Talk:Lofexidine

Lofexidine Website

The website for this drug is located at http://www.lofexidine.co.uk . I may try expanding this article, but it will be my first edit aside from talk pages. I don't really know the ins and outs of wikipedia at all yet, so it'd be much better if someone else did it. The website doesn't have all that much information, but it's definitely got a lot more then wikipedia does. Tainted42 06:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Link is currently dead.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Clinically Equivalent?

From what I understand, lofexidine is not clinically equivalent to methadone as purported and the fact that one is commonly used at higher doses than the other is completely meaningless unless were going to discuss the pharmacological mechanism by which they both eliminate the some of the same symptoms (certain withdrawal symptoms). They're not equivalent because methadone provides a whole set of effects that lofexidine does not and they're not even clinically equivalent with regards to withdrawal symptom relief because lofex. does not allievate all the symptoms nor does it provide complete relief. I would simply say that it is a useful aid for mitigating some of the unwanted effects of opioid withdrawal due to its antagonism of alpha-2 andrenergic receptors. -Zach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.120.105 (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies?

Agree with the previous post on clinical equivalence. Additionally, the note on naltrexone being used to *attenuate* withdrawal symptoms is questionable at best, and might lead one to [wrongly] conclude that naltrexone can be used to provide relief from withdrawal in one actively dependent on opioids. Naltrexone is well-known to exacerbate (and indeed, precipitate) withdrawal in such individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.227.4 (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Racemic mixture or pure enantiomer?

Is this compound a racemate [50% (R)-stereoisomer + 50% (S)-stereoisomer] or the pure (R)-stereoisomer or the pure (S)-stereoisomer? Stereoisomers regulary have a different pharmacology and different pharmacokinetics [E. J. Ariëns: Stereochemistry, a basis for sophisticated nonsense in pharmacokinetics and clinical pharmacology, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 26 (1984) 663-668].--Jü (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lofexidine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819221948/http://www.usworldmeds.com/lofexidine.htm to http://www.usworldmeds.com/lofexidine.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lofexidine.co.uk/leaflets/bfl-pil-v4_07-2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Lofexidine US FDA Violations

Updates were made to the Lofexidine page that described the recent 2024 approvals of [cheaper] generic lofexidine. In addition, the FDA publically issued a March 2026 determination letter that the new owners of the branded lofexidine (Lucemyra- BioCorRx) had violated US FDA law by misleading the public that Lucemyra was the only version available ($1500) but FDA has approved cheaper generics ($142). Owners of branded drugs might violate the FDA law in this way to prevent people buying cheaper drugs, in this case for recovering addicts. In addition, another violation was misleading people that the drug was safer, more effective, and the preferred drug of choice with outdated info and misleading promotions. Currently, this is significant news in the USA and was covered extensively by the media. It is important to inform people that cheaper generics are available and that the US FDA determined that the branded drug owner was misleading the public. All of this information is quoted verbatim, fully cited and is not subject to interpretation. Justin Arabit (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

You are quite obviously using an LLM here. You claim in this message that 'All of this information is quoted verbatim' (that would be a copyright violation if true) but editors can review the text you added and see that isn't the case. Did you use an LLM to generate the article text as well? What is your relationship to the pharmaceutical companies that sell the generic here? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging with me on this and allowing me to reply. I did not know what an LLM is- I just looked it up. Bit old fashioned. Is that AI? The passages are my writing, but the quoted verbatim passages I refer to are the direct quotes from the US FDA letter text, which you can read at the cited link- the FDA publicly released the letter to ensure that media and people like you and I could ensure the problem is addressed. I have not interjected anything that is not hard facts or FDA determination, in order to maintain objectivity, and cited all statements. The quotes are identified by quotation marks and cite the FDA enforcement letter text, which I believe is the appropriate method. I have no relationship to any generic companies or any other nefarious motivation to provide this information. Frankly, this is a relatively rare medication and is not used much in addiction medicine; and it is only used temporarily after withdrawal when addicts try sobriety- it soothes the withdrawal syndrome. I do not believe the generic companies are making much money either. It is rarely prescribed. My motivation was to be informative and undo the damage to patients and health care providers that the false and misleading promotion caused. Your average addict can afford $142 for the generic bit not the $1500 for the branded. Most would just suffer instead! I hope the FDA enforcement, media reporting and our small efforts will help addicts and their care givers find affordable generic drug option. Happy to explain further and answer any other questions. Justin Arabit (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs pricing information is not typically included in medication articles. The controversy is hardly a prevalent issue to this drug, which has been used for decades in many other countries too, not just the US. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The US FDA has enforced righting the wrong in issuing its determination latter and demanding that the violations stop. Accurately providing the information through wikipedia is simply reflecting and repeating that information and educating readers about this type of unlawful activity [I wonder if there is a page dedicated to such violations in addition]. This drug was approved for this use in 2018 by FDA. The FD&C Act violations occurred in 2024-2026 at the same time in 2024 when generic competition started. So, the relevance is narrowed to this recent development. The drug has not changed, it is the unlawful advertising and the FDA investigation that is being reported. This type of violation is relatively rare and noteworthy; and is of particular significance to record. Also, it is not about pricing information. The violation was 1. Advertising that the $1500 Lucemyra was the "ONLY FDA-approved" lofexidine available and 2. That it was safer, better and more recommended to be used than was true. The pricing of generic vs branded is the subtext for a motivation for such violations because of higher profit and market share by false and misleading advertising to gain money. The pricing information provides the reader with that subtext and educates on why Pharma companies are prosecuted when they make false and misleading claims that happen to profit them. Perhaps we are being innovative in this reporting as opposed to being outwith wiki mission? Happy to entertain adjustments- want to move pricing figures or revisit in 3-6 months- give public enough time to digest then update? Justin Arabit (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)