Question
What are the advantages of newer antipsychotics over older one?
Antipsychotics
All Answers (15)
-
Each and every drug will have different mechanism and will has less side effect than older one. -
Yep..they got rid of tardive dyskinesia which was prevalent with tricylics -
Oh and dry mouth too, now you just have to worry about libido..or lackof ejaculation..kinda like running up and down a basketball court and never scoring...ahhh the trade offs. hehe
-
Many many benefits . like absence of tardive dyskinesia, extra;pyramidal effects,parkisnonism etc
-
For both the newer generation anti-psychotics and antidepressants it is the greater specificity for the receptor in question. This results in a better side effects profile. Note however, the relative term. The side effects seen with the older drugs are still present, just in a smaller percentage of the population and typically less severe. Then there is the debate over efficacy, which is not likely to be resolved soon.
-
Dear, more highly specific to receptor in question , better absorption, better bio- availability, onset of action is not as delayed in older ones. Severity, frequency and incidence of side effects/ toxic effects/unwanted effects are smaller
-
Less extra-pyramidal effects. Less feeling of not recompense. (less dopamine but less serotonin too. Serotonin modulates dopamine, and if dopamine is low and the relative serotonin high, is more less the dopamine. Cannot feel happiness). And with extra-pyramidal effects high, the old antipsychotics are poor on all. -
As clinicians, we all know and see the differences. I guess this question is all to do with the price, i.e. older APs are cheap and newer ones are expensive. And although there is quite some evidence that the newer drugs are more effective and may reduce costs on the long-run, clinicicians are being somewhat "forced" to prescribe cheaper treatments. Could this be because society thinks that schizophrenia patients are not worth the effort? or the money?... Unfortunately I guess so... -
Dear Sofia, please read my comments on Research gate, i gave some of the advantages of newer antipsychotics. Being cheaper is not the scientific merit it is concerned with the cost and financial burden. It is one of the considerations. I am not clinician and am bench scientist. I think clinician should educate the patient regarding the long term cost/benefit ration. Moreover patient should be informed fro the serious and potential side effects of older antipsychotics like parkisnonism and extrapyramidal effects which have more serious implication than money.
-
Sofia, I disagree. If you want that the patient be good, the dose of old antipsychotics must be low, if you can't you must prescribe the news. Suicide is sometimes not by the disease, but by the adverse effects of medicines.
-
So Ana, would you do that with a patient with cancer? Let's try the old ones and if it doesn't work (or the patient dies) we'll try the new medicines?! Also, new medicines cost more because the way research is done nowadays has got nothing to do with the old days; does anyone remember how haloperidol was approved for human use? And is that what we want for our patients? For my patients I want the best, and therefore I almost never use conventional antipsychotics. And up to now I don't regret that, and neither have my patients and/or their families.
-
The best are the news.
-
they should have less side effects
-
It has been already discussed . Its better to see all the blogs
-
Obesity and Q-T disturbance are the worse side effects of the news, but not all are the same in this. And in this case we can consider it a lesser evil than the illness. But once I controlled the outbreak would become a antipsychotic with fewer side effects.
