Talk:Insufflation (medicine)

Split

I split this content from Insufflation based on the discussion at Talk:Insufflation#Merger proposal. FYI a bot thought that I was duplicating content and tagged this article for CSD. So if anyone was wondering about that, I guess I was too slow for the bot. ;-) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Also noted at Talk:Insufflation.) While the (pre-split) bulk of the text dealt with the ritual use, most of the links to "Insufflation" are medically/drug-related and should instead point to this article. There are a lot of them, and I've started to fix them, but I can't hit them all right now. Sorry for any inconvenience. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've finished updating the links. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sublingual for benzodiazepines

I added that sublingual administration is often used for benzodiazepines especially when they are used recreationally. However, I can't find a good source to cite for this (I've heard it said by many people around the world in forums, etc. but can't find a study that suggests it's "better"). Would comparative bioavailabilities be considered proof of this assertation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.253.54 (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

CNS delivery via the intranasal route

I think this topic deserves its own page, There has been quite a bit of research on this topic other than the Frey article that's cited, and the ramifications are huge. I intend to start a page soon. Dcs002 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is bogus

"Insufflate" means "blow", not "inhale". Check onelook here: [1] I'd appreciate it if someone could provide references for this usage of the term. I'm a doctor and I've never heard the word "insufflate" used to mean "snort", "sniff", etc. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Could be expanded

This article seems a bit small, as insufflation of various psychoactive drugs is extremely common and a wealth of information is available about it. Possible topics could include a list of bioavailability of various drugs with comparisons to other routes, as well as mentioning the 'drip' and damage to the nasal cavity which can extend to complete degredation of the nasal septum. I might get some sources for some of this information and try my first proper contribution to wikipedia if no one is objecting. --90.199.226.167 (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Added to the page, hope it is good enough to stay --90.199.226.167 (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Please add a picture which will show clearly which part of the nose is absorbing the drugs. Just to name it is not enough, should be visual representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.251.236 (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Could be expanded

That's exactly what the article needs, along with some pictures and schemes. I was also wondering why one cannot use cotton buds, those which are used for cleaning ears, to make slightly wet and then to put into some powder of the substance which one wants to consume intranasally. Then just apply it directly to the absorbing part of the nose. I think it may decrease of a dose needed to achieve same effects.

This article seems a bit small, as insufflation of various psychoactive drugs is extremely common and a wealth of information is available about it. Possible topics could include a list of bioavailability of various drugs with comparisons to other routes, as well as mentioning the 'drip' and damage to the nasal cavity which can extend to complete degredation of the nasal septum. I might get some sources for some of this information and try my first proper contribution to wikipedia if no one is objecting. --90.199.226.167 (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.251.236 (talk)

Pro-drugs???(Hydrocodone!)

An oddity in the article.It says "pro-drugs" that need to be converted to an active form are not effective(or at least not as effective) when snorted, becuase they avoid the first-pass effect.This is mostly true, though it can vary, as certain drugs are still (mostly)effectively converted after snorting.Of course, this is the center of a debate over just how much effectiveness they lose;for example, oxycodone is converted to oxymorphone by the liver, but it is also active on it's own, so it can sure as hell be snorted.Yet Hydrocodone REQUIRES transformation to Hydromorphone to be effective.Again, there is some debate as to whether you can get SOME effect from the hydro itself, but in any case, snorting would be a waste.Yet under list of "commonly snorted opiates/opioid, it lists "Hydrocodone".This is innaccurate, both becuase of the above reason, and also becuase every hydrocodone formulation available in the states has APAP, as do the majority of formulations in other countries.In conclusion, listing Hydrocodone as an "intranasaly compatible" substance is both inaccurate, as it is completely inneffective when snorted(especially because of APAP) AND it is not commonly used by that route; the only people that will are ignorant kids(and I mean that in the most literal sense, not to be insulting) who get they're hands on some Vicodin and know no better.I will remove Hydro from the list for this reason.I may also expand it a bit; to include the pro-drug debate, that I believe any drug user would find interesting, and give a more in depth examination of what drugs are AND aren't compatible with snorting, and the reasons why, as well as substances that CAN be snorted, but aren't exactly effective. If anyone has anything to add, please do.As others have said, this is an important article, and there is a lot of info out there.We could be solid start for anyone, and I mean anyone who needs info about this ROA.WOuld also like input from people who snort they're DOA.I personally stick to either just swallowing them, or if I need a rush, going the IV route, so anecdotal info could be of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.250.155 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Harm reduction

I realize giving harm reduction information goes against the general idea, but would it be reasonable to point to the fact that it exists in pages like this? I assume many people who are new to drugs and want to learn about route of administration X check WP for information (although it's just an assumption), so if they learned of a HR resource it might save them from unnecessary damage and risk. I don't want to mess things up with bad sources, but I doubt any academic HR sources even exist. So is alright to point to a web article or forum post that describes minimizing damage? I am new to English WP and have a lot read about policies before I can decide for myself.

Oh, and I added a bit about Hep C infection risk. Fatgonzo (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Gobbledygook

The intranasal route (administration through the nose) may allow certain drugs and other molecules to bypass the blood–brain barrier via diffusion through the olfactory epithelium and the perineural sheath or via retrograde axonal transport along olfactory and trigeminal nerves. This latter process probably implies endocytosis of the molecules. Using this route to the brain allows high concentrations of products in the olfactory bulb shortly after exposition and by diffusion to the entire brain

Could someone translate this passage into English understandable by those of us who haven't done a five-year medical degree? The purpose of an encyclopaedia is that it should provide information to those of us who are not experts in the field. This passage fails completely. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone is trying to show off. Peter schorn (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Common misconception misconception

'...scientific understanding of the term does not include inhalation of any kind, as blowing requires the application of positive pressure to push the substance into the nose whereas inhaling refers to drawing or sucking in, which requires the generation of negative pressure....' . The preceding quote is notably unscientific. There are no ' negative pressures. 'Sucking' or 'blowing' aren't specific common scientific terms. These are terms that are used in common language that depend on point of reference. The movement of air is motivated by a difference in pressure. Suggesting that the term, as overwhelmingly used, is incorrect because of a misconception about what science understands would be sad. Please correct this. 154.73.74.30 (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC) There does not seem to be a misconception about what science understands here, merely an over-complication due to nitpicking. Science can refer to medical science, etymological science or a myriad of others, and does not need to only use terms used in physics. The usage as intended is quite clear. Lay people understand the difference between sucking and blowing, and the term is overwhelmingly used in medicine only in the context of blowing into a body cavity. 2600:8807:8787:7700:F8DF:3720:B18E:AF49 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)BGriffin

Methylphenidate

I have used methylphenidate for years and I never heard of the nasal administration of the drug (unless for recreational uses but didn't give me that impression). Is there a source for the "Examples of drugs given" part? Ddhelmet (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)