MPH)], dextroamphetamine [dexamfetaminesulphate (DEX)], and Strattera [Atomoxetine (ATX)] are all equally effective in treating children and adolescents (<18 years of age) diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Dextroamphetamine and Ritalin are both available in generic form, so I guess those are more cost effective.

What works best for you, given you have been diagnosed with ADD/ADHD would depend on your own specific neurochemistry, personal preference, and, of course, budget. You need to be under doctors care to take these drugs safely. When I am in school and want to perform towards the top of my class, I take Strattera + modafinil (and other stuff too). Strattera has some temporary negative side effects....so when not in school, I don't take it.

Then again, you are not a child or adolescent, right? I could pull up another review on adults if you want...but I am confident of the same conclusion.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

why does a single dose of strattera make me and some other people sleepy until the sought effects kick in does anybody know

is it snri action and why does that happen

or is it different pharmacological properties

try taking it before bedtime

try taking it before bedtime

I wouldn't do that if I were you. Regarding the questions you raised in your private messages, please direct your questions to this forum:

http://nootropics.ipbhost.com

And we're all assuming that ADD is not simply a function of an apathetic society that has forgone personal responsibility for the child-rearing process. Steven Rose, a well respected mind in the field of neuroscience, in his recent book on Neuroscience/biology/evolution/enhancement/pharmacology entitled "The Future of the Brain", warns us against such ex juventibus logic. Simply because an increase of substance A decreases symptom B does not prove B was caused by a lack of A. Symptom B could have very well caused the intial lack of substance A, furthermore, some patients sufferering from a lack of substance A do not express symptom B in the very least. When taking into consideration much of the emerging research in the quantum-psychology realm, it becomes much more convincing that environmental stimulus and our ability to cope with such stimulus can certainly affect neural peptide production and reception in the brain, rendering the use of such drugs a bandaid on the compound fracture that is much of neo-Western civilization and popular culture. But hey, it's all just a disease to be cured with a pill; blue or red?

I take drugs because I need to - for increased health and functioning.

When I function better, I am more able to deal constructively with people who are deeper in the matrix.

Whether this is philosophically or metaphysically ultimately a good thing, is open to question.

Edited by poser, 27 August 2006 - 05:50 AM.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

And we're all assuming that ADD is not simply a function of an apathetic society that has forgone personal responsibility for the child-rearing process.  Steven Rose, a well respected mind in the field of neuroscience, in his recent book on Neuroscience/biology/evolution/enhancement/pharmacology entitled "The Future of the Brain", warns us against such ex juventibus logic.  Simply because an increase of substance A decreases symptom B does not prove B was caused by a lack of A.  Symptom B could have very well caused the intial lack of substance A, furthermore, some patients sufferering from a lack of substance A do not express symptom B in the very least.  When taking into consideration much of the emerging research in the quantum-psychology realm, it becomes much more convincing that environmental stimulus and our ability to cope with such stimulus can certainly affect neural peptide production and reception in the brain, rendering the use of such drugs a bandaid on the compound fracture that is much of neo-Western civilization and popular culture.  But hey, it's all just a disease to be cured with a pill; blue or red?

For me to "excel" in school, I need a couple of pills (prescription pills that is). With these pills, I'm at the top of my class -- such that if I put the effort in I can even outperform every single student -- even in highly competitive quantitative courses at UC (200+ students). This has not happened all the time -- but the times it has not, it was simply because (I tell myself) I was taking the wrong pills -- or too just too many of what I thought were the "right pills." Or, of course, it's some lame ass stupid class I don't care about my grade in at all.. [tung]

Each of us have a different brain and specialized neurochemistry -- so the same pill(s) won't work for everyone. And if you are already at the top of your class without pharmacological intervention, any pill might make you perform worse. You need to know yourself first and your limitations before you start messing around with your neurochemistry with pills. Your best bet is to start out with a good excercise and diet. Without these, even a magic pill won't do much...

Outside of school, I wouldn't take some pills even if you paid me...

Edited by nootropikamil, 05 September 2006 - 07:34 AM.