Talk:Actiq

" One 1,600 μg Actiq is 150 calories, making weight gain a problem for patients who consume many per day. "

If you are consuming three or more 1,600 μg Actiqs per day, you have far bigger problems than weight gain. Without tolerance, That's enough to kill a horse*.


 * http://www.cvmbs.colostate.edu/ivapm/professionals/members/qow/fentanylhorses.htm

Actiq Lollipop Painkiller Deadly Side Effects
Actiq is a powerful narcotic painkiller in the form of a lollipop that is manufactured by Cephalon, Inc. The drug is delivered to the bloodstream by a lollipop-like lozenge; when placed against the inner cheek, pain is relieved in minutes. Actiq is also administered by transdermal patches and by injection. The active ingredient, fentanyl citrate, is a highly addictive narcotic which is approximately 80 times more potent than morphine.

The FDA approved the Actiq lollipop in 1998 for treatment of severe pain in cancer patients. However, Actiq is apparently being prescribed to thousands of people for off label treatment of non-cancer related pain. It has been estimated that in the first half of 2006 approximately 99% of the 187,076 Actiq prescriptions filled in the U.S. were not for cancer patients.

The Actiq lollipop has been associated with the deaths of at least 127 people. There have been another 91 FDA reported incidents of severe side effects. Side effects have ranged from dehydration to respiratory problems along with further issues associated with the highly addictive nature of the narcotic. Forty-seven of the deaths have been linked to addiction, misuse, or overdose. Two deaths have reportedly involved children who mistook the Actiq lollipop for candy.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Fine to cite cases but keep the spammy links to law firm advertising sites out of here.

Fentanyl Lollipop Pediatric Anesthesia Controversy
I remember when the Fentanyl lollipop was originally introduced, there was a great deal of controversy attendant with its design (the lozenge portion was colored red, originally) when used as a pre-operative sedative/analgesic for children. I recommend that a history section be added to the article covering this. Here is a link I found that appears to list several abstracts from research articles about the Fentanyl lollipop:

http://www.csen.com/anesthesia/lollipop.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprocketeer (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

CAS number
990-73-8 --Itub (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Side Effects
I think that this section has a lot of content that is way off-topic. In particular, there is a paragraph describing a criminal investigation. I think this should be removed, along with a the line, "Actiq should not be taken with alcohol." This probably violates the not a guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimNm (talk • contribs) 03:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes myself. --SlimNm (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Serious Dental Health Danger posed by Actiq
There are increasingly alarming reports by users (past and present) of Actiq that it causes astonishingly swift and quite devastating tooth decay. It seems that its chemistry attacks teeth at and beneath the gumline before moving onto the above-gumline enamel itself. Many users report that by the time they discover the problem, it is too late; their teeth have already developed quite severe decay at and beneath the gumline which is almost immediately followed by the tooth itself becoming so soft it breaks at the gumline or just falls apart. The medication leads to such soft enamel that, long after the medication has been discontinued by the patient, remaining teeth seem to continue to "self-destruct." Please feel free to read the accounts of numerous victims here:

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/actiq-lawsuit-filed-over-tooth-decay-5939/

(Despite the name, only one lawsuit has been filed for tooth decay caused by Actiq. Apparently he had enough money to pay his counsel up front. The fact this case was filed at all resulted in headlines on many med-legal news websites. Aside from this one individual, no one else is known to have recently filed suit against the makers of Actiq despite hundreds and possibly thousands of victims of tooth loss and/or decay caused by Actiq. As you can see by the above-provided link, complaints pour in almost daily regarding this terrible state-of-affairs).

Which leads me to my last point - Perhaps most inexplicable of all, medical product liability attorneys are REFUSING to take cases on the matter. Many used to, but of those that did now have notices on their websites saying "Sorry. We are no longer accepting Actiq dental cases," or similar phrases. Why this is is a huge mystery. Several days' effort online has failed to answer this single question, nor elicit a response when posed to those whose websites indicated they used to represent such victims (I am a caregiver to someone once prescribed Actiq. It took between 1.5 to 2 years for this person to lose all but one of their teeth to Actiq - the one having been previously pulled due to incompetence rather than by necessity, years earlier).

In closing, no article on Actiq can be considered remotely complete unless its viral and toxic destruction of users' teeth and overall dental health is included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.126.122 (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)