Talk:Diphenhydramine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pregnancy Category

As I write this, the US pregnancy category appears correct (to agree with http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=2183 , anyway). However, I don't see a citation on the main page. What's the story with citing information on pregnancy categories? Epylar 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Different Image

I think we need an image (for this artcle) without HCl in it(to replace the current image at the beginning of the article).Edward Bower 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tylenol image placement

I switched the side effects and recreational use sections to avoid the preception of an implied endorsement of recreational use, but mainly to allow the Tylenol PM image to be moved to a more appropriate section. With the image's previous placement in the recreational use section, people could get the impression that the number of Tylenol PM pills shown in the picture could be used for recreational purposes, which is not only false but dangerously so. The maximum adult dosage of acetaminophen is contained in only two Tylenol PM pills, and acetaminophen has a much lower overdose tolerance than other medicines, leading to severe liver damage, coma, or even liver failure and death. --71.56.182.67 23:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tylenol Image

To the above poster, the image was of Tylenol "Simply Sleep" which, in fact, contain NO acetaminophen. Whether or not an image is needed is debatable, but the image that was previously displayed IS what is commonly used by recreational users. Nubz0r 05:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Neat Trick - applying locally instead of systemically

A neat trick I found a few months ago: break a benadryl (or similar) in half, and use the "open" end to scratch at insect bites or other localized allergic skin reactions. It doesn't have to be very hard or very long. After a few minutes the affected area won't itch anymore for a long time, and you avoid the nasty side effects some people get from systemic Diphenhydramine use. This note is partially a hopefully helpful FYI, and partially establishment of prior art, lest someone try to patent this method. TTK 19:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that does make good sense, but there is a topical formulation of DPH available nonetheless. --Seven of Nine 03:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually there's a cream, a gel, and a spray. But this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article, so thanks! --Galaxiaad 16:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

When taken at ordinary dosage:

  • How quick take effect?
  • How quick to take full effect?
  • How long last?
  • How long effects linger?
  • What variables influence these timings?

Please add these basic data to the article. -69.87.204.15 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Topical

Since topical use tends to avoid systemic side-effects, is there a way to treat the nose/sinus area topically? Nasal spray? Nasal irrigation? If you just applied a salve to the nose area, how big of an interior region would get dosed? -69.87.204.211 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Cost

The current 2007 generic cost in retail drug stores in the US seems to be about 15 cents each for individually packaged caplets, in quantities of two to four dozen. But it is said that ordering non-individually-packaged version in a bottle, from drug store or Costco-type bulk-supply store might get the cost down to almost as low as 1 cent each (presumably this is all for standard US dose of 25 mg). -69.87.204.211 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Advil PM

Advil PM uses Diphenhydramine Citrate. Is this different from Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride, and should it be mentioned in Common Use? 76.86.119.54 (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is typically very little difference between a citrate and hydrochloride salt. In the case of Diphenhydramine the active part of the compound is an alkaloid (base). The acidic component is added to form a salt which makes it easier to measure dosage, transport, administer, etc. Many drug manufacturers prefer hcl of over citric acid due to availability and cost, but in the case of Ibuprofen it may not be possible to package it with hcl since Ibuprofen is an acid itself (it could cause it to destabilize or result in other problems). I am not a chemist, so I don't know what the exact reason would be in the case of Ibuprofen. This information seems is more interesting when considering the drug Ibuprofen than Diphenhydramine itself, but may be worth including if it is understood why or if the hcl can't be used in such a combination. Datapharmer (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

dosage and warnings

Please expand this article with information on comparing the dosage between diphenhydramine HCl and diphenhydramine citrate; for example, what dose of diphenhydramine HCl is bio-equivalent to 38 mg of diphenhydramine citrate? Also, please provide more information regarding the incidence of ventricular fibrillation or heart attacks, including information on what types of pre-existing conditions or drug interactions might increase the likelihood of diphenhydramine causing ventricular fibrillation. 69.140.152.251 06:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Under side effects it says "diphenhydramine is a potent anticholinergic agent" and it links to that page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticholinergic (forgot to sign in before posting this) (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Receptor Binding

The information regarding receptor binding of diphenhydramine is insufficient. This is a very dirty ligand, which affects the histamine, acetylcholine, dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitter systems. The article does not present sufficient information about this and makes it seem as if the substance is primarily and h1-blocker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cough

I have noticed that many children's liquid cold preparations now list diphenhydramine as an "antihistamine/cough suppressant". I never knew that the chemical had any cough suppressing effects, and there is no mention whatsoever in the article about any such effects. Anyone have additional information about this? -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

If people feel they'd like to use it, I've uploaded a 3D structural image of diphenhydramine and released it in the public domain. I haven't added it myself as I'm not an expert on the manual of style for things like this, but I thought I'd leave a note here so people at least knew it existed.

CrazyChemGuy (talk · contribs) 02:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

((removed abusive and unconstructive remark by anon user, possibly troll.)) -user:Kasreyn (not logged in).

Toxicity

What is the LD50? What is the most toxic action? What other acute/chronic toxicities occur at what typical dose levels? -69.87.204.211 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the LD50 of diphenhydramine is 500mg/kg in rats.--Metalhead94 (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sominex

The common usage/dosage section refers to Sominex as a brand which uses Diphenhydramine as the active ingredient. I just added that this is only the US version of Sominex, not the UK version, which uses Promethazine. 

Adz657 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cognitive effects

The mental effects are described by many as, "dreaming while awake" involving visual and auditory hallucinations that, unlike those experienced with most psychedelic drugs, often cannot be readily distinguished from reality.

I have to say this is extremely interesting. My guess is that the only reason this drug has not been made illegal is because the delusions are short-lived. Couldn't this be dangerous if it is taken by a delusional person with violent tendencies, or with intent to harm themselves or others within that brief window of time? —Viriditas | Talk 12:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No, the hallucinations are not at all short lived. Depending on dose, the effects usually last anywhere between 6 and 12 hours. Also, when in an anticholinergic delirium, someone is generally not likely to be violent towards other people or objects simply because the stuporous delirium includes such effects as amnesia and interacting with objects or people who aren't really there.--Metalhead94 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've heard flashes to earlier events,'paradigm changes',voices, time distortion, laziness. heck, one guy playing his ps for two hours before realising it wasnt on!

It's also not illegal because of the unpleasant physical side effects. 24.118.98.239 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Other CNS effects occur within the limbic system and hippocampus, causing confusion and temporary amnesia.

It seems to be a form of source amnesia. If it were possible to create false memories, it seems reasonable that diphenhydramine could be used as a catalyst. —Viriditas | Talk
I know I'm making myself appear stupid by saying this, but I once used this drug in a recreational manner. To me the effects were neutral, but bizarre and confusing. Before I knew it I was at my friends house, then I snapped out of it, and being in a state of disorientation, it took me a minute to come to and realize I was at home on the couch. No, it's no fun, and the physical side effects suck.--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

the picture

The current picture of Diphenhydramine is incorrect. The picture shown is of Diphenhydramine hydrochloride. a correct picture can be found here http://www.humboldt.edu/~morgan/images/ben3_s05.jpg I don't know how to change the picture, but if someone else does, please change it to the above mentioned.

---

At least the picture should be consistent with the chemical formula immediately below it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.128.178 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

aren't they the same thing? Disturbed286 (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the old pic showed the HCl portion of the molecule, which itself is inactive and not a part of the actual diphenhydramine molecule.--Metalhead94 T C 22:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sleeping pills not mentioned.

They are a TERRIBLE sleep aid. They make you drowsy and help you sleep but you feel sleepy the next day as a hangover.--69.149.222.191 (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That can happen with any sedative drug.--Metalhead94 (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hangover varies from person to person, mostly depending on CYP2D6 metabolism. As you can see in the article, the half-life is 2 to 8 hours. If you're on the 8 hour end, you're probably going to have a hangover. 72.154.101.31 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe you are forgetting that diphenhydramine's primary action does not work on a mechanism for effectively inducing sleep. The reason people get classic sleep aids such as most GABA agonists (GHB, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etc) is because: The drug's prominent effect is nighttime drowsiness caused by reduction of acetylcholine indirectly caused by inhibiting histamine + diphenhydramine being generally safe + being OTC = marketing as a sleep aid. This is in my opinion incorrect though because drowsiness isn't all to helpful for inducing sleep in people who cannot sleep and is actually annoying being drowsy and not being able to sleep at the same time and plus I think marketing a drug for one of it's side effects is irresponsible because it's a side effect not the primary action of the drug. Strangely no one markets opioids for depression despite their euphoric "side effects"
  • By the way it does not have a hangover as I state before, it is not a GABA agonist; what you think is a hangover is actually caused by the fact the drug is poor at inducing sleep, ergo leading to lack of sleep, ergo next day drowsiness. Sincerely and truly yours, C6541 (T↔C) at 05:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Excitability

Does anyone know why diphenhydramine causes excitability in some individuals? This would probably be worth mentioning in the article. 68.214.70.59 (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added excitability to the list of side effects. I also added a reference for it as well. However, as far as why it causes that particular side effect, we would have to find a reliable source for it, if it is to be added to the article.WackoJackO 12:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Contraindications

A section on contraindications is very much needed in this article since alcohol and depressants have a huge impact on the effects of this drug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datapharmer (talk • contribs) 01:58, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.238.74 (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge sections

The recreational use section should be merged into "side effects" and sourced appropriately. —Viriditas | Talk 14:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's recreational use exists and deserves a section of it's own. The 'side effects' section should include side effects when diphenhydramine is used at approved medical doses.--Metalhead94 (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If diphenhydramine is used "recreationally", then it must be used by masochists. There is nothing "recreational" about diphenhydramine; at high levels, it causes delirium, bodily dryness, severe headaches, and makes thinking impossible. Citations are needed, as the current section appears to be a bit fear-mongering.24.62.204.207 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
While most of the side-effects you mentioned may be accurate, personal opinions never make it for long in articles, obviously. It's recreational use exists nonetheless and as such it deserves a detailed section.--Metalhead94 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Messed-up section

Diphenhydramine has sedative properties. The drug is also used as a sleep aid and is an ingredient in many sleep aids, such as Unisom gelcaps (however, the tablet form of Unisom contains Doxylamine, a different active ingredient[7]), and most notably Tylenol PM where it is combined with acetaminophen (paracetamol), Nytol and the US version of Sominex (not to be confused with the UK version which uses promethazine) which have diphenhydramine as the only active ingredient. Several generic and store brands of antihistamines and sleep aids also contain solely diphenhydramine, such as Tylenol Simply Sleep.

Diphenhydramine is widely used in nonprescription sleep aids with a maximum recommended dose of 50 mg (as the hydrochloride salt) being mandated by the FDA. In the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and other countries, a 50 to 100 mg recommended dose is permitted.

These two paragraphs have multiple issues. First, the second is something of a restatement of the first and the two don't flow very well. "...is also used as a sleep aid and is an ingredient in many sleep aids" is awkward to say the least. "...and most notably..." Why most notably? Also the last series in that sentence is contradictory: "and...Tylenol PM where it is combined with acetaminophen..., Nytol, and the US version of Sominex...which have diphenhydramine as the only active ingredient. This states both that Tylenol PM has an additional ingredient and also that it doesn't (the sentence at one time read "...and Nytol and Sominex, which was accurate but pretty awkward with three "ands" connecting the various elements of the series. Last, Tylenol Simply Sleep is neither a generic or store brand so shouldn't be used as an example of those.

Suggested rewrite something like

Diphenhydramine has sedative properties and is widely used in nonprescription sleep aids with a maximum recommended dose of 50 mg (as the hydrochloride salt) being mandated by the FDA. In the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and other countries, a 50 to 100 mg recommended dose is permitted.

The drug is an ingredient in several products sold as sleep aids, either alone or in combination with other ingredients such as acetaminophen (paracetamol). An example of the latter is Tylenol PM. Examples of products having diphenhydramine as the only active ingredient include Unisom gelcaps (the tablet form contains doxylamine, a different active ingredient), Tylenol Simply Sleep, Nytol, and Sominex (the version sold in the US — that sold in the UK uses promethazine). Both types are also sold as generic or store brands.

(comments welcome - I may go ahead and make the above changes later) Gr8white (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Drowsiness

Have there been studies on what percentage of the population experiences drowsiness from diphenhydramine? I personally don't experience any, but my impression is that for most people it's quite intense. Also, what is the mechanism that causes drowsiness? --Galaxiaad 16:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The mechanism which causes drowsiness is the unselective inhibition of H1 receptors in both the PNS and CNS. Inhibition in the CNS causes drowsiness.--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I believe the majority of the sedation is caused by diphenhydramine's muscarinic acetylcholine antagonism which affects the CNS in a way that causes sedation. I don't think histamine blocking is directly responsible for drowsiness, it's because first generation H1 anti-histamines just posses a strong anti-cholinergic due to their structure. Sincerely and truly yours, C6541 (T↔C) at 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You may be correct. Most older antihistamines have similar structures and thus some level or another of anticholinergic action. However, it should also be noted that these older agents weren't selective with the Histamine receptor system, while newer agents directly target the histamine receptors outside of the CNS.--Metalhead94 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

International names

I found these other names. Hope it helps somebody. Source: http://www.umm.edu/altmed/drugs/diphenhydramine-043500.htm#Group1Ordinal34

Alergil® (HN); Alledryl® (IL); Allerdryl® (CA); Allergan® (IT); Allerjin® (TR); Allernix (CA); Arcodryl® (ID); Azaron® (BE); Bedorma® (CH); Belarmin Expectorant® (CY); Benaderma® (PT); Benadryl® (AR, BR, CA, CO, ES, GB, HK, ID, IN, TH, TR); Benadryl N® (CH, CZ, DE); Benison® (TR); Benocten® (CH, CR, CY, JO, KW, LB, SG, SV); Benylan® (DK); Benylin antihistaminicum® (BE); Benzantine® (IL); Betadorm D® (DE); Betasleep® (ZA); Butix® (FR); Caladryl® (AR, EG, ES, NL, TR, ZA); Calmaben® (AT, SK); Cathejell® (AT, DE, IL); Daslin® (IN); Dermodrin® (AT, PL); Desentol® (SE); Dibondrin® (AT); Difenhidramina Denver Farma® (AR); Difenhidramina Fada® (AR); Difenhidramina Richmond® (AR); Difenidramina® (BR); Difenidramina Cloridrato® (IT); Dimedrol® (RU); Dimidril® (HR, SI); Dimiril® (IN); Diphamine® (BE); Diphenhydramine-Asta Medica® (LU); Dolestan® (DE); Dormutil N® (DE); Dramina® (SI); Emesan® (DE); Fabolergic® (AR); Fenotral® (TR); Halbmond-Tabletten® (DE); Hemodorm® (DE); Hevert-Dorm® (DE); Histaler® (AR); Histam® (DO); Histaxin® (AT); Medinex® (GB); Mudantos H® (AR); Nautamine® (FR); Neo Respir® (AR); Neosayomol® (ES); nervo OPT® (DE); Noctor® (AT); Nuicalm® (BE); Nustasium® (BE); Nytol® (CA, ES, GB); Nytol® Extra Strength (CA); Nytol SM® (CH); Otede® (ID); Pasifen® (CL); Paxidorm® (SG); Pedeamin® (BD); Phenadryl® (BD); PMS-Diphenhydramine (CA); Prurex® (AT); Psilo® (BG); Purigel® (BE); ratioAllerg® (DE); R-Calm® (BE); S.8® (DE); Schlaftabletten N® (DE); Schlaftabletten S® (CH); Sedativum-Hevert® (DE); Sediat® (DE); Sedopretten® (DE); Sidiadryl® (ID); Simply Sleep® (CA); Sleepeze-PM® (ZA); Sleepia® (CH, DE); Somol® (CL); Sonodor® (ES); Tzoali® (MX); Unisom Sleepgels® (AU); Vivinox® (DE)

217.73.30.82 (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Abuse" or "Recreational Use"

I have changed "Abuse" to "Recreational Use", because "Abuse" implies that it is wrong or immoral, and certainly is a POV. It is instead recreational to eliminate POV. If anyone has a problem with this please let me know. Ihatecrayons 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that change. Eventhough, IMHO, diphenhydramine is a really shitty (and damn dangerous too!) drug to try and trip with, calling it "Abuse" is a POV. I will change the dimenhydrinate article too to reflect this. --Seven of Nine 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That is very true, that it is a very shitty and dangerous drug for tripping with. But, some people choose to, so we have to remain unbiased. Thanks for fixing things. :D Ihatecrayons 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree: abuse is when you deliberately exceed the recommended dose. There's nothing biased about that. And does the external link to people's experiences count as a reliable source? I'm uneasy about it because it tends to encourage the abuse ie. people see what doses are needed over certain time periods to recreate those experiences. Although if the experiences were recounted in a clinical setting, for the purpose of medical inquiry, that would seem ok. In the end, WP isn't censored.--80.6.163.58 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)--Shtove 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That's the biggest problem with the term 'drug abuse', it is defined differently by different parties. I think it is generally understood to carry negative connotations though. The terms "non-theraputic" or "non-medical" could be used in place of "recreational", although I have no particular problem with the term "recreational" personally.
I agree that the Erowid link you alluded to is not suitable as a source, but as you said it's listed under the external links section and not the references. As an external link I don't see a problem with it. The phrase "usually between 100mg and 450mg" is unsourced and I personally don't think it belongs in the article. I've added a {fact} tag there and I'll take out the phrase in a few days if nobody objects. The rest of the section looks encyclopedic enough to me although it's unsourced like much of the rest of the article.--Eloil 21:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind some could be self medicating as an attempt to stay unprescribed zombies. If other forms of self med's were legal chemical abuse would not be needed. What are the long term side effects to the liver and brain? This could add to the "abuse" debate.

I say stick with recreational, abuse is a pov word when used in context to drugs. and dosage for 'high' varies as with all drugs, but Erowid is fairly accurate

I know that the American Red Cross considers intentional use for reasons outside of labeling abuse, but I do agree that there is a stigma in western culture around the word abuse. I suggest that "recreational" use be kept for the headline, but perhaps a reference to abuse could be made within the text? Also the dosage threshold between off-label use and abuse needs to determined since this drug could be used for depression which is certainly not a "recreational" use - though these levels may overlap somewhat. Datapharmer 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Recreational Abuse a possibility? Whilst Abuse on its own is evidently POV, and recreational could be construed as a positive endorsement, is a compromise a possibility? As an occasional abuser (and I use that term with full connotational force) I do not wish unprepared individuals to experience this drug. The last thing I'd want is someone experiencing something which they would not enjoy. 13:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babelinfocalypse (talk • contribs)

The "Recreational use" section is messy, lacks citations, and is of generally poor quality. Erowid is not a suitable reference. Random unsubstantiated claims, such as "Diphenhydramine is a component of recreational heroin", do not belong on Wikipedia. (As for "recreational heroin"... what makes that any different from "normal" or "medical" heroin? If you mean to say "impure heroin", then say so. "Recreational heroin" is just a nonsense term.) I'm sure that people do in fact use diphenhydramine recreationally, but I think the information provided should point out dangers rather than explicitly telling readers how to use it recreationally. On this note, I'm removing the part about dosage and the reference to Erowid. To be quite honest, using this drug recreationally is utterly idiotic. Fuzzform (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if that's your opinion, oh well. But there is nothing messy about the term recreational use at all, it just describes using something recreationally. The term "Abuse" is the messy one not suited to Wikipedia.--68.217.131.246 (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the packaging on this drug clearly states, as a legal requirement, that it cannot be mixed with alcohol. Suggesting that mixing it with alcohol could be a "recreational use" is misleading, could result in death or injury, and could be misinterpreted as "fun" by idiotic teenagers who don't know the difference between a recreational drug like marijuana and something that could kill you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.32.86 (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

-If anyone can get any information on long term use/abuse and the permanent consequences they should put it in a section of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzyspaz 2007 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a missing connection between "in the 1960s it was found that diphenhydramine inhibits reuptake of the neurotransmitter serotonin." and "This discovery led to a search for viable antidepressants with similar structures and fewer side effects,". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.14.176.221 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Side effects

Regarding the Side effects section: The two paragraphs about Dramamine and Benadryl have little or nothing to do with side effects. May I make a motion that they be moved? -- JEBrown87544 04:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they should be moved up to the top or something, but deff not in side effects. -- Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the section regarding the ironic side effect of hives is written in a substantially different done from the rest of the article, and that its use of the second person seems out of place in an encyclopedic context.71.42.119.67 21:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the line "Despite its use and effectiveness as a sleep-inducing agent, a warning of the potential loss of alertness is rarely prominently displayed on packaging when this drug is sold as an antihistamine[citation needed]", as the box that I'm staring at right now has that listed as the first side effect. "Rarely" is kind of a weasel word anyway. --JD79 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The side effects section really needs some statistics. I don't think hallucinations can be all that common. Persephone12 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Half-life

The ref for the half life says: "The elimination half-life has been reported to range from 2.4-9.3 hrs." This is not suitable for reference since it does not cite any specific report (it is a secondary source with no primary source). Attys (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Replaced. This is standard practice for prescribing information and drug formularies, though. Few cite their primary sources. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dosage

Back on the 29th of December 2006 I edited the dosage under 'Recreational Use' from "225mg - 450mg" to "100mg - 450mg" as I believe that to be more appropriate. It was brought to my attention that both my edit and a subsequent edit were both reverted by user 131.191.11.131. The sentence now cites the erowid diphenhydramine vault for dosage amounts, even though that source says that 225mg is in the "strong" range of dosage and 100mg is in the "light" range. So, again, I find it more appropriate that this sentence say "100mg - 450mg" as opposed to "225mg - 450mg". I will make this edit barring any objections. --75.69.170.233 04:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

50 mg is enough. 450? You must be kidding. —Viriditas | Talk 14:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
50mg is the recommended dose in the U.S. It is not a recreational dose. And 450mg is a moderate/heavy recreational dose, however, it is not uncommon for recreational users to use 600mg or more.--Metalhead94 T C 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

having used dph recreationally, i feel i should help shed some light on the topic of recreational dosages. of course, everybody reacts differently and dosages will vary, but a recreational dose is generally around 500-800mg. 50mg is nowhere near enough and is just over a therapeutic dose. 100mg is too light to make give an effect on most people and 500-800mg is most often used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.90.75 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of doseage, the maximum reccomended doseage in the UK is 50mg, the current wording makes it sound like it's 100mg. A citation would be nice too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.127.100 (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Pharmacological Effect

The article as written states that the effect of H1-antihistamine results in reduction of smooth muscle constriction. The effect of Histamine on blood vessels(smooth muscle) is to dilate them and increase blood flow causing inflammation as I understand. It seems the presence of H1-antihistamine will not reduce constriction of blood vessels, but rather prevent their dilation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.126 (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Correction to Pharmacological Effect: H1-antihistamine will "increase" smooth muscle constriction if the drug is correctly listed as an H1-antihistamine. If it is blocking the H1-receptor it stands to reason a prevention of dilation would occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.126 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The information concerning diphenhydramine's inhibition of the uptake of serotonin is incorrect, its norepriphrine that it inhibits. Heres a source http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A8124963AH&q=diphenhydramine+dopamine+serotonin&uid=787769046&setcookie=yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.181.252 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and edit the "mechanisms of action" section. DrSparticle (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Dormin"

I have seen a few different people in the online heroin community referring to diphenhydramine as "dormin". Apparently, heroin is frequently cut with the stuff. Has anybody ever heard of this term for DPH?

Currently, "dormin" redirects to the article on abscisic acid. Confusing.

--63.25.108.100 03:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not. You wouldn't happen to have any sources for that information? The page on abscisic acid lists 'dormin' as an alias, which would explain things (though that needs a source too).
-FrankTobia 13:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in fact, when buying in bulk, dealers have been known to give them out, for you to cut your H with.I'd say this is definantly true, though no official source other than experience and other people's accounts. Not really sure if this has relevance to the article though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.250.155 (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting information

There is conflicting information: Akathisia says it is a side effect of diphenhydramine (Benadryl), while this article says Benadryl 'prevents' akathisia. Which is correct? --zandperl 03:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It can cause either or both. Like most drugs, side effects vary from one individual to the next. 12.33.211.29 20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, this article says it may cause nausea but it is listed as an antiemetic. 128.119.174.227 18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as an occasional recreational user of DPH, the nausea is more likely to be caused by shifting and surreal visual shifts, similar to motion sickness, rather than the pharmacological effects of the drug. Babelinfocalypse 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC) --babelinfocalypse

There doesn't seem to be much consensus about the half-life of diphenhydramine. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration lists the half-life as 8.5 plus or minus 3.2 hours, and rx-list.com says it's effects are felt for 4-6 hours (is that supposed to be one half-life?). --Wallabyman 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, could someone put the peak plasma concentration somewhere in the article? I think a new section on pharmacology would be nice to start. I've seen 2-3 hours listed as the peak plasma concentration (again, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration). Thanks! --Wallabyman 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

2 to 3 hour peak is laughable, as is a 12 hour H-life.Never listen to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, or any similiar agency, they have an agenda and are not only wrong, but sometimes deliberately skew facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.250.155 (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

HCl

Should the word hydrochloride appear in the first line? The same paragraph mentions diphenhydramine citrate, and later explicitly "HCl injectable" ... How many other forms of diphenhydramine are in use? —Tamfang (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Over the Counter?

I think this article needs to specify what countries it's OTC in. It's not even allowed to be sold with a prescription in my country without special permission. While that may be a bit extreme, I know that there are other countries it's restricted in as well. I came to this article to find out if it was legal in the UK (since Benedryl doesn't contain Diphenhydramine any longer at least in some areas), which would be reasonable information for the English language wiki to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.62.236.5 (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent editing

I like how new images and citated information appear on this article. Congrats to the Wikipedians who made this article look very professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00AgentBond93 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You are welcome to collaborate with us. We can always use more cited information. :) (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC))

Addiction

There used to be a section on this article detailing physical dependency that can occur from sustained and prolonged diphenhydramine use, which now appears to have been removed. I think the article is worse off for not detailing these facts. Why has it been removed and should be reinstate at least some reference to this? Michael Heseltin (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification regarding chemical classification

The chemical classification for diphenhydramine here could use some additional sources and clarification. Base64 -JL 72.2.239.19 (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Efficacy vs second-generation H1 antagonists

I take issue with the statement "Diphenhydramine is significantly more potent in treatment of allergies than a newer generation of antihistamines." The citation links to an article that claims "Diphenhydramine ... provided statistically significant and clinically superior improvements in symptoms compared with ... desloratadine." Desloratadine is a metabolite of loradatine, which is *A* second-generation H1 antagonist. However compare this article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3205335/ that compares the efficacy of Diphenhydramine to Cetirizine which concludes that "cetirizine has similar efficacy and onset of action as compared with diphenhydramine in treating acute food allergic reactions."

We now have one citation comparing ONE second-gen H1 blocker claiming less efficacy and ANOTHER second-gen H1 blocker claiming similar efficacy. As such, I do not think it is accurate to claim the above. My intention, with concern that after reading this article, people with acute allergic onset will reach for their 20th-Century-discovered Benadryl not knowing there are better alternatives that do not as readily cross the blood brain barrier, is to rephrase this statement to indicate that diphen is more potent than SOME later H1 blockers. Shiggity (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

aaaaaand done. Shiggity (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This article should mention that taking Benadryl gives disrupted sleep

Because when I take it to sleep better I end up having disrupted sleep waking up every 3-4 hours and after 8-10 hours still feel tired. It can happen if you take a lot of the pills and constantly. Just saying. 173.246.7.65 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

please see WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dangerous Side Effects, esp. in the Elderly

Related to the above post, the discussion of side effects is similarly watered down, and frankly grossly inadequate. Although diphenhydramine (Benadryl) has acquired a popular reputation as a medicine with some version of an unlimited safety envelope, this is really the result of relentless advertising, and not any version of a biological fact. When we were tracking admissions to our Geropsychiatry/Alzheimer's unit, Benadryl was most frequent medicine implicated in confusional states in elderly patients in cognitive decline. It simply is not a safe medicine in the elderly, because if that person has the beginning of Alzheimer's disease (and this disease is increasingly penetrant into US society for many reasons with early stages of Alzheimer's disease rarely being diagnosed), one is risking induction of a delirium (which requires inpatient care to treat), even at low to moderate doses. The notion referenced later in the discussion that delirium only happens at very high doses is absolutely untrue, at least in the elderly. Diphenhydramine is really a potent anticholinergic, and thus interacts badly with basal forebrain cholinergic degeneration (an important core component of Alzheimer's disease). As a longtime Alzheimer's clinician and now researcher, I am astonished at the number of elderly patients (and even primary care doctors!) who mistakenly believe that Benadryl is the safest medicine that the elderly could possibly take. Given the distorting influence that drug company advertising has in our current healthcare environment, it really behooves people to be more sophisticated and less naive about the seriousness of the risks associated with diphenhydramine, particularly in the elderly. Even in younger patients, it has serious risks. A recent study demonstrated that when young adults (far more resistant to the effects of sedating and anticholinergic medicines than elderly adults) were placed in a driving simulator and tested on a stiff dose of Benadryl versus when they were legally drunk, they did significantly better when they were legally drunk. Given evidence that the induction of a delirium from anticholinergic medicines actually accelerates the underlying Alzheimer's disease and requires inpatient level care, and is not simply an 'inconvenience', this suggests that the discussion of side effects in the article really needs to be strengthened significantly. As it is worded currently, it is grossly inadequate. These warning should also apply to patients with other cognitive disorders, for example. those suffering from post concussional syndromes, where anticholinergic medicines can exacerbate cognitive symptoms. Even more troubling is the emerging evidence that long term use of anticholinergic medicines contribute to overall risk for Alzheimer's disease, though uncharted mechanisms and interactions. Anyone appreciating the central role at acetylcholine plays in cognition, cortical arousal and neuroplasticity would hardly rush to a medicine with strong blockade of ACh receptors. On these keys points, this article falls down, and badly.

For referencing look at Wong et al, 2009, Neurology. 2009 May 5;72(18):1570-5. Delirium accelerates cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease. Fong TG, Jones RN, Shi P, Marcantonio ER, Yap L, Rudolph JL, Yang FM, Kiely DK, Inouye SK., and an in press chapter (Watt, DF, Koziol, K & Budding, D. (2012) Delirium and confusional states. Contributed chapter in C.A. Noggle & R.S. Dean (Eds.). Disorders in Neuropsychiatry. New York: Springer Publishing Company, In press.)

Douglas F Watt PhD Harvard Medical School 75.69.254.59 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like your concerns have finally been confirmed in a released March 2015 long term study. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"Main Outcomes and Measures Incident dementia and Alzheimer disease using standard diagnostic criteria. Statistical analysis used Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for demographic characteristics, health behaviors, and health status, including comorbidities.

Results The most common anticholinergic classes used were tricyclic antidepressants, first-generation antihistamines, and bladder antimuscarinics. During a mean follow-up of 7.3 years, 797 participants (23.2%) developed dementia (637 of these [79.9%] developed Alzheimer disease). A 10-year cumulative dose-response relationship was observed for dementia and Alzheimer disease (test for trend, P < .001). For dementia, adjusted hazard ratios for cumulative anticholinergic use compared with nonuse were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74-1.16) for TSDDs of 1 to 90; 1.19 (95% CI, 0.94-1.51) for TSDDs of 91 to 365; 1.23 (95% CI, 0.94-1.62) for TSDDs of 366 to 1095; and 1.54 (95% CI, 1.21-1.96) for TSDDs greater than 1095. A similar pattern of results was noted for Alzheimer disease. Results were robust in secondary, sensitivity, and post hoc analyses.

Conclusions and Relevance Higher cumulative anticholinergic use is associated with an increased risk for dementia. Efforts to increase awareness among health care professionals and older adults about this potential medication-related risk are important to minimize anticholinergic use over time."[1]

Cumulative Use of Strong Anticholinergics and Incident Dementia:A Prospective Cohort Study
Shelly L. Gray, PharmD, MS1; Melissa L. Anderson, MS2; Sascha Dublin, MD, PhD2,3; Joseph T. Hanlon, PharmD, MS4; Rebecca Hubbard, :PhD2,5,6; Rod Walker, MS2; Onchee Yu, MS2; Paul K. Crane, MD, MPH7; Eric B. Larson, MD, MPH2,7
JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(3):401-407. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7663. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
the content you added was very strong, based only on one primary source. The article already notes that it is to be used only with caution in elderly peoplem btw. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The article is not strong enough with the new evidence and there are secondary sources. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The quote there is from a primary source. What are the reviews that discuss this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Source search:
  • Harvard blog (weak) Moreover, dementia risk increased along with the cumulative dose. Taking an anticholinergic for the equivalent of three years or more was associated with a 54% higher dementia risk than taking the same dose for three months or less. The ACT results add to mounting evidence that anticholinergics aren’t drugs to take long-term if you want to keep a clear head, and keep your head clear into old age. The body’s production of acetylcholine diminishes with age, so blocking its effects can deliver a double whammy to older people. It’s not surprising that problems with short-term memory, reasoning, and confusion lead the list of anticholinergic side effects, which also include drowsiness, dry mouth, urine retention, and constipation.[2]
  • Expert commentary March 2015 from Malaz A. Boustani, Dr. Knopman, Dr. Gray, Larry Tune, MD, Noll L. Campbell [3]
  • Annals of Long Term Care recognition leads to inclusion in at least two texts following: [4]
    • Basic Geriatric Nursing uses it as a source on prescribing anti-cholinergics [5]
    • Psychiatric Care of the Medical Patient uses the study [6]
  • McCartney M's review and discussion on causality, hope for RCT and connected studies, one French suggesting non-reversibility [7]
  • UK's NHS review of the study and the media 'scare' "A prospective cohort study cannot definitively prove this drug class causes Alzheimer's disease or dementia, but it can show they are linked in some way" [8]
  • Kurzweil AI (prints MD Grays commentary) The study, however, used more rigorous methods, longer follow-up (more than seven years), and better assessment of medication use via pharmacy records (including substantial nonprescription use) to confirm this previously reported link. ... At KurzweilAI’s request, Cara Tannenbaum, MD, Research Chair at the Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal (IUGM, Montreal Geriatric University Institute) and Associate Professor of Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of Montreal (UdeM), provided the following list of the most dangerous drugs shown to affect memory (generic names) in the 2012 study mentioned above: [9]
  • Alex Chase of Nature review: [10]
  • Netzer PhD review for Alzheimers Info site Using such drugs, however, does not mean that you will get Alzheimer’s disease. Surveys suggest that anywhere from 8 percent to 37 percent of Americans take anticholinergic drugs on a regular basis, mostly for such conditions as overactive bladder, seasonal allergies or depression. Most of these people will not develop dementia. Still, the results of this study clearly indicate that long-term use of these drugs may be detrimental to the brain. [11]
  • Review by Steingard MD "This was a careful study. To avoid what they call protopathic bias – the possibility that one of these drugs was prescribed to treat depression or insomnia that in retrospect was an early sign of dementia – they excluded from their calculations all drugs prescribed in the year prior to the onset of dementia. They statistically controlled for factors that could contribute to dementia: age, sex, smoking status, years of education, body mass index. They accounted for health care status and several specific health conditions that could impact the results – coronary heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke, hypertension, depression, and concurrent benzodiazepine use. There were two major findings. The first is that total exposure to anticholinergic drugs increases the risk of developing dementia. But of further concern, these effects were seen even if the drugs had been stopped years before the onset of dementia."[12]
These should be plenty. There are more pages of results to peruse[13]. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break to save scrolling

you have not not read WP:MEDRS. You have thrown a lot of non-MEDRS compliant junk in there. It is great that you want to be involved in Wikipedia but to do so, you need to engage with the actual policies and guidelines that govern this place. When we talk about "reviews" it is not like a review of a movie, as you taken it to mean. Please do read MEDRS and then reply with the answer to the question I asked. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear. Your assumptions are WAY off. I have been involved with Wikipedia since 2007 and assuming that someone editing on an anonymous IP has no experience with Wikipedia is a violation of WP:Faith. No one is required to log in to edit Wikipedia unless it is a locked article. None of the things I listed is so called compliant junk as they are all from doctors or reporters that cover medicine at non-reactionary sites and two text books published months later (no, I did not mistake them for movie reviews). We are all under the obligation to improve articles and keep them accurate. Since you work on medical articles and consider it your forte, you could ALSO look for better sources instead of pushing the burden exclusively onto me. There is no explicit causal link between this med and dementia but there is enough evidence to associate with dementia from several studies now. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
What I wrote was "non-MEDRS compliant junk" - meaning junk that is not compliant with MEDRS. The piece is Nature Reviews Neurology is not a review, it is a news piece, a "research highlight". again, please read WP:MEDRS and if you don't understand it, please ask. I did look for reviews, and didn't find any that discuss this. btw, there is a link at the very top of this talk page that shoots you right to reviews in pubmed. You are being combative instead of trying to learn. That is too bad because it just wastes a lot of time. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Your use of the adjective junk when describing the opinions of doctors from non-reactionary sites and text books is invective towards those trained professionals and your accusing me of woefully lacking in experience because I'm on an IP account was the start of combativeness. Take responsibility for your initiation of combativeness, please, and I will let my initial anger to your word usage subside.
I also used the link above and can not find anything, but review articles are not the only acceptable source. I waited a year from the time of that initial primary paper (actually watched this issue since 2012) before I attempted to insert any information about the connections to dementia so the sources could ripen. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the wording I'm trying to add. I NEVER said cause in my addition nor am I citing any sources that make that claim. Dementia has been associated with long term(3+ years) of high dosage diphenhydramine. Now the association could be that people likely to get dementia are also likely to need diphenhydramine, it could be that the long term use of these drugs correlate with the inception of dementia. The lead doctor in the study said it succinctly: “You can never completely rule out the chance that there are other reasons that might be explaining our findings.”
Other sources allowed by WP:MEDRS academic and professional books written by experts which describes two of the sources I listed above: [15] and [16]97.85.173.38 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
My comments were based on the low quality sources that you brought, in response to my request for MEDRS compliant sources, and from the way you did you searches as you linked to above: [17]. That is very obviously looking for a review of the article, not a review about the use of the drug that deals with the findings of that clinical study. But look I am sorry I offended you - I just get tired of people who don't take the time to actually figure out what is going on and just argue instead of asking. I'll have a look at those two books in a bit. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Binding Affinity values

I came to this site to find the Binding Affinity (Ki [nM])of diphenhydramine. I do not know how to set up this sort of chart for this medication, yet. Perhaps, there are others who would appreciate this information as well. bmenn (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

brand name in lead

User:Seppi333 why this? You gave no reason. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with putting brand names in the lead; I just don't think it should go in the very first sentence. Alternate names of the compound are what should go in the first sentence. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The first brandname is an alternate name IMO. We can also place in the paragraph on society and culture I guess.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
My rationale for not equating the terms Benadryl and diphenhydramine is that diphenhydramine also refers to Sominex; Benadryl, however, does not refer to Sominex. It refers only to the Benadryl brands which contain diphenhydramine. Alternate chemical names refer to Benadryl and Sominex because they're equivalent terms to diphenhydramine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diphenhydramine. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Benadryl

Not enough content in current article to justify separate articles. Propose redirect from Benadryl to Diphenhydramine page Shaded0 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. User:Shaded0 the problem is that Benadryl can be a different medication depending on what version you buy and what country you are in. This is one of the reasons why brand names should not be used. But that is another issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair point, I didn't realize this was the case. I'll take a look and see if I can find some sources for use in additional clarification, or expansion. Shaded0 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Use in treatment of IBS

Hello, I've very recently found through anecdotal evidence that diphenhydramine seems to have a positive impact on the debilitating symptoms I experience as a result of my IBS-D. After realising this, I conducted a brief search, and though during that time, I was unable to find any related studies or anything in any peer-reviewed journals, there are significant threads and anecdotal resources on this subject across multiple forums with many individuals, like myself, citing their improved symptoms. As I'm lacking concrete evidence here, I'm hoping someone could comment on whether they think it would be appropriate to add a section regarding the off-label use of diphenhydramine in the treatment of IBS-D? As multiple patients report having acquired a prescription for this purpose, I think that the addition could be of some use. Thanks all.

Alfredkensington (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, and for content about health, this means WP:MEDRS. So, no, if there are no MEDRS sources. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Recreational Use

The recreational use section of the article appears to be somewhat paradoxical, as while it postulates that recreational use of the drug exists, it states, "Recreational use of diphenhydramine may cause...", going on to list exclusively negative effects of abuse. Clearly the drug must have some recreational value, otherwise it wouldn't be abused. While we certainly don't want to condone the abuse of drugs, I believe that we should, for the sake of completeness, have the article include all common effects of recreational use along with dosages, LD50, etc. Even the article cited for the list of negative effects this site states in its second paragraph that the drug induces feelings of euphoria. If anyone wishes to add any of this info, you'll find some good data from Erowid at this page.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that we add all or any of the information I've mentioned above, in fact, it may even be worth removing the recreational use section in its entirety, as in its present state, it appears to be verging on misinformation.

I won't be making any changes to the article unless anyone suggests I do; I'm new here and so I think that a user with more experience should decide what is to be done with the section, if anything is to be done with it at all.

Thanks.

Alfredkensington (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Erowid is not a reliable source in Wikipedia, nor is "student doctor" Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The article states "Diphenhydramine is sometimes used recreationally as a deliriant, or as a potentiator of alcohol,[52][53] opiates,[54] DXM and other depressants." In other words, a small group of people use this drug recreationally to feel derp, not feel euphoric. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Alfredkensington, the section needs to be re-worked. For one, the list of "recreational effects" is just a list of symptoms of overdose. The citation mentions nothing about recreational use. Why is it in the "recreational use" section, then? There's information about DPH poisoning and how it is treated under the "Adverse effects" section, it would fit better with that. Maybe under a new section specifically about overdoses.
Also, there are various sources that attest to the desirable effects of recreational use, specifically mild euphoria and sedation. From PubMed:
Those misusing antihistamines have listed calming effects (Cox et al. 2001), mild euphoria (Feldman and Behar 1986), and ability to stop tremors (Thomas et al. 2009) as desired effects.
Psychopharmacologia:
Diphenhydramine also decreased activity in men and women. It caused some euphoria in men.
-Surachit (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This whole section needs a rework, as does the similar section in Benadryl. I would make a change, but I am unable to find a reliable scholarly source (the referenced sources seem to be misconstrued information from studies from the 80's). Diphenhydramine (and dimenhydrinate to a lesser degree) are recreationally used for their sedative and hallucinogenic deleriant effects. The drug is markedly dysphoric at relevant recreational doses, not euphoric. This section need not be removed, as DPH abuse is a very real thing, evidenced by the myriad trip reports on Erowid and Reddit, but I have been unable to find scholarly evidence of the reason for abuse, apart from general information on anticholinergic delerium. I will attempt to rework this section but I would appreciate help looking for modern scholarly information on its abuse potential (not reviews all citing the same studies from the 80s). Another note, I can't seem to find any evidence of the benadryl challenge having been a widespread phenomenon besides the reports of deaths. Morzenmebs (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Clean up the math

As of the date and time of this post this Wikipedia article contains the text "The most prominent side effect is sedation. A typical dose creates driving impairment equivalent to a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, which is higher than the 0.08 limit of most drunk-driving laws". Actually, no U.S. State allows you to drive with your blood-alcohol as high as 0.08, which is the same thing as 8%. I'm not sure a person can even survive at 8% alcohol in the blood. You can either say "0.0008" and leave the percent-sign off, or say "0.08%" and include the percent-sign, but so-called "educational resources" that are trying to convince English readers that "0.08" (i.e. 8%) is the same number as "0.08%" (i.e. 0.0008) are inflicting great harm on English-speaking populations. It's unfair, and destabilizing to the economic competitiveness in the world, unless Wikipedia's pages in other "Big Science" languages (Chinese, Hindi, Russian, German, French, etc.) are also rife with the same misinformation.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diphenhydramine/Archive_1&oldid=1204127539"