Zoloft and Citalopram

The best cat is a dead cat AT MY HOUSE.........I have a "used" cat living under my roof--and he believes that he is the owner and in charge........and I still have that attitude.

Informed consent assumes that cats have rights--maybe in their eyes, but not in mine.

Cats........pilose....how can that be when my house has become pilose because of one lousy cat.

Those cats who sit on the IRB.... Are they from Nashville?

If so, I think I've found them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrgZd-yf200

-SWS wrote:Those cats who sit on the IRB.... Are they from Nashville?

If so, I think I've found them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrgZd-yf200

So so far, this last (1982) paper, found by M.D.Hosehead is by far the best thing we've got. And it rather supports the "Long-term or Permanent" effects position. If nothing better can be found, I think we can say the judges ruling can be easily guessed.

brain_cloud wrote:So so far, this last (1982) paper, found by M.D.Hosehead is by far the best thing we've got. And it rather supports the "Long-term or Permanent" effects position. If nothing better can be found, I think we can say the judges ruling can be easily guessed.

The Kupfer paper doesn't specifically address the tolerance question, which is why I didn't include it previously.

The paper deals only with amitriptyline, and finds that plasma concentrations are correlated with REM suppression in both the short-term and the followup PSG's.
There could have been tolerance, i.e., less REM suppression in the followup PSG's , yet still correlated with plasma levels.

The raw numbers may be in the text, but amitriptyline is seldom used anymore, so they might be of physiological, but not practical interest. The paper does show the importance of dose, though.

Of practical interest, because trazadone and nefazadone are so widely used for insomnia, would be information on REM effects of small doses of those.

So far, I haven't lost any sleep over this. As S.U. pointed out, REM suppression may not even be deleterious.

-SWS wrote:Those cats who sit on the IRB.... Are they from Nashville?

If so, I think I've found them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrgZd-yf200

OMG, -SWS, that is just new heights of AWFUL!

The area must be cleansed with another dose of

Geddy and Friends

M.D.Hosehead wrote:

brain_cloud wrote:So so far, this last (1982) paper, found by M.D.Hosehead is by far the best thing we've got. And it rather supports the "Long-term or Permanent" effects position. If nothing better can be found, I think we can say the judges ruling can be easily guessed.

The Kupfer paper doesn't specifically address the tolerance question, which is why I didn't include it previously.

The paper deals only with amitriptyline, and finds that plasma concentrations are correlated with REM suppression in both the short-term and the followup PSG's.
There could have been tolerance, i.e., less REM suppression in the followup PSG's , yet still correlated with plasma levels.

What? Haven't they been taking the same dose all this time? You are suggesting that although the patients had the same plasma levels a year out, now the REM% might be (to make up a stupid number) thus:



Still "correlated", but drastically different? That would be burying the lede with a vengeance. It would be perverse in fact.

The raw numbers may be in the text, but amitriptyline is seldom used anymore, so they might be of physiological, but not practical interest. The paper does show the importance of dose, though.

Of practical interest, because trazadone and nefazadone are so widely used for insomnia, would be information on REM effects of small doses of those.

So far, I haven't lost any sleep over this. As S.U. pointed out, REM suppression may not even be deleterious.

I'm not interested in REM either, but figure how REM goes, so goes the stuff that I might be more interested in. Like SWS suppression, or PLMD exacerbation, or sleep efficiency.

Why would you assume that if tolerance develops to one side effect, it necessarily develops to another?

NotMuffy wrote: OMG, -SWS, that is just new heights of AWFUL!

What?!

Whatever happen to...

The O'Jays wrote: I love music, any kind of music
I love music, just as long as it's groovy...


<yaddi yaddi yadda.... >

<insert next juvenile puppet show here>

<nanner nanner nanner...>


I love music, sweet sweet music
I love music, just as long as it's groovy
I love I love I love I love I love I love music
I love I love I love I love I love I love music
I love music, any kind of music
I love music, just as long as it's groovy

Back to our psychotropics discussion...

brain_cloud wrote:Like SWS suppression..

I cannot be suppressed, sir.

I think we scared the OP away.

Please feel free to come back and post questions or comments, "Going from Zoloft to Citalopram because of sleep side effects".

Serious mode back on...

SleepingUgly wrote:Why would you assume that if tolerance develops to one side effect, it necessarily develops to another?

I don't assume it, but see it as an indicator. It would be a generalization. And it's not like we are talking about just any old "side effects" that have not so much to do with each other, like diarrhea and unusually hairy arms. Rather, they are effects to the same "system" and due the same fundamental mechanisms of the drug. Their grouping is consequently more natural than just any old two side effects of any old drug.

-SWS wrote:Please feel free to come back and post questions or comments, "Going from Zoloft to Citalopram because of sleep side effects".

Perhaps they wish to stay out of the...

(Obvious Response From Mr. Lee)

brain_cloud wrote:
Still "correlated", but drastically different? That would be burying the lede with a vengeance. It would be perverse in fact.

It's only a li'l ol' summary of a li'l ol' paper, but it could be describing findings such as:



IOW, tolerance to REM suppression with persisting (negative) correlation between amitrip level and REM%. There's no way to tell from the summary.

I'm not interested in REM either, but figure how REM goes, so goes the stuff that I might be more interested in. Like SWS suppression, or PLMD exacerbation, or sleep efficiency.

That's plausible, even likely. Biological systems' myriad interacting feedback loops tend to compensate for perturbations. Tolerance to drug effects is common, but is also inconsistent; unless there's a study, you don't know for sure. I looked for studies of long-term drug effects on sleep parameters and the pickin's are slim.

M.D.Hosehead wrote:

brain_cloud wrote:
Still "correlated", but drastically different? That would be burying the lede with a vengeance. It would be perverse in fact.

It's only a li'l ol' summary of a li'l ol' paper, but it could be describing findings such as:



IOW, tolerance to REM suppression with persisting (negative) correlation between amitrip level and REM%. There's no way to tell from the summary.

Exactly. I'm saying that if the results had been like that, there's no way the summary of results in the abstract would be written the way it is. The biggest news of your made up table (and mine) is that REM comes back in a big way. Would you leave that out but mention the less significant news that there is still an inverse relationship in drug and REM levels. I say no one would do that. Only way to find out is to get ahold of the guts of that paper.