Schizophrenia patients do as well, or perhaps even better, on older psychiatric drugs compared with newer and far costlier medications, according to a study published yesterday that overturns conventional wisdom about antipsychotic drugs, which cost the United States $10 billion a year.
The results are causing consternation. The researchers who conducted the trial were so certain they would find exactly the opposite that they went back to make sure the research data had not been recorded backward. The study, funded by the British government, is the first to compare treatment results from a broad range of older antipsychotic drugs against results from newer ones.
Yesterday, in an editorial accompanying the British study, the lead researcher in the U.S. trial asked how an entire medical field could have been misled into thinking that the expensive drugs, such as Zyprexa, Risperdal and Seroquel, were much better.
Experts commented that the problem with many drug company studies that seemed to show that new drugs are better is that they focused on short-term results — a symptom or side effect — rather than the big picture: how patients fare long-term.
(4 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ...You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
2 Comments to
“Antipsychotics: Newer is Not Always Better”
One big reason the newer atypicals are considered better is reduced risk of the very serious movement disorder tardive dyskinesia, and other adverse effects. It’s hard to characterize “better” based on unspecified quality of life indicators or costs.
I am not so sure about seroquel. I was just introduced to it yestreday for treatment of “suspected” bi polar disorder. I took 50mg this morning and I feel like I am plastered (drunk) right now. I don’t think this is the drug for me. I have a full time job and two kids, I don’t have time to be like this. Anyone else have this experience?
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 7 Oct 2006
