Talk:Amphetamine

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This section “ The oral bioavailability of amphetamine varies with gastrointestinal pH;[74] it is well absorbed from the gut, and bioavailability is typically 90%.[93] Amphetamine is a weak base with a pKa of 9.9;[94] consequently, when the pH is basic, more of the drug is in its lipid soluble free base form, and more is absorbed through the lipid-rich cell membranes of the gut epithelium.[94][74] Conversely, an acidic pH means the drug is predominantly in a water-soluble cationic (salt) form, and less is absorbed.[94]” under the sub heading “Pharmacokinetics” is not relevant to Lisdexamphetamine. The pro drug is almost completely absorbed from the gastro system into the blood stream, and the majority of conversion from Lisdexamphetamine to Dextroamphetamine + Lysine happens in the blood stream. The pH is therefore not a factor in bioavailability for this drug. Please see here for evidence:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873712/

The section in Jimmymozzer (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jimmymozzer Re: "The oral bioavailability of amphetamine [...]" under the sub heading “Pharmacokinetics” is not relevant to Lisdexamphetamine.

This wiki article is on amphetamine, which "is about mixtures of levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine", per the italicised text in the first line of the article. Additionally, the top of this talk page has a "frequently asked questions" banner that solely covers whether LDX is covered an amphetamine, in which the answer that LDX is "chemically distinct from the amphetamine enantiomers (i.e., levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine)" is provided. So, the content covered in the pharmacokinectics section of this article (i.e., the bioavaliability of amphetamine and its enantiomers) is entirely appropriate given that this is the amphetamine article and not the LDX article.

In any event, your concern regarding the coverage of LDX's unique conversion to dextroamphetamine by a rate-limiting enzyme in blood is actually addressed both in the first paragraph of the pharmacology section of the LDX article and in the third paragraph of the PK section in this very article (i.e., amphetamine). Despite the heavy reliance on transcluding content from this article (i.e., amphetamine), all of the wiki articles covering different pharmaceutical amphetamines/dose-formulations (e.g., Adderall, dextroamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine) have unique content added to address notable characteristics where applicable; case in point: when I wrote the binge eating disorder section for the LDX article, I purposefully wrote the source code in a way that only allows the coverage of that content to be rendered in the medical uses section of the LDX article - and not, say, the Adderall article - if only because LDX is the only amphetamine-dosage formulation to have its clinical use and efficacy in BED covered in systematic reviews and meta-analysis'.

With all that said, I do agree that it's a bit odd that the PK section of the LDX article has the passage about oral absoprtion and gastrointestinal pH included in the transclusion from this article. Though, I suppose that may just be a limitation of wikipedia's source code. In any event, I'll take a look the source code when I have some free time later today and see if there's anything that can be done about it. If it can be removed without breaking the other articles that use the same transclusion, then I'll likely see to it. Professional Crastination (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Requesting that the following category be added to this semi-protected page:

[[Category:Monoaminergic activity enhancers]]

See the monoaminergic activity enhancer page for details and sources. Thank you. 98.191.202.231 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Professional Crastination (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Irruptive Creditor,

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for the edit summary in my first revert. I mistakingly referred to WP:MEDRS because the Rx label happens to be MEDRS-compliant when I meant to refer to WP:AGE MATTERS; you're correct that a drug's DEA schedule in the United States isn't necessarily a biomedical claim.

In any event, the reason why I've reverted your revisions are for two reasons. 1. The citation you've added was published well over five decades ago (see WP:AGE MATTERS). 2. We already had a more recent (i.e., May 2024) citation that meets WP:V and states the following outright:

"Adderall® contains amphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance."

The above quote is from USFDA-approved prescribing information (which a prescribing physician would have to read before issuing an associated Rx); the revision currently hosted by DailyMed was updated ~6 months ago and directly supports the statement about amphetamine's schedule II status in the United States, so there's no issue with verifiability. Acknowledging that, I'm not sure how replacing an up-to-date citation with a federal register from 1971 improves this article. It's not as if the claim that amphetamine is a schedule II drug is remotely controversial or has raised any verifiability concerns on this talk page.

This also applies to the changes reverted in the methamphetamine article because that case is virtually identical to what I've raised here. Professional Crastination (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that a product label is not a legal source useful for making legal claims such as legal status, legal sources are. Your arguments of recency hold little support for using a product label over the actual law as in the legal status section, when discussing other countries like Australia, the article cites the actual laws(Poison Standard), and not a product label. So then, upon what grounds is the United States or an Adderall product label so meritorious as to be the exception to this general trend of citing law when discussing law?

Among other reasons, linking to the law is preferable when considering there have been cases were the propriety of the move to Schedule II has been questioned and thus having a link to the actual scheduling order is helpful to practitioners and the public (see U.S. v Kendall (1989), U.S. v Kinder (1991), and such).

Considering no other editors in the four days since my edit are bothered or expressed seeing merit in using a product label, I will shortly upon making this comment, revert to the prior edition so as to not irritate others with this dispute. If we come to some contrary agreement or others are to chime in as to favor the product label, then so wills it. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. You make an excellent point regarding the uniformity of using legislation as corroborating sources for other jurisdictions (e.g., Australia). For that reason, I'm happy to accept your revert. Professional Crastination (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm just putting it out to other editors that I changed the mechanism used to selectively transclude content to amphetamine's child articles (i.e., Adderall and dextroamphetamine). Those articles now use labelled selection transclusion. In a nuthsell, this post is just asking everyone to be mindful of new "section begin" and "section end" tags above and below the three disorders covered in Amphetamine#Medical

This is how the source code appears on the amphetamine article:

<!-- Section begin: ADHD --> 
==== ADHD ==== 

[ADHD content]

<!-- Section end: ADHD --> 

<!-- Section begin: BED --> 

==== Binge eating disorder ==== 
[BED content]
<!-- Section end: BED --> 

<!-- Section begin: Narcolepsy --> 
==== Narcolepsy ==== 

[Narcolepsy content]
<!-- Section end: Narcolepsy -->

This is how the source code appears on articles with the medical section transcluded:

(NB: ''each template renders its own section without headings, so headings have been added to the transcluded articles'')
=== Medical uses ===

====ADHD====
{{#lsth:Amphetamine|ADHD}}

====Binge Eating Disorder====
{{#lsth:Amphetamine|BED}}

====Narcolepsy====
{{#lsth:Amphetamine|Narcolepsy}}

No other selective transclusions from this article have been altered.

For context, when I wrote the Binge Eating Disorder section a few months ago, I originally intended for it to only transclude to the lisdexamfetamine article. This is because the current literature only covers amphetamine's treatment efficacy for BED when it's administered as LDX, as opposed to adderall and dextroamphetamine, which have notable differences compared to LDX (e.g., the immediate-release forms of the latter drugs confer treatment effects for approximately 3–4 hours, whereas LDX persists for about 12–14 hours).

As the amphetamine wiki article is the parent article of LDX, the BED content also appears here because this article receives much , much more traffic and consequently it's beneficial for readers to have this content available here. However, due to the way transclusions were previously coded in this article's source, I had to add an "ifpagename=" exception to render the BED content to LDX sans adderall & d-amph. As another editor pointed out in their edit notes, this template resulted in the BED section being treated as a subset of the ADHD section in the source code, even though BED had its own subheading. To address this, I've made changes to the source code. Moreover, I've appended invisible comments below the relevant headings on each transcluded article to let editors know that they will need to make edits on this article for their desired changes to render in the article they're currently editing.

The latter collapsed tab above has only been applied to adderall and dextroamphetamine. I haven't bothered to make the above changes to lisdexamfetamine largely because I'm lazy af (see: professional crastination ) and the page renders just fine ATM because it transcludes virtually all of the medical section. I might change the source code on LDX to mirror the other articles in the coming days, though. FWIW, I was planning on originally excluding narcolepsy from being transcluded to the LDX when I wrote that section for the amph article, but after discussing it with Seppi333 I agree that it's probably worthwhile to have content included there because narcolepsy is an example of a legitimate off-label use for LDX. Professional Crastination (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Requesting input on this topic here at WikiProject Pharmacology. Thanks. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 15:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Do amphetamine and related drugs mediate their monoamine release via TAAR1 agonism and is this scientific consensus?

(See here at the WikiProject Pharmacology talk page for the extensive existing discussion.)

– AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Listed at: WT:WikiProject Medicine. Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@AlyInWikiWonderland, compared to the detailed and sometimes angry discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 18#Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions, I do not expect this RFC to be pointful, or even to get any other responses at all. The RFC question sounds like someone asking for help with their homework, and it's unclear how answering this question would affect any Wikipedia articles. I recommend that you withdraw it (that means removing the {{rfc}} template from the top of the section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

AlyInwikiWonderland, I've dropped the Rfc header; if you wish to restart this Rfc as is, or start a different Rfc, add a new Rfc header as described at WP:RFCOPEN. (Note that copy-pasting the code in WaId's comment will not work.) But before you start one, please re-read WP:RFCBEFORE. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: My apologies. It's my first RfC. I read the instructions and thought I did things right but I guess not. Yeah, I kind of picked up by now that others are unlikely to respond. Is there anything you'd recommend instead for dispute resolution? Thank you. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 22:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

AlyInWikiWonderland, speaking only for myself, apologies are not necessary, as you are clearly trying to do the right thing, and learning as you go. I'm sure WaId will respond as well, and offer you some good suggestions. By the way, thanks for all your contributions to articles on bio-medical topics; that's a tough area in which to edit, and you seem to be doing very well. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a difficult area to edit in.

Do you feel like you're able to persist in the discussion at WT:PHARM? That's probably the best page for finding people who know what they're talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I appreciate the kind words. Thank you. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm conflicted and should be doing other things right now. But, in all probability, I'll be persisting in the discussion. I had requested input at WP:Pharm (and other WPs) earlier, but no one else responded. For now, I guess we'll just continue the discussion at WP:Pharm and see what happens from there. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia:There is no deadline. If you all ultimately decide that this article has been overconfident about that particular mechanism, then it's worth fixing the article, but whether that happens in January or in June is not the critical point. You're all long-time editors, and I expect you all to be around and interested even if someone needs to take a break for a while. Put your real life first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks, that's good to know. I'll keep it in mind. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 02:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In this edit of 16:03, 1 September 2017 by Seppi333 (talk · contribs), the talk page template {{Backwardscopyvio}} was added among the templates at the top of this Talk page, focusing attention on unattributed copying of content into this article, and naming "Amphetamine and Adderall#Mechanism of action" as the source articles of the copying. As this article is entitled "Amphetamine", I assume that formerly another, related article was involved in the copying, as well as the Adderall article. Seppi333, do you recall anything about this situation? Wikipedia's licensing requires all copying from other articles to be attributed, and there is no statue of limitations, so if they are still unattributed, then WP:RIA applies. Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Yeah, I had to email the journal article's authors and notify them of the copyright infringement. They revised the article to include sufficient attribution to my satisfaction. If you rapidly scroll down through their article and the current amphetamine article, you'll see a lot of republished content. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Seppi333, wow, thanks for that. Just for the record, I used Earwig to compare them, which gave a 91.6% similarity rating. Earwig couldn't read the pdf for some reason, although it normally does handles them, but I found an equivalent web page at {blacklisted omicsonline url redacted here to permit saving} and passed that to Earwig to get the evaluation. The {redacted Earwig result page url containing blacklisted url} also highlights the similar portions in each.

Notably, in my view of the page, your pdf link as well as all of the links in my comment are showing up with bright pink background in Preview mode, having been labeled as predatory or deprecated journals and highlighted by user script User:Headbomb/unreliable; I heartily recommend this script.

Post-script: I couldn't even save my message, because an edit filter trapped the omicsonline url as on the global spam blacklist!

P.P.S.: Sheesh, I can't show you the Earwig url, either, because it *contains* the omicsonline article url. Okay, so if you want to run the Earwig comparison, select-copy the article title and first three authors off the pdf, do a Google search, pick the result ending 'open-access/amphetamines-potent-recreational-drug-of-abuse-2155-6105-1000330.php?aid=91763', run an Earwig url search on the full article url against our Amphetamine article. Now this comment ought to be saveable! Mathglot (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hahaha. I’ve experienced this issue before when I was an active editor. Annoying to work around it, isn’t it? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I found that article by Google image searching the images in the article. Was just curious if they’d been reused. Didn’t expect to find a journal article republishing them without attribution. Wouldn’t really care if they’d been republished on a forum/blog/etc.. I should probably check again to see if this problem recurred, but I’m dealing with a lot of shit irl right now, so that will have to wait. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the explanation; interesting story. I'll lurk (subscribed) in case anything else turns up. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the cognitive performance section "Cognitive performance In 2015, a systematic review and a meta-analysis of high quality clinical trials found that, when used at low (therapeutic) doses,(...)" if applicable to the context, add a link on "low (therapeutic) doses" to the "effective dose" page or additionally change "therapeutic" to "effective" 107.159.249.191 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see how linking effective dose is relevant? The dose is being specified as "therapeutic" to distinguish it from a larger or "recreational" dose. Both therapeutic and recreational doses are effective doses because they both have biological effects. SI09 (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Amphetamine in a specific population seems to impair their color perception and cholinergic activity. Compared to Cocaine, which is stronger in people with Bipolar Type II, Amphetamine behaves as a monoamine transporter reversal agent instead of blocking reuptake allosterically like Cocaine. Some people with diminished muscarinic receptor count and higher Dopamine D1 receptor count in the prefrontal cortex are more motivated and vigilant but behave as conspiracy theorists, I have asked someone what is 1+1 and got 6 as a reply due to the question being a trick question, they couldn't even think it in AND and NOR gates which could equal 0. Another one is, "This way is up and this way is down, which way is up?". They point sideways thinking conspiracy and proceed to threaten to drug me with Haloperidol due to taking amphetamine whilst under the influence themselves, give up work and school, and this happens even of Levoamphetamine. They also become more addicted to evil, I wish this was other stimulants such as Methcathinone and Cathinone. Also isn't some Crystal Meth actually Amphetamine Hydrobromide?

The specific population is those in Cluster B and C personality disorders, they do prefer amphetamine but it seems to help with Cluster A personality disorders. Cluster A personality disorders do prefer methamphetamine over amphetamine, however.

0-_-____***((()((*() Fenetermine (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the second time you've posted this at least, yet I still don't understand what you want changed in the article. This article already indicates that psychosis is a possible adverse effect of amphetamine. Professional Crastination (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, someone did actually annoy me personally but how is amphetamine making them more aggressive. It's like amphetamine induces "fight" but methamphetamine induces "flight" if that makes any sense. You're correct but they're on 30mg, as someone who's done 400mg+ in a day, how are they in psychosis? Fenetermine (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Based on my knowledge of its pharmacodynamics and neuroanatomy, amphetamine doesn't make people inherently more aggressive because it doesn't bind within the amygdala. It makes almost everyone more assertive, but aggression is generally only something it would promote when a person finds that aggression in a hostile situation leads to the most rewarding outcome.

That might sounds odd, but motivational salience is centrally tied into its pro-assertive effect and the fight or flight response, meaning:
incentive salience + anger -> fight,
aversive salience + fear -> flight.

In other words, whether amphetamine promotes assertiveness or aggression really just depends on a person's underlying emotional state and the social context. It doesn't really have any inherent effect on hostility itself. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change therapeautic to therapeutic 2A06:5900:4C1:F800:5028:A60A:1F3D:3161 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the reviews section could use an update. Several 2010-2015 reviews are used prominently. I think we could perhaps shorten the section and emphasize the relatively recent Cochrane reviews and the 2024 & 2025 reviews discussed while removing the 2010-2015 reviews. Thoughts? DataFocused (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems particularly relevant

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(24)00360-2/fulltext DataFocused (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I cited that lancet meta-analysis in the article either at the end of last year or the start of this year. From memory, it's first appearance is in the sentence "a 2025 meta-analytic blah blahblah" in the ADHD section; I worded all recent secondary sources from 2024/2025 that I cited in that section to highlight recency. I think I also added it to the last paragraph of the ADHD section to contrast it to the findings of a Cochrane review about side effect dropouts relative to overall acceptability (e.g., dropping out because the medication isn't treating ADHD/inducing a clinically significant drug effect).

In general, it's probably best to have recent articles. However, I don't believe the lancet article can play a larger role in the article (i.e., substituting other citations) because the sampled population are adults and this medication is used extensively in child (from memory, ADHD is the most diagnosed psychiatric condition in children, at least in Australia). Also, a lot of ADHD reviews are limited by the short-term nature of most RCTs. So, because the reviews from the 2010s cover multi-year longitudinal studies (among other secondary outcome measures beyond efficacy for primary symptoms), I don't mind having the current citations stay. It's not like contradicting research findings have been produced since. As an aside, almost all of the citations I used to write the narcolepsy section were published before 2020 and that's not likely to change because of the general lack of research interest/funding to study psychostimulants that aren't modafinil or novel compounds in vivo. Professional Crastination (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

ACS gives a melting point of 11.8 deg for the free base, data in pubchem is wrong, no idea where the number in wiki came from. Haberm55 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

As of 260307 the melting point is still wrong. The source [19] is also gone/inaccessible. It instead refers to https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?cas_rn=300-62-9. There you can find the correct melting point for the freebase of 11.3 °C.

~2025-43751-48 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The wording in the opening paragraph (imo) suggests that lisdexamfetamine is a form of amphetamine "made" for treating BED, despite lisdexamfetamine potentially being the most effective treatment for adult ADHD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisdexamfetamine#cite_note-28

I'm no Wikipedian, but potentially wording such as "Lisdexamfetamine is a long acting form of amphetamine used to treat ADHD and BED" might be clearer ~2026-15436-38 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence when I published the BED subsection to comply with WP:Lead.

The semicolon separates two independent clauses; the first clause a list of conditions (ADHD and narcolepsy) that are treated by pharmaceutical amphetamine in general (NB: pharmaceutical amphetamine is defined in the lead [the paragraph directly below] as "racemic amphetamine, Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or lisdexamfetamine"), whereas the second clause narrows the treatment of BED with pharmaceutical amphetamine to the specific formulation known as lisdexamfetamine. This was done to provide an accurate summary of the BED subsection, which cites evidence that:

"[...] lisdexamfetamine is the only USFDA- and TGA-approved pharmacotherapy for BED." and in the following sentence "[...] lisdexamfetamine's treatment efficacy in BED is underpinned at least in part by a psychopathological overlap between BED and ADHD, with the latter conceptualized as a cognitive control disorder that also benefits from treatment with lisdexamfetamine."

In any event, even if the definition of pharmaceutical amphetamine and consequently what is included under the umbrella of "amphetamine is ... used in the treatment of ADHD" isn't clear to general readership after reading second paragraph of the lead, lisdexamfetamine is hyperlinked and simply hovering over it with a cursor will state outright that it's used to treat ADHD (as does Adderall and dextroamphetamine. LDX is also the only individual pharmaceutical that is mentioned explicitly in the medical uses section of the article regarding treatment ADHD (e.g., Adderall isn't singled out anywhere in the article along the lines of "Adderall is ... ADHD"; it's referred to under the pharmaceutical amphetamine umbrella). That's probably a trivial point to mention, given that the medical uses section isn't the lead, but the point is that pharmaceutical amphetamine refers to the formulations defined in the lead unless singled out (e.g., dextroamphetamine in amphetamine#Narcolepsy). Professional Crastination (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)