Posted by Else on July 31, 2001, at 7:14:58
In reply to Re: ATYPICAL antipsychotics for ATYPICAL depression?, posted by JohnL on July 31, 2001, at 4:39:30
>Atypical antipsychotics are wonderful drugs for >treating all kinds of psychiatric problems, >whatever name someone wants to put on them.
>JohnExcuse me but I must object to that. Antipsychotics, even atypical, still have many unpleasant neurological side-effects and are still potentially dangerous in the long run (the risk of TD may be decreased but it is not eliminated, look at the PDR). They are not first line treatment for anxiety disorders, which can benefit from less toxic drugs that have been used for longer and/or have a lower incidence of side effects and/or cause less sedation. They are certainly not first line treatment for depression either. The (Canadian) Compendium of Pharmaceutical Substances repeatedly states that these drugs should be reserved for psychosis on non-psychotic conditions that have failed to respond to classical treatment. I am really against the idea of antipsychotics becoming first-line treatment for every mental illness under the sun. My brother was put on Risperdal because he was a bit hysterical, but not psychotic. He said he felt absolutely horrible on it. These drugs don't work for everyone. Obviously, he was misdiagnosed, stoppped taking it and is back to self-medicating his anxiety and depression with pot.
In addition to this, these drugs, because they cloud thinking and are so sedating, they make an accurate diagnosis and evaluation of the illness difficult. And let us not forget the sexual problems they cause, which are at least as bad, but probably worse than those caused by SSRIs (because they cause more indifference). In any case, I don't belive these drugs should be first-line treatment for non-psychotic disorders. I am not saying they might not have value as augmentation therapy. However Zyprexa is not Aspirin, it does alter personnality in a major way and should not become the Prozac of the 21rst century.
> Just my opinion, but all these names such as atypical, depression, etc, are fairly useless. If they were truly helpful, this board wouldn't have any reason to exist. Instead, I prefer to look at it as chemical imbalance. Chemical imbalance could apply to serotonin, NE, or dopamine. And it also could mean one of them is too much, rather than too little. After all, it is chemical imbalance, not chemical deficiency. Too much or too little are equally bad. There is a proper balance. Drugs can restore the correct balance. I have yet to see anything more successful in doing that than the atypical antipsychotics. Just my opinion, but thousands or millions of depression sufferrers would be far better off with an AP in their mix, with less emphasis on the ADs.
>
> Atypical antipsychotics are wonderful drugs for treating all kinds of psychiatric problems, whatever name someone wants to put on them.
> John
>
> > Excuse me for what may sound like a bit of a dumb question.
> >
> > I understand that there is a group of antipsychotic meds called "Atypical Antipsychotics" and I wanted to ask if this is anything at all to do with treating what is called "Atypical Depression".
> >
> > I am trying to understand the so far unsuccessful treatment of my own atypical depression (I also have dysthymia and a noticeably obsessional personality type too).
> >
> > There have been one or two references here to the atypical antipsychotics, Amisulpride and Risperdal. Are these atypical antipsychotics linked to atypical depression? Or is the name "atypical" just a co-incidence?
> >
> > Thanks for any info.
> >
> > dave
poster:Else
thread:72332
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010731/msgs/72714.html