![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by katrina on February 27, 2001, at 19:06:26
If one has not had a weight issue with other meds...which seems worse in anyone's opinion? Zyprexa or risperdal (assumming they are both effective)
Posted by Cam W. on February 27, 2001, at 20:00:26
In reply to Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal , posted by katrina on February 27, 2001, at 19:06:26
Katrina - If you are going to gain weight with either of these agents you will have a greater chance of doing so with Zyprexa, by far. That being said, individuals will have different amounts of weight gain with either of these agents, but only Clozaril (clozapine) causes more weight gain than Zyprexa.
There are a number of factors thought to influence weight gain with Zyprexa (and Risperdal or Clozaril for that matter). It seems that the lower your Body Mass Index (BMI) or the lower your weight before taking the drug, the more propensity you will have to gain weight with Zyprexa. Also, it seems that the better your response to Zyprexa the more likely you are to gain weight.
That being said, the weight gain with Zyprexa does seem to plateau at around 8 months and you can minimize weight gain with a carefully planned diet and exercise regimen. This can be said for all of the atypical antipsychotics, except for Clozaril. It seems that no matter what interventions you use to try to keep the weight off when taking Clozaril do not seem to work.
It is also important to note that it is far easier to prevent the weight gain than it is to take the weight off, once it has been gained. A diet and exercise plan must be initiated at the start of Zyprexa therapy to minimize the amount of weight one will gain.
Most of the older, typical antipsychotics (Mellaril, chlorpromazine, etc) cause nearly as much weight gain as Zyprexa, but the problems with movement disorders (EPS or TD) that these drugs caused overshadowed any weight gain issues.
Hope this helps - Cam.
Posted by SalArmy4me on February 27, 2001, at 20:34:47
In reply to Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal , posted by katrina on February 27, 2001, at 19:06:26
Zyprexa has more of a chance of helping you than Risperdal, because it has been proven to have effects on serotonin--thus enhancing the actions of antidepressants. I'll have to get that study for you...
Here are the benefits of Zyprexa:
--It will calm you down all day; when I took it, I thought it was better than a benzo.
--It has no anticholinergic effects.
--It has no sexual side-effects .
--It will definitely help you sleep.
--Zyprexa is convienient because it is taken only once at night.
--It is covered by insurance.
--It augments antidepressants.
--Despite what rumors go around, Tardive Dyskenisia on Zyprexa is very rare.I took 10 mg of it at bedtime for 3 months, and I had no drowsiness in the morning. I didn't have any weight gain either.
Posted by Cam W. on February 27, 2001, at 21:30:00
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal » katrina, posted by SalArmy4me on February 27, 2001, at 20:34:47
•Sal - Just a few things to clear up. I hope you don't mind.
> Zyprexa has more of a chance of helping you than Risperdal, because it has been proven to have effects on serotonin--thus enhancing the actions of antidepressants. I'll have to get that study for you...
• Both Zyprexa and Risperdal augment the effects antidepressants, but both block 5-HT2A/C receptors, not enhance serotonin directly. They may have an indirect effect on serotonin by taking some of the dopaminergic tone off of serotonin system (unlikely a mechanism of action in antidepressant augmentation, though). It is probably their mood stabilizing effects that augment antidepressant activity.
>
> Here are the benefits of Zyprexa:
> --It will calm you down all day; when I took it, I thought it was better than a benzo.
> --It has no anticholinergic effects.•Zyprexa has strong anticholinergic effects (Ki = 1.9 to 2.5 nM) whereas Risperdal does not bind to muscarinic/cholinergic receptors. Thus this is part of Zyprexa's calming effect (that and it's potent antihistiminergic - Ki = 7nM - effect).
> --It has no sexual side-effects.
> --It will definitely help you sleep.•The improvement in sleep is directly related to Zyprexa's anticholinergic and antihistaminergic effects.
> --Zyprexa is convienient because it is taken only once at night.
•Risperdal can also be taken once daily.
> --It is covered by insurance.
•In Alberta, Risperdal is covered by all government insurance plans and, until recently, our national Native Affairs coverage of Zyprexa was by special authorization only, whereas Risperdal, because of overall lower treatment costs (especially with the lower doses - < 6mg/day) has always been covered by this plan.
> --It augments antidepressants.•So does Risperdal.
> --Despite what rumors go around, Tardive Dyskenisia on Zyprexa is very rare.
•The same with Risperdal when doses of < 6mg/day are used. These doses have actually been found to be more effective than higher doses (more isn't always necessarily better).
>
> I took 10 mg of it at bedtime for 3 months, and I had no drowsiness in the morning. I didn't have any weight gain either.•I'm glad you pointed that out. Many people do not gain weight with Zyprexa and many of those who do gain only enough to bring them back to a normal weight after being underweight. Some people do gain quite a bit of weight on Zyprexa vs Risperdal. I have seen several cases of people gain >20kg over a year. This is usually due to an increase in eating inappropriately (chips & soda) rather than a balanced diet.
•On the whole, both drugs are very effective when used properly. Their indications for use seem to grow daily (as antipsychotics, as antidepressant augmentation, as antimanic agents, in OCD, in Tourette's, and a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment).
•I would say that if one doesn't work for you, try the other. They do have different secondary binding affinities that make them appropriate for different people (eg. low dose Risperdal - 0.25mg to 0.5mg - is probably better for the elderly due to falls seen because of the anticholinergic effects of Zyprexa; Zyprexa is better for those with sleep disturbances).
•Sincerely - Cam
Posted by judy1 on February 27, 2001, at 22:45:20
In reply to Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal , posted by katrina on February 27, 2001, at 19:06:26
Hi,
I gained over 20 pounds on zyprexa in about a month- no change in exercise, possibly eating. I have gained 6 pounds on risperdal in the same time period, and have since lost the weight. Zyprexa was somewhat sedating, risperdal has an energizing effect in me. Good luck- Judy
Posted by Lynne on February 28, 2001, at 1:05:51
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal » katrina, posted by judy1 on February 27, 2001, at 22:45:20
> Hi,
> I gained over 20 pounds on zyprexa in about a month- no change in exercise, possibly eating. I have gained 6 pounds on risperdal in the same time period, and have since lost the weight. Zyprexa was somewhat sedating, risperdal has an energizing effect in me. Good luck- Judy
Question: Does Seroquel fit in with these drugs and what effect does it have on weight gain?Thanks,
Lynne
Posted by steve on February 28, 2001, at 3:52:42
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal » SalArmy4me, posted by Cam W. on February 27, 2001, at 21:30:00
Are y'all aware of the brain shrinkage associated with both drugs:
Check this link out and go to Madsen:
or go to this link:
http://www.neurolinguistic.com/proxima/articoli/art-55.htm
I really, really think patients should be made aware of the brain damage they face before they begin taking neuroleptics.
> •Sal - Just a few things to clear up. I hope you don't mind.
>
> > Zyprexa has more of a chance of helping you than Risperdal, because it has been proven to have effects on serotonin--thus enhancing the actions of antidepressants. I'll have to get that study for you...
>
> • Both Zyprexa and Risperdal augment the effects antidepressants, but both block 5-HT2A/C receptors, not enhance serotonin directly. They may have an indirect effect on serotonin by taking some of the dopaminergic tone off of serotonin system (unlikely a mechanism of action in antidepressant augmentation, though). It is probably their mood stabilizing effects that augment antidepressant activity.
> >
> > Here are the benefits of Zyprexa:
> > --It will calm you down all day; when I took it, I thought it was better than a benzo.
> > --It has no anticholinergic effects.
>
> •Zyprexa has strong anticholinergic effects (Ki = 1.9 to 2.5 nM) whereas Risperdal does not bind to muscarinic/cholinergic receptors. Thus this is part of Zyprexa's calming effect (that and it's potent antihistiminergic - Ki = 7nM - effect).
>
> > --It has no sexual side-effects.
> > --It will definitely help you sleep.
>
> •The improvement in sleep is directly related to Zyprexa's anticholinergic and antihistaminergic effects.
>
> > --Zyprexa is convienient because it is taken only once at night.
>
> •Risperdal can also be taken once daily.
>
> > --It is covered by insurance.
>
> •In Alberta, Risperdal is covered by all government insurance plans and, until recently, our national Native Affairs coverage of Zyprexa was by special authorization only, whereas Risperdal, because of overall lower treatment costs (especially with the lower doses - < 6mg/day) has always been covered by this plan.
>
> > --It augments antidepressants.
>
> •So does Risperdal.
>
> > --Despite what rumors go around, Tardive Dyskenisia on Zyprexa is very rare.
>
> •The same with Risperdal when doses of < 6mg/day are used. These doses have actually been found to be more effective than higher doses (more isn't always necessarily better).
>
> >
> > I took 10 mg of it at bedtime for 3 months, and I had no drowsiness in the morning. I didn't have any weight gain either.
>
> •I'm glad you pointed that out. Many people do not gain weight with Zyprexa and many of those who do gain only enough to bring them back to a normal weight after being underweight. Some people do gain quite a bit of weight on Zyprexa vs Risperdal. I have seen several cases of people gain >20kg over a year. This is usually due to an increase in eating inappropriately (chips & soda) rather than a balanced diet.
>
> •On the whole, both drugs are very effective when used properly. Their indications for use seem to grow daily (as antipsychotics, as antidepressant augmentation, as antimanic agents, in OCD, in Tourette's, and a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment).
>
> •I would say that if one doesn't work for you, try the other. They do have different secondary binding affinities that make them appropriate for different people (eg. low dose Risperdal - 0.25mg to 0.5mg - is probably better for the elderly due to falls seen because of the anticholinergic effects of Zyprexa; Zyprexa is better for those with sleep disturbances).
>
> •Sincerely - Cam
Posted by ChrisK on February 28, 2001, at 6:14:31
In reply to Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal , posted by katrina on February 27, 2001, at 19:06:26
From my own experience, I put on weight with Zyprexa but my mood increased greatly. I'd rather be overweight and happy than a miserable thin person. You need to get your priorities straight.
Also, for me, Risperdal turned me into an emotionless Zombie. I felt nothing for two weeks.
If one of these is going to work for you I would expect that you will know in less than 2 weeks.
Posted by SLS on February 28, 2001, at 6:48:56
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal » katrina, posted by SalArmy4me on February 27, 2001, at 20:34:47
Hi SalArmy4me.
> Zyprexa has more of a chance of helping you than Risperdal
This might not be true.
> because it has been proven to have effects on serotonin
Risperdal is a more potent serotonin 5-HT2a receptor antagonist than is Zyprexa. It is this property that is being focussed upon regarding the action of these drugs.
> thus enhancing the actions of antidepressants. I'll have to get that study for you...
Please do.
It is my gut feeling that you are right, and that more people glean an antidepressant response to Zyprexa than to Risperdal, especially when combined with Prozac. However, there are more anecdotal reports of the successful use of Risperdal than Zyprexa. This may be, in part, because Risperdal has been around a few more years than Zyprexa.
Either drug is a fine selection as an adjunct in treating depression, bipolar or unipolar.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on February 28, 2001, at 6:59:19
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal » SalArmy4me, posted by Cam W. on February 27, 2001, at 21:30:00
Dear Cam,
> It is probably their mood stabilizing effects that augment antidepressant activity.I don't buy this. I think their potential as adjuncts lie in a more direct antidepressant effect. My guess is that some ratio of 5-HT2/DA2 antagonism works to potentiate dopaminergic activity "downstream". This would account for some of the latency I have seen once an immediate improvement wanes, only to return three to four weeks later. Besides reading of others' descriptions, I have some "insiders" information.
I am not the drug guy. I am the wild guess guy.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Cam W. on February 28, 2001, at 7:13:12
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal , posted by steve on February 28, 2001, at 3:52:42
Steve - As for the brain-shrinkage article. I have that article and the shrinkage is due to the older neuroleptics and are volume decreases that would not be visibly significant, nor would they change they weight of the brain. Nowhere in the article does this state that these volume changes caused "brain damage". The EPS side effects are a trade-off between florid psychosis and being able to live in society.
Prior to the atypical antipsychotics, you had a choice. Take the typical neuroleptic and lead a semi-functional life or don't take the neuroleptic and go through longer phases of florid pyschosis with decreasing periods of remission. The dangers to one's self and others (in terms of morbidity and mortality) far outweighed any minor brain damage these drugs had caused. The benefits derived from the typical antipsychotics far, far outweighed the risks of EPS or TD.
Scare tactic really do potentiate the stigma of mental illness. It is a shame that these tactics are used in the 21st century. They only cause grief to people who have, for the last 50 years, been helped by the typical antipsychotics and especially those who can be helped in the future. These people, without the use of typical antipsychotics, would either not be alive today or would be locked away in seclusion 24h/day for their own protection.
By the definitions of "brain damage" at the sugessted sites below, one could make an agrument that if one drinks two cups of coffee a day, they too are risking brain damage (that's one cup of Starbuck's coffee, Greg).
Anything you ingest can cause brain damage, but as with antipsychotics, these effects don not occur with everyone. The EPS (for example) is a side effect of the drug. All drugs, and all food for that matter (too many apples will give you diarrhea, puffer fishprepared the wrong way can kill you) have side effects. Again, the benefit you gain from the drugs vastly outweigh the risks of not taking them.
Thanks - Cam
Below are the links provided by another poster, that are mentioned in the above post:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:home.kscable.com/madpride/citations/circarebib.htm+madsen+neuroleptic&hl=en
>>
> http://www.neurolinguistic.com/proxima/articoli/art-55.htm
>
Posted by Cam W. on February 28, 2001, at 7:15:01
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal , posted by Lynne on February 28, 2001, at 1:05:51
Lynne - Seroquel causes little weight gain, but we are seeing more weight gain than was cited in the original clinical trials. Again, this can be averted through diet and exercise. - Cam
>
>
> Question: Does Seroquel fit in with these drugs and what effect does it have on weight gain?
>
> Thanks,
> Lynne
Posted by SLS on February 28, 2001, at 7:49:11
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal , posted by steve on February 28, 2001, at 3:52:42
Please be careful.
Haven't we been through this already?I believe so.
Three problems:#1 These studies are of patients suffering from schizophrenia, a disorder for which the natural course involves a loss of brain tissue.
#2 You are using a "bibliography" that seems biased in its selection of annotations to support the claim stated in its title. The author found what he was looking for. The author shows his transparant agenda with his somewhat passionate use of the term "brain damage". By the way, the ONLY appearance of the word "damage" is that of the author's in his paraphrasing with the following exceptions:
- Previous brain INJURY and how such might impact upon subsequent neuroleptic treatment.
- PROPOSED oxidative free-radical damage and the accumulation of glutamatergic exitotoxic substances in an attempt to explain tardive dyskinisia. NO DATA was offered. Both of these things can occur with a multitude of drugs.
#3 The results of a thorough literature search will demonstrate equivocal and contradictory data and conclusions regarding this issue.
Just what sort of research review have you conducted for *yourself*?When this question came up a year or so ago, I did conduct a review of the literature *myself*, that I felt was well balanced (of course?). I am not in the mood to summarize it here, but to use the term "brain damage" is not applicable. "Changes in the brain" is better - especially when they are desireable and/or reversible. You should be able to find my piece if you include "basal ganglia" or "striatum" in you keywords.
----------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE BIBLIOGRAPHY YOU CITED !I capitalized the words or phrases I thought were particular salient with regard to your supposition.
This review cites AN INCREASE AND NOT A SHRINKAGE in the size of VARIOUS STRUCTURES of the brain due to exposure to neuroleptics.
HYPERTROPHY: Growth or increase in size
1998 MRI Studies demonstrate structural BRAIN CHANGES in schizophrenia patients treated with both standard and "atypical" neuroleptic drugs:Non-industry sponsored researchers are coming to realize that this rebound reaction to antipsychotic drugs-both standard and the newer atypicals-- may be so great, it could be causing structural brain changes such as swelling of the brain. Gur, et al., (abstract below) conducted an NIMH-funded MRI imaging study to monitor changes in the size of the basal ganglia and thalamic regions of the brain in schizophrenia patients treated with neuroleptic drugs. They compared them to a group of patients who were never exposed to neuroleptic drugs, and to a group of healthy comparison subjects: As they put it: "Differences between groups and correlations between subcortical volumes and dose of medication indicate that exposure to neuroleptics is associated with HYPERTROPHY...it appears that patients treated with neuroleptics show HYPERTROPHY relative to their neuroleptic-naive counterparts and to healthy comparison subjects."
Haven't we been through this already?I believe so.
Three problems:#1 These studies are of patients suffering from schizophrenia, a disorder for which the natural course involves a loss of brain tissue.
#2 You are using a "bibliography" that seems biased in its selection of annotations to support the claim stated in its title. The author found what he was looking for. The author shows his transparant agenda with his somewhat passionate use of the term "brain damage". By the way, the ONLY appearance of the word "damage" is that of the author's in his paraphrasing with the following exceptions:
- Previous brain INJURY and how such might impact upon subsequent neuroleptic treatment.
- PROPOSED oxidative free-radical damage and the accumulation of glutamatergic exitotoxic substances in an attempt to explain tardive dyskinisia. NO DATA was offered. Both of these things can occur with a multitude of drugs.
#3 The results of a thorough literature search will demonstrate equivocal and contradictory data and conclusions regarding this issue.
Just what sort of research review have you conducted for *yourself*?When this question came up a year or so ago, I did conduct a review of the literature *myself*, that I felt was well balanced (of course?). I am not in the mood to summarize it here, but to use the term "brain damage" is not applicable. "Changes in the brain" is better - especially when they are desireable and/or reversible. You should be able to find my piece if you include "basal ganglia" or "striatum" in you keywords.
----------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE BIBLIOGRAPHY YOU CITED !I capitalized the words or phrases I thought were particular salient with regard to your supposition.
This review cites AN INCREASE AND NOT A SHRINKAGE in the size of VARIOUS STRUCTURES of the brain due to exposure to neuroleptics.
HYPERTROPHY: Growth, increase
1998 MRI Studies demonstrate structural BRAIN CHANGES in schizophrenia patients treated with both standard and "atypical" neuroleptic drugs:Non-industry sponsored researchers are coming to realize that this rebound reaction to antipsychotic drugs-both standard and the newer atypicals-- may be so great, it could be causing structural brain changes such as swelling of the brain. Gur, et al., (abstract below) conducted an NIMH-funded MRI imaging study to monitor changes in the size of the basal ganglia and thalamic regions of the brain in schizophrenia patients treated with neuroleptic drugs. They compared them to a group of patients who were never exposed to neuroleptic drugs, and to a group of healthy comparison subjects: As they put it: "Differences between groups and correlations between subcortical volumes and dose of medication indicate that exposure to neuroleptics is associated with HYPERTROPHY...it appears that patients treated with neuroleptics show HYPERTROPHY relative to their neuroleptic-naive counterparts and to healthy comparison subjects."
Posted by Lynne on February 28, 2001, at 8:42:57
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal » Lynne, posted by Cam W. on February 28, 2001, at 7:15:01
Cam, Thanks again for answering my question. One more for you. What is the difference between Zyprexa and Seroquel? Which drug would be more helpful for insomnia,ruminating thoughts and anxiety?
Thanks in advance,
Lynne
> > Question: Does Seroquel fit in with these drugs and what effect does it have on weight gain?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lynne
Posted by Cam W. on February 28, 2001, at 9:51:37
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal » Cam W., posted by Lynne on February 28, 2001, at 8:42:57
Lynne - I find that Zyprexa works much better in a vast majority of people with insomnia, ruminations and anxiety. Seroquel monotherapy is not that good. We are finding that it is a great add-on agent to mood stabilizers and antipsychotics, but by itself, it does work all that well. Seroquel does work very well as an add-on to drugs like Haldol or Risperdal, where insomnia and anxiety are still a problem. It also allows you to slightly decrease the dose of these other agents. This is just my opinion, I have no proof of this.
That being said; the above are not indications (FDA-approved uses) for Seroquel, yet. There is not much literature on the subject of Seroquel augmentation, but I am seeing it used more and more by the pdocs. Some cases I have seen dramatic improvement with a couple hundred milligrams of Seroquel added at bedtime (esp. improved sleep patterns and improved mood throughout the day). This is coming from a guy who doesn't like polypharmacy (using a number of drugs in a treatment plan), but sometimes just one drug isn't enough to cover all the symptoms.
As for weight gain, Seroquel causes a smaller amount of weight gain than other atypical antipsychotics, but at higher doses (eg 900mg/day) you do see more weight gain than most of the literature would suggest (my opinion). The improvements seen with Zyprexa far outweigh any concern of weight gain, especially when that weight gain is stopped before it starts through management (food diary, balanced diet AND exercise).
To answer your question more bluntly; I think that Zyprexa is a far superior drug when used alone, to treat the symptoms that you mention. At first the sedation may be excessive, but that will lessen within the first month. Ask your doc about which drug he feels is better; a second opinion is always important.
Hope this helps - Cam
Posted by Cam W. on February 28, 2001, at 10:28:19
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal » Cam W., posted by SLS on February 28, 2001, at 6:59:19
Scott - Another theory that I have (proposed by Phil Seeman, the guy who discovered the receptor site theory) is that the "tweaking' of the dopamine-D2 receptor by the atypical antipsychotics causes different secondary messenger signaling than if the D2 receptor is irreversibly bound by the traditional antipsychotics.
I read an article yesterday where the immune system my play a role in the action and side effects of antipsychotics via activations of different cytokine systems by different antipsychotics. This may explain some of the mechanism of action and especially some of the side effect differences of antipsychotics in general (esp. weight gain with Clozaril and Zyprexa & blood problems with Clozaril). The journal article is:
Pollmacher T, et al. Effects of antipsychotic drugs on cytokine networks. J.Psychiatric Res; 34(2000): 369-382.
Pages 374 to 376 are most interesting, even though most of the article in inconclusive.
This journal article can be obtained by signing up to the "geek site":
and going to the library and surfing the available journals. The give you 120 free credits and to view &/or copy a journal article costs 4 credits (hence 30 free articles). Most of the journals are fairly "heady" stuff, but sifting through them is interesting to geeks like me and you. I'm not sure if you have to be a health professional to sign-up, but I'm sure you could fake it.
P.S. I've used up all my credits, plus all of the extra credits they have given me. Mention my name when you sign-up and maybe I'll get some more (I doubt it though). Maybe I shouldn't be so cheap and shell out the $199US for the premium package. Alas, time to hit up the boss for another raise.
Happy surfing - Cam
Posted by Lorraine on February 28, 2001, at 11:54:20
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal » SLS, posted by Cam W. on February 28, 2001, at 10:28:19
>
> This journal article can be obtained by signing up to the "geek site":
>
> http://www.neuroscion.com
>Cam: Thanxs for the site info. I'll mention your name. My theory is that depression is a viral condition caused by herpes. (Pretty wild, huh?) But then again there has been a connection seen between herpes and ms, herpes and alzheimers, and herpes and cfs. So it is a possibility.
Posted by steve on February 28, 2001, at 12:26:00
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal » steve, posted by SLS on February 28, 2001, at 7:49:11
As with many other subjects, this has been mentioned on the board before. If you want to ban all posts about topics that have been brought up before, you can see if Dr. Bob will, but P-Babble would be pretty short then. The reason I posted it again is because I doubt that those who posted with new questions are aware of it.
IMO the bottom line is this: anti-psychotics increase the extracellular levels of dopamine. When dopamine is metabolized outside the cell, it results in the release of neurotoxins, so called free radicals. Free radicals eradicate brain cells. Some things are very simple, and rooted in the laws of nature. Any kind of brain damage is not good. Things fall when I drop them. Accepting such simple truths doesn't mean that I have to do MRIs, or drop everything I see just to make sure that there might be one time when a bowling ball actually does gravitate upwards.
Patients should be told that losses in the region of 7% per year, yes that is seven percent per year have been reported in some dopamine intensive parts of the brain. Not telling patients so is unethical, and should be criminal IMHO. Eli Lilly has been found guilty of criminal violations of safety regulations before.
And yes any unnatural changes to the brain are by definition brain damage, whether they are minute, as caused by say marijuana, or severe, as caused by shooting yourself through the prefrontal cortex. You can survive both, but neither is particularly intelligent.
Unnatural changes can also encompass hypertrophy, I think that's what brain tumors are.
Peace to you, and your (remaining) neurons.
S.
> Please be careful.
>
>
> Haven't we been through this already?
>
> I believe so.
>
>
> Three problems:
>
> #1 These studies are of patients suffering from schizophrenia, a disorder for which the natural course involves a loss of brain tissue.
>
> #2 You are using a "bibliography" that seems biased in its selection of annotations to support the claim stated in its title. The author found what he was looking for. The author shows his transparant agenda with his somewhat passionate use of the term "brain damage". By the way, the ONLY appearance of the word "damage" is that of the author's in his paraphrasing with the following exceptions:
>
> - Previous brain INJURY and how such might impact upon subsequent neuroleptic treatment.
>
> - PROPOSED oxidative free-radical damage and the accumulation of glutamatergic exitotoxic substances in an attempt to explain tardive dyskinisia. NO DATA was offered. Both of these things can occur with a multitude of drugs.
>
> #3 The results of a thorough literature search will demonstrate equivocal and contradictory data and conclusions regarding this issue.
>
>
> Just what sort of research review have you conducted for *yourself*?
>
> When this question came up a year or so ago, I did conduct a review of the literature *myself*, that I felt was well balanced (of course?). I am not in the mood to summarize it here, but to use the term "brain damage" is not applicable. "Changes in the brain" is better - especially when they are desireable and/or reversible. You should be able to find my piece if you include "basal ganglia" or "striatum" in you keywords.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> FROM THE BIBLIOGRAPHY YOU CITED !
>
> I capitalized the words or phrases I thought were particular salient with regard to your supposition.
>
> This review cites AN INCREASE AND NOT A SHRINKAGE in the size of VARIOUS STRUCTURES of the brain due to exposure to neuroleptics.
>
> HYPERTROPHY: Growth or increase in size
>
>
> 1998 MRI Studies demonstrate structural BRAIN CHANGES in schizophrenia patients treated with both standard and "atypical" neuroleptic drugs:
>
> Non-industry sponsored researchers are coming to realize that this rebound reaction to antipsychotic drugs-both standard and the newer atypicals-- may be so great, it could be causing structural brain changes such as swelling of the brain. Gur, et al., (abstract below) conducted an NIMH-funded MRI imaging study to monitor changes in the size of the basal ganglia and thalamic regions of the brain in schizophrenia patients treated with neuroleptic drugs. They compared them to a group of patients who were never exposed to neuroleptic drugs, and to a group of healthy comparison subjects: As they put it: "Differences between groups and correlations between subcortical volumes and dose of medication indicate that exposure to neuroleptics is associated with HYPERTROPHY...it appears that patients treated with neuroleptics show HYPERTROPHY relative to their neuroleptic-naive counterparts and to healthy comparison subjects."
>
>
>
>
> Haven't we been through this already?
>
> I believe so.
>
>
> Three problems:
>
> #1 These studies are of patients suffering from schizophrenia, a disorder for which the natural course involves a loss of brain tissue.
>
> #2 You are using a "bibliography" that seems biased in its selection of annotations to support the claim stated in its title. The author found what he was looking for. The author shows his transparant agenda with his somewhat passionate use of the term "brain damage". By the way, the ONLY appearance of the word "damage" is that of the author's in his paraphrasing with the following exceptions:
>
> - Previous brain INJURY and how such might impact upon subsequent neuroleptic treatment.
>
> - PROPOSED oxidative free-radical damage and the accumulation of glutamatergic exitotoxic substances in an attempt to explain tardive dyskinisia. NO DATA was offered. Both of these things can occur with a multitude of drugs.
>
> #3 The results of a thorough literature search will demonstrate equivocal and contradictory data and conclusions regarding this issue.
>
>
> Just what sort of research review have you conducted for *yourself*?
>
> When this question came up a year or so ago, I did conduct a review of the literature *myself*, that I felt was well balanced (of course?). I am not in the mood to summarize it here, but to use the term "brain damage" is not applicable. "Changes in the brain" is better - especially when they are desireable and/or reversible. You should be able to find my piece if you include "basal ganglia" or "striatum" in you keywords.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> FROM THE BIBLIOGRAPHY YOU CITED !
>
> I capitalized the words or phrases I thought were particular salient with regard to your supposition.
>
> This review cites AN INCREASE AND NOT A SHRINKAGE in the size of VARIOUS STRUCTURES of the brain due to exposure to neuroleptics.
>
> HYPERTROPHY: Growth, increase
>
>
> 1998 MRI Studies demonstrate structural BRAIN CHANGES in schizophrenia patients treated with both standard and "atypical" neuroleptic drugs:
>
> Non-industry sponsored researchers are coming to realize that this rebound reaction to antipsychotic drugs-both standard and the newer atypicals-- may be so great, it could be causing structural brain changes such as swelling of the brain. Gur, et al., (abstract below) conducted an NIMH-funded MRI imaging study to monitor changes in the size of the basal ganglia and thalamic regions of the brain in schizophrenia patients treated with neuroleptic drugs. They compared them to a group of patients who were never exposed to neuroleptic drugs, and to a group of healthy comparison subjects: As they put it: "Differences between groups and correlations between subcortical volumes and dose of medication indicate that exposure to neuroleptics is associated with HYPERTROPHY...it appears that patients treated with neuroleptics show HYPERTROPHY relative to their neuroleptic-naive counterparts and to healthy comparison subjects."
Posted by steve on February 28, 2001, at 13:07:15
In reply to Re: Which is worse: Zyprexa weight gain or Risperdal , posted by Cam W. on February 28, 2001, at 7:13:12
Cam,
I admire your thorough knowledge of psychotropics, which far surpasses mine.
However I feel you that you employ fallacious logic to butress positions that I think are untenable.
The first is the false dichotomy you create between untreated schizophrenia and a life wasted away on anti-psychotics.
The head of the Schizophrenia Reseach Division at the NIMH, Harvard Med School graduate, founder of Schiz Bulletin etc., did a survey of treating first episode schizophrenics with intensive therapy for several months. (He took them out of their stressful surroundings to start out with.) Bizarre as it may sound, and it sure did to me when I first heard it, he got a 70% remission rate without neuroleptics. And believe it or not, he was forced to resign from the NIMH for challenging the mantra that anti-psychotics are necessary to treat psychotic patients. I cannot say for certain that his results do always work, but every bone in my body says that it does deserve being looked into some more.
I would suggest you read about it at www.moshersoteria.com
Dr. Mosher, once again the ex-chief of schizophrenia studies at the NIMH, says that he cannot recommend neuroleptics to anyone, because of their toxicity.
I used to believe that doctors, and pharma companies in particular had as their main aim to get people well, and oftentimes to make money in doing so. After reading how Mosher lost his job, I have come to conclude that actually the main goal is to maximize profits and share holder value, and often times, but far from always, get people well in doing so.
The second rhetorical tactic you use that anyone with a background in rhetorics would deem faulty is an absurd reductio ad absurdum. You essentially say coffee causes brain damage, but it isn't bad, so the brain damage caused by neuroleptics can't be bad either. By the same logic I could say, migrains cause headaches, so does shooting yourself in your head (well the frontal lobe, other parts would be terminal.) The headaches that migraines cause often go away. Ergo shooting myself in the head should not cause lasting problems either. But hey a single bullet is a lot cheaper than years of neuroleptics.
Since you mention caffeine as a "harmless" psychotropic, I feel I ought to mention that there was a case report in some psych journal of an Italian woman who was treated for bipolar disorder with a whole plethora of treatments, including if I remember correctly, ECT. Finally after 6 years some doctor asked her how much coffee she was drinking, and it was something like ten or more cups of capucino per day. He asked her to drop the coffee, and her symptoms cleared up within a week. This doesn't mean that I want to have coffee banned or any such thing, but it does mean that I see the harmfullness of psychotropics on a continuous scale, and not as either good (ie not banned and usually on patent) or bad ie forbidden (and usually off patent for a few decades.)
S.
> Steve - As for the brain-shrinkage article. I have that article and the shrinkage is due to the older neuroleptics and are volume decreases that would not be visibly significant, nor would they change they weight of the brain. Nowhere in the article does this state that these volume changes caused "brain damage". The EPS side effects are a trade-off between florid psychosis and being able to live in society.
>
> Prior to the atypical antipsychotics, you had a choice. Take the typical neuroleptic and lead a semi-functional life or don't take the neuroleptic and go through longer phases of florid pyschosis with decreasing periods of remission. The dangers to one's self and others (in terms of morbidity and mortality) far outweighed any minor brain damage these drugs had caused. The benefits derived from the typical antipsychotics far, far outweighed the risks of EPS or TD.
>
> Scare tactic really do potentiate the stigma of mental illness. It is a shame that these tactics are used in the 21st century. They only cause grief to people who have, for the last 50 years, been helped by the typical antipsychotics and especially those who can be helped in the future. These people, without the use of typical antipsychotics, would either not be alive today or would be locked away in seclusion 24h/day for their own protection.
>
> By the definitions of "brain damage" at the sugessted sites below, one could make an agrument that if one drinks two cups of coffee a day, they too are risking brain damage (that's one cup of Starbuck's coffee, Greg).
>
> Anything you ingest can cause brain damage, but as with antipsychotics, these effects don not occur with everyone. The EPS (for example) is a side effect of the drug. All drugs, and all food for that matter (too many apples will give you diarrhea, puffer fishprepared the wrong way can kill you) have side effects. Again, the benefit you gain from the drugs vastly outweigh the risks of not taking them.
>
> Thanks - Cam
>
>
> Below are the links provided by another poster, that are mentioned in the above post:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:home.kscable.com/madpride/citations/circarebib.htm+madsen+neuroleptic&hl=en
> >
>
> >
> > http://www.neurolinguistic.com/proxima/articoli/art-55.htm
> >
Posted by steve on February 28, 2001, at 13:51:46
In reply to Re: Which is least bad: Zyprexa or Risperdal » SLS, posted by steve on February 28, 2001, at 12:26:00
Since I mentioned that Lilly had engaged in criminal behavior, I thought I'd provide a link:
http://insulinchoice.org/news/star_prozac.htm
Go to oraflex, and read:
"The evidence concerned Lilly's 1985 guilty plea to 25 criminal counts for failing to tell the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about deaths and illnesses of patients taking a Lilly arthritis drug called Oraflex, plus related charges."
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
> As with many other subjects, this has been mentioned on the board before. If you want to ban all posts about topics that have been brought up before, you can see if Dr. Bob will, but P-Babble would be pretty short then. The reason I posted it again is because I doubt that those who posted with new questions are aware of it.
>
> IMO the bottom line is this: anti-psychotics increase the extracellular levels of dopamine. When dopamine is metabolized outside the cell, it results in the release of neurotoxins, so called free radicals. Free radicals eradicate brain cells. Some things are very simple, and rooted in the laws of nature. Any kind of brain damage is not good. Things fall when I drop them. Accepting such simple truths doesn't mean that I have to do MRIs, or drop everything I see just to make sure that there might be one time when a bowling ball actually does gravitate upwards.
>
> Patients should be told that losses in the region of 7% per year, yes that is seven percent per year have been reported in some dopamine intensive parts of the brain. Not telling patients so is unethical, and should be criminal IMHO. Eli Lilly has been found guilty of criminal violations of safety regulations before.
>
> And yes any unnatural changes to the brain are by definition brain damage, whether they are minute, as caused by say marijuana, or severe, as caused by shooting yourself through the prefrontal cortex. You can survive both, but neither is particularly intelligent.
>
> Unnatural changes can also encompass hypertrophy, I think that's what brain tumors are.
>
> Peace to you, and your (remaining) neurons.
>
> S.
>
>
> > Please be careful.
> >
> >
> > Haven't we been through this already?
> >
> > I believe so.
> >
> >
> > Three problems:
> >
> > #1 These studies are of patients suffering from schizophrenia, a disorder for which the natural course involves a loss of brain tissue.
> >
> > #2 You are using a "bibliography" that seems biased in its selection of annotations to support the claim stated in its title. The author found what he was looking for. The author shows his transparant agenda with his somewhat passionate use of the term "brain damage". By the way, the ONLY appearance of the word "damage" is that of the author's in his paraphrasing with the following exceptions:
> >
> > - Previous brain INJURY and how such might impact upon subsequent neuroleptic treatment.
> >
> > - PROPOSED oxidative free-radical damage and the accumulation of glutamatergic exitotoxic substances in an attempt to explain tardive dyskinisia. NO DATA was offered. Both of these things can occur with a multitude of drugs.
> >
> > #3 The results of a thorough literature search will demonstrate equivocal and contradictory data and conclusions regarding this issue.
> >
> >
> > Just what sort of research review have you conducted for *yourself*?
> >
> > When this question came up a year or so ago, I did conduct a review of the literature *myself*, that I felt was well balanced (of course?). I am not in the mood to summarize it here, but to use the term "brain damage" is not applicable. "Changes in the brain" is better - especially when they are desireable and/or reversible. You should be able to find my piece if you include "basal ganglia" or "striatum" in you keywords.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > FROM THE BIBLIOGRAPHY YOU CITED !
> >
> > I capitalized the words or phrases I thought were particular salient with regard to your supposition.
> >
> > This review cites AN INCREASE AND NOT A SHRINKAGE in the size of VARIOUS STRUCTURES of the brain due to exposure to neuroleptics.
> >
> > HYPERTROPHY: Growth or increase in size
> >
> >
> > 1998 MRI Studies demonstrate structural BRAIN CHANGES in schizophrenia patients treated with both standard and "atypical" neuroleptic drugs:
> >
> > Non-industry sponsored researchers are coming to realize that this rebound reaction to antipsychotic drugs-both standard and the newer atypicals-- may be so great, it could be causing structural brain changes such as swelling of the brain. Gur, et al., (abstract below) conducted an NIMH-funded MRI imaging study to monitor changes in the size of the basal ganglia and thalamic regions of the brain in schizophrenia patients treated with neuroleptic drugs. They compared them to a group of patients who were never exposed to neuroleptic drugs, and to a group of healthy comparison subjects: As they put it: "Differences between groups and correlations between subcortical volumes and dose of medication indicate that exposure to neuroleptics is associated with HYPERTROPHY...it appears that patients treated with neuroleptics show HYPERTROPHY relative to their neuroleptic-naive counterparts and to healthy comparison subjects."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Haven't we been through this already?
> >
> > I believe so.
> >
> >
> > Three problems:
> >
> > #1 These studies are of patients suffering from schizophrenia, a disorder for which the natural course involves a loss of brain tissue.
> >
> > #2 You are using a "bibliography" that seems biased in its selection of annotations to support the claim stated in its title. The author found what he was looking for. The author shows his transparant agenda with his somewhat passionate use of the term "brain damage". By the way, the ONLY appearance of the word "damage" is that of the author's in his paraphrasing with the following exceptions:
> >
> > - Previous brain INJURY and how such might impact upon subsequent neuroleptic treatment.
> >
> > - PROPOSED oxidative free-radical damage and the accumulation of glutamatergic exitotoxic substances in an attempt to explain tardive dyskinisia. NO DATA was offered. Both of these things can occur with a multitude of drugs.
> >
> > #3 The results of a thorough literature search will demonstrate equivocal and contradictory data and conclusions regarding this issue.
> >
> >
> > Just what sort of research review have you conducted for *yourself*?
> >
> > When this question came up a year or so ago, I did conduct a review of the literature *myself*, that I felt was well balanced (of course?). I am not in the mood to summarize it here, but to use the term "brain damage" is not applicable. "Changes in the brain" is better - especially when they are desireable and/or reversible. You should be able to find my piece if you include "basal ganglia" or "striatum" in you keywords.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > FROM THE BIBLIOGRAPHY YOU CITED !
> >
> > I capitalized the words or phrases I thought were particular salient with regard to your supposition.
> >
> > This review cites AN INCREASE AND NOT A SHRINKAGE in the size of VARIOUS STRUCTURES of the brain due to exposure to neuroleptics.
> >
> > HYPERTROPHY: Growth, increase
> >
> >
> > 1998 MRI Studies demonstrate structural BRAIN CHANGES in schizophrenia patients treated with both standard and "atypical" neuroleptic drugs:
> >
> > Non-industry sponsored researchers are coming to realize that this rebound reaction to antipsychotic drugs-both standard and the newer atypicals-- may be so great, it could be causing structural brain changes such as swelling of the brain. Gur, et al., (abstract below) conducted an NIMH-funded MRI imaging study to monitor changes in the size of the basal ganglia and thalamic regions of the brain in schizophrenia patients treated with neuroleptic drugs. They compared them to a group of patients who were never exposed to neuroleptic drugs, and to a group of healthy comparison subjects: As they put it: "Differences between groups and correlations between subcortical volumes and dose of medication indicate that exposure to neuroleptics is associated with HYPERTROPHY...it appears that patients treated with neuroleptics show HYPERTROPHY relative to their neuroleptic-naive counterparts and to healthy comparison subjects."
Posted by SLS on February 28, 2001, at 15:10:36
In reply to Re: Which is least bad: Zyprexa or Risperdal » SLS, posted by steve on February 28, 2001, at 12:26:00
Dear Steve,
I do not believe that I said anything about banning all posts, or even those authored by you in particular.
With this in mind, I will reply to the question you posed; one which seems to me to be a quite transparent betrayal of an agenda.
> Are y'all aware of the brain shrinkage associated with both drugs
No.
Perhaps we should keep all of our replies to your posts as mindless as this one.
- Scott
Posted by steve on February 28, 2001, at 17:38:53
In reply to Re: Which is least bad: Zyprexa or Risperdal » steve, posted by SLS on February 28, 2001, at 15:10:36
You insinuated that topics once brought up don't belong on the board. I said that the board would be slow were it not for a repetitious resummation of the same themes. And you take umbrage.
You don't refer to the points I made.
And you call me mindless.
s.
> Dear Steve,
>
> I do not believe that I said anything about banning all posts, or even those authored by you in particular.
>
> With this in mind, I will reply to the question you posed; one which seems to me to be a quite transparent betrayal of an agenda.
>
> > Are y'all aware of the brain shrinkage associated with both drugs
>
> No.
>
> Perhaps we should keep all of our replies to your posts as mindless as this one.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by SLS on February 28, 2001, at 19:26:25
In reply to Re: Which is least bad: Zyprexa or Risperdal , posted by steve on February 28, 2001, at 17:38:53
Steve,
> You insinuated that topics once brought up don't belong on the board.
I guess I did. I was wrong. I apologize. I just get lazy sometimes.
> You don't refer to the points I made.
-------------------------------------------------------
Here is your original post:
> Are y'all aware of the brain shrinkage associated with both drugs:
Check this link out and go to Madsen:> or go to this link:
> http://www.neurolinguistic.com/proxima/articoli/art-55.htm
> I really, really think patients should be made aware of the brain damage they face before they begin taking neuroleptics.
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you call me mindless.No. I called my reply mindless.
I believe I sufficiently addressed your contention that Risperdal and Zyprexa both cause brain shrinkage and brain damage. I used your own citation to help me do so.
** Why don't YOU address my follow-up points **
-------------------------------------------------------
Three problems:#1 These studies are of patients suffering from schizophrenia, a disorder for which the natural course involves a loss of brain tissue.
#2 You are using a "bibliography" that seems biased in its selection of annotations to support the claim stated in its title. The author found what he was looking for. The author shows his transparant agenda with his somewhat passionate use of the term "brain damage". By the way, the ONLY appearance of the word "damage" is that of the author's in his paraphrasing with the following exceptions:
- Previous brain INJURY and how such might impact upon subsequent neuroleptic treatment.
- PROPOSED oxidative free-radical damage and the accumulation of glutamatergic exitotoxic substances in an attempt to explain tardive dyskinisia. NO DATA was offered. Both of these things can occur with a multitude of drugs.
#3 The results of a thorough literature search will demonstrate equivocal and contradictory data and conclusions regarding this issue.
FROM THE BIBLIOGRAPHY YOU CITED !I capitalized the words or phrases I thought were particular salient with regard to your supposition.
This review cites AN INCREASE AND NOT A SHRINKAGE in the size of VARIOUS STRUCTURES of the brain due to exposure to neuroleptics.
HYPERTROPHY: Growth or increase in size
1998 MRI Studies demonstrate structural BRAIN CHANGES in schizophrenia patients treated with both standard and "atypical" neuroleptic drugs:Non-industry sponsored researchers are coming to realize that this rebound reaction to antipsychotic drugs-both standard and the newer atypicals-- may be so great, it could be causing structural brain changes such as swelling of the brain. Gur, et al., (abstract below) conducted an NIMH-funded MRI imaging study to monitor changes in the size of the basal ganglia and thalamic regions of the brain in schizophrenia patients treated with neuroleptic drugs. They compared them to a group of patients who were never exposed to neuroleptic drugs, and to a group of healthy comparison subjects: As they put it: "Differences between groups and correlations between subcortical volumes and dose of medication indicate that exposure to neuroleptics is associated with HYPERTROPHY...it appears that patients treated with neuroleptics show HYPERTROPHY relative to their neuroleptic-naive counterparts and to healthy comparison subjects."
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 28, 2001, at 21:42:13
In reply to Re: Which is least bad: Zyprexa or Risperdal » steve, posted by SLS on February 28, 2001, at 19:26:25
> > You insinuated that topics once brought up don't belong on the board.
>
> I guess I did. I was wrong. I apologize. I just get lazy sometimes.
>
> > You don't refer to the points I made.Please be civil. Sometimes it's more productive just to agree to disagree. There's plenty of room for different opinions here. Thanks,
Bob
PS: Follow-ups, if any, to this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Posted by steve on February 28, 2001, at 22:03:45
In reply to Re: Which is least bad: Zyprexa or Risperdal » steve, posted by SLS on February 28, 2001, at 19:26:25
I thought I had.
1) Schizophrenia does involve neuroanatomical changes.
I have heard of hippocampal shrinkage which I doubt is due to the meds.
But it does seem that at least some if not * many * of the changes that are reported, and used as a justification to use neuroleptics could be caused by neuroleptics, especially in light of the fact that these changes weren't observed before the 1950s.
Just because you see changes in schizophrenia doesn't mean, that taking a neurotoxin is a good idea. If you have a thorn caught in your foot cutting your foot off, or starting to take heroin would both plaster over the problem, but that doesn't make them good ideas.
2) That the tardive syndromes are caused by the free radicals that neuroleptics cause to linger around in greater concentrations is pretty well accepted. In any case, there's no denying that neuroleptics do cause damage. As for being biased and only finding articles that suggest that brain damage does happen, that doesn't have to show that there's a bias. As far as I understand it, there are no articles of long-term comparisons that fail to show serious changes. Your logic seems to imply that because the compendium doesn't list sources to the contrary, there must be such sources. I don't see why.
3) I know that I did address the hypertrophy issue. If cerebral hypertrophy was a good thing, we'd all be getting on our knees every night and praying for massive brain tumors. To make a crude quip, I don't know of anyone who fervidly wants elephantiasis either, even though it also involves hypertrophy. Any unncessary changes to the brain are bad IMO.
> ** Why don't YOU address my follow-up points **
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Three problems:
>
> #1 These studies are of patients suffering from schizophrenia, a disorder for which the natural course involves a loss of brain tissue.
>
> #2 You are using a "bibliography" that seems biased in its selection of annotations to support the claim stated in its title. The author found what he was looking for. The author shows his transparant agenda with his somewhat passionate use of the term "brain damage". By the way, the ONLY appearance of the word "damage" is that of the author's in his paraphrasing with the following exceptions:
>
> - Previous brain INJURY and how such might impact upon subsequent neuroleptic treatment.
>
> - PROPOSED oxidative free-radical damage and the accumulation of glutamatergic exitotoxic substances in an attempt to explain tardive dyskinisia. NO DATA was offered. Both of these things can occur with a multitude of drugs.
>
> #3 The results of a thorough literature search will demonstrate equivocal and contradictory data and conclusions regarding this issue.
>
>
>
>
> FROM THE BIBLIOGRAPHY YOU CITED !
>
> I capitalized the words or phrases I thought were particular salient with regard to your supposition.
>
> This review cites AN INCREASE AND NOT A SHRINKAGE in the size of VARIOUS STRUCTURES of the brain due to exposure to neuroleptics.
>
> HYPERTROPHY: Growth or increase in size
>
>
> 1998 MRI Studies demonstrate structural BRAIN CHANGES in schizophrenia patients treated with both standard and "atypical" neuroleptic drugs:
>
> Non-industry sponsored researchers are coming to realize that this rebound reaction to antipsychotic drugs-both standard and the newer atypicals-- may be so great, it could be causing structural brain changes such as swelling of the brain. Gur, et al., (abstract below) conducted an NIMH-funded MRI imaging study to monitor changes in the size of the basal ganglia and thalamic regions of the brain in schizophrenia patients treated with neuroleptic drugs. They compared them to a group of patients who were never exposed to neuroleptic drugs, and to a group of healthy comparison subjects: As they put it: "Differences between groups and correlations between subcortical volumes and dose of medication indicate that exposure to neuroleptics is associated with HYPERTROPHY...it appears that patients treated with neuroleptics show HYPERTROPHY relative to their neuroleptic-naive counterparts and to healthy comparison subjects."
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.