|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Pharmacology||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atypical antipsychotic article.|
- 1 Melperone is an atypical antipsychotic?
- 2 Aripiprazole has no serotonergic action?
- 3 Punishment
- 4 I slightly hope nobody will want this back.
- 5 Deletion of UK research ref Arch Gen Psych re comparative efficacy
- 6 Inclusion of critical viewpoints
- 7 Pediatric indications
- 8 Cut the technobabble, please
- 9 Summary could be improved.
- 10 Fake articles by "Dirk Ziskoven" ?
- 11 Should we rename the article Second-Generation Antipsychotic?
Melperone is an atypical antipsychotic?
Melperone (Buronil, Eunerpan, Harmosin, Melneurin and other generic/trade names) is a typical sedative neuroleptic/antipsychotic, used for over 30 years in Europe now. Its only atypical propriety is, that it (and pipamperone/floropipamide, Dipiperon) is a butyrophenone derivative and is not a highly potent neuroleptic, such as other butyrophenone derivatives (haloperidol, benperidol, spiroperidol, trifluperidol, bromperidol or moperone). It causes quite little EPMS, but so does e.g. thioridazine and is not classified an atypical antipsychotic. Melperone is low-potency, sedative, 1st generation butyrophenone antipsychotic.--Spiperon 21:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Aripiprazole has no serotonergic action?
Aripiprazole (Abilify) acts as a partial agonist at the 5-HT1A receptor, and as an antagonist at 5-HT2A. I'd say that's serotonergic activity. --KaterGator 20:22, 24 August 2007 (CST)
What about using antipsychotics to punish people? E.g. cataracts, brain damage, forced overdosages like they do in russia.
I have seen the death of 7 patients. They all complaint about bedingen forced to take large amounts E.g. 40 mg olanzapine a day causing vomiting blood.
Hi, that is a very good point, please help us include details of these horrible drugs. They should not be given to animals never mind humans.
I slightly hope nobody will want this back.
"More recent research is questioning the notion that second generation anti-psychotics are superior to first generation typical anti-psychotics. Using a number of parameters to assess quality of life University of Manchester researchers found that typical anti-psychotics were no worse than atypical anti-psychotics. The research was funded by the National Health Scheme of the UK."
Everything under, including risperidone had given me pains impossible to explain. It equates to continuous physical torture. Well I'm intelligent and particularly sensitive in nervous reaction, but the damage was equal to that of the mountain shepherd boy, with the difference that he was too stall to tell. He does not need the psychological functions that are disabled by the old medication and he has a higher thresh hold of pain, so he seems OK. Normal people feel just dizzy, they do not now the length at which their superior processes are disturbed by the old medication. In general there can be no intellectual recovery by using the old medication. Proper social involvement does require the processes that are disabled by them. Quality of life can not be measured good enough by people who measure contentedness with non-activity. The damage is taken. The parameters are subjective. My incapacity was totally there, a billion crisp shades of unknown pain and disabilities, including the one to convince the doctor the faint complain for the pain is your last and maximum strength, not a usual psycho-paranoid complaint against medicine and signature on documents. GOD I hate them, theory and lab doctors. Rats. Whores. Demented messengers of authority and current overwhelming empirical evidence.
So I just hope... . Watiki 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of UK research ref Arch Gen Psych re comparative efficacy
Material relating to UK research about comparative efficacy of older agents has been restored after previous deletion on the basis that the person causing the deletion has had unpleasant experiences with atypical antipsychotics and hates lab doctors. The reasons stated are personal and unscientific and do not justify erasing this important research which is tending to question superiority of newer agents.
Inclusion of critical viewpoints
There seems to be very little inclusion of critical viewpoints on this page. I'm referring to the studies which indicate the inefficiency of antipsychotics, and potential for harm to the brain (beyond Tardive Dyskinesia). Ninmat (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"None of the atypicals (Clozaril, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Abilify and Geodon) have been approved for children, and there is little research on their effects on children. "
I believe this statement is outdated, considering: Abilify is approved for schizophrenia in children aged 13-17; manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder in children aged 10-17. Risperdal is approved for the same two indications, as well as irritability associated with autistic disorder in children aged 5-16. (Source: Abilify and Risperdal prescribing information). Hojoseph99 (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Cut the technobabble, please
- During the course of treatment atypical antipsychotics are associated with the following benefits higher rate of responders, efficiency in patients with refractory disease, ...
What the heck is this supposed to mean, to someone not schooled in the ways of medical technobabble? Wikipedia has a wide audience including high school students, so articles should be written using common terminology most people would understand. These two benefits use nearly impenetrable language, though that may be the intention, so normal people don't really know what is being described.
higher rate of responders -- probably more patients are likely to keep taking it, rather than stop taking it due to the motor control and other serious side effects that can manifest with the 1st-gen typicals
efficiency in patients with refractory disease -- refractory disease redirects to disease, which says nothing of refractories. This appears to mean "resistance to treatment", though it's unclear if this means the patient's body is resisting treatment, or if the patient themselves is resisting treatment due to not taking (or not wanting to take) the drug, for whatever reason, though probably again due to unpleasant 1st-gen side effects.
Summary could be improved.
After reading the introduction, my grasp on the differences between typical anti-psychotic drugs and atypical ones is tenuous at best. What makes this family of anti-psycohtic drugs unique or different from other types or groups? This question seems to be unanswered. Furthermore, medical vocabulary such as the word, "generations" to describe different types of drugs further obscures meaning, by the fact that it is introduced without specific reference to what the word refers. Upon further reading of the article however, it can be ascertained that these drugs are also referred to as Second Generation Antipsychotics, and that there is notable controversy over the differences in the effectiveness and mechanisms of these drugs versus First Generation drugs, if any. The presence of debate over this issue ought to be introduced and characterized in the first paragraph in order to better establish the differences or similarities between this class of drug and First Generation drugs, and perhaps some background information would further clarify which aspects of the drugs are controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimakides (talk • contribs) 15:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thats because there is no difference, both drug types will kill you. pharmaceutical companies call them different names because of patent issues (they get exclusive rights to sell them get it?). some people say new ones are much worse. It's just poison! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Fake articles by "Dirk Ziskoven" ?
The article cited two articles by "Dirk Ziskoven" or "Ziskoven Dirk" but Google and Google Scholar can't find them and the PUBMED IDs link to completely different articles. I've deleted the citations and replaced with "citation needed" tags, but maybe the associated text should go as well? (In particular, one citation supports switching to another SGA instead of older antipsychotics when discontinuing clozapine/olanzapine due to those two drugs' metabolic side effects.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerhard gentzen (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Should we rename the article Second-Generation Antipsychotic?
Nowadays the term atypical antipsychotic is being challenged due to the fact that it tends to imply some special properties these medications have over the typical antipsychotic and since these special properties have not been entirely agreed upon it may be more accurate to refer to these agents as second-generation antipsychotics. Fuse809 (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
== Does anybody find this article to have a very biased, negative point of view?
I am having trouble gleaning meaning from this article, as it comes across as a nonobjective slam piece. I expected to find a discussion of the article's point of view on this edit page, but it looks like nobody else here is seeing this slant. I am no expert on antipsychotics, and have no particular point of view on the subject. Does anyone else find this article to be polemical, and therefore not terribly informative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
===There are some problems with the article, but the overall conclusion that second generation antipsychotics offer minimal or no advantage over first generation antipsychotics is now well-entrenched in treatment guidelines from major psychiatric groups. Our articles are intended to reflect the positions of these expert authorities. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 16:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)