Benefits unclear for 1st versus 2nd generation antipsychotics

Older antipsychotics may work as well as newer ones: review
First-generation medications are also much cheaper, researchers note.

(HealthDay) -- Newer, more expensive schizophrenia medications are not noticeably better than their older, cheaper counterparts, a new review suggests.

Currently, 75 percent of U.S. adults who are prescribed antipsychotic medications take these second-generation drugs, which were developed largely due to concerns about side effects with their predecessors, experts noted.

First-generation antipsychotics are also called typical antipsychotics. This class of drugs includes chlorpromazine (Thorazine), haloperidol (Haldol), perphenazine (Etrafon, Trilafon) and fluphenazine (Prolixin). Second-generation drugs, known as atypical, antipsychotics include risperidone (Risperdal), aripiprazole (Abilify), olanzapine (Zyprexa), quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel) and ziprasidone (Geodon). There is a major cost difference between the two classes of drugs: For example, a month's supply of olanzapine can cost $546, while a month's supply of haloperidol ranges from $18 to $27, according to Consumer Reports.

But are these newer drugs really more effective or less risky? Researchers at the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reviewed 114 studies involving 22 comparisons between the two classes of drugs to answer these questions. Their review appears in the Aug. 14 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The review found that the second-generation antipsychotics are not much better than the earlier incarnations at treating positive symptoms associated with schizophrenia. "Positive symptoms" is the umbrella term for symptoms of psychosis such as delusions and hallucinations. By contrast, negative symptoms reflect a decrease or loss of normal function including expression or speech.

Two second-generation drugs, olanzapine and risperidone, did seem to be more effective at treating negative symptoms when compared with the older haloperidol, the investigators said.

There was insufficient evidence to compare risk profiles between the two classes of drugs, the researchers said. Long-term risks of antipsychotics may include diabetes, major metabolic syndrome and a neurological disorder that causes involuntary, repetitive movements (tardive dyskinesia). Metabolic syndrome refers to a cluster of risk factors that increase risk for diabetes and heart disease.

"The typical antipsychotics that have been around for a long time are just as good at treating schizophrenia symptoms as the newer ones," said Dr. Dolores Malaspina, director of the Institute for Social and Psychiatric Initiatives at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City. In the future, doctors may adopt a personalized medicine approach to better pair treatments with individual symptoms and disease manifestations, she suggested.

Until then, "my first choice would be to try one of the medications that have a longer track record, and then move on if need be," Malaspina said, adding that the main differences between the first- and second-generation medications are side effects.

Commenting on the review, Dr. David Straker, an adjunct assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City, said: "The newer drugs seem to be more effective with negative symptoms and, as such, they help with concentration and focus, but they cost a lot more and may have more metabolic side effects. It comes down to weighing the risks versus the benefit in each individual patient."

And, according to Dr. Roberto Estrada, a psychiatrist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, the review raises an important issue that psychiatrists face in treating people with schizophrenia.

"The limitations of first-generation antipsychotics were well known prior to the introduction of second-generation antipsychotics, but now the metabolic issues and expense associated with using second-generation antipsychotics has created further challenges in the treatment of schizophrenia," Estrada said.

The new review "is unable to draw clear conclusions about differences between the two in the treatment of schizophrenia," Estrada explained. "However, in clinical practice using the second-generation drugs, we see comparable symptom management with little acute adverse effects, but different and equally long-term adverse effects."

More information: Abstract
Full Text

Related Stories

L-lysine may help schizophrenia sufferers cope

Apr 18, 2011

Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder that currently affects about one in every 200 people. Most patients find some relief from their symptoms by treatment with antipsychotics, however they may still suffer from cognitive ...

Recommended for you

Social ties matter beyond bushfires

2 hours ago

In the first major release of findings from the Beyond Bushfires study of the aftermath of the Black Saturday bushfires, researchers from the University of Melbourne have been able to show the social element ...

Mom's prenatal hardship turns baby's genes on and off

2 hours ago

In January 1998 five days of freezing rain collapsed the electrical grid of the Canadian province of Québec. The storm left more than 3 million people without electricity for anywhere from a few hours to ...

Smoking rates high among people with psychotic illness

2 hours ago

The rate of smoking among people in Adelaide's northern suburbs who suffer from a psychotic illness is much greater than the national average and is contributing to other major health problems, according to new research from ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

PhotonX
not rated yet Aug 14, 2012
Maybe this goes without saying, but this is the 400 pound gorilla in the living room, isn't it, at least with efficacy studies in the U.S. New drugs are only tested against placebos, and not against other older drugs in its class. We might well find that the new $600 drug fights a set of symptoms better than the placebo, but no better than the $25 older-generation drug. Fewer side effects? Okay, that's a benefit, but is it worth $500 a month, especially to a patient who lacks health insurance (again, in the U.S.)?
PeterD
not rated yet Aug 16, 2012
Only an idiot would take any of these drugs.
DanielHaszard
not rated yet Aug 17, 2012
PTSD treatment for Veterans found ineffective.

Eli Lilly made $65 billion on the Zyprexa franchise.Lilly was fined $1.4 billion for Zyprexa fraud!
The atypical antipsychotics (Zyprexa,Risperdal,Seroquel) are like a 'synthetic' Thorazine,only they cost ten times more than the old fashioned typical antipsychotics.
These newer generation drugs still pack their list of side effects like diabetes for the user.All these drugs work as so called 'major tranquilizers'.This can be a contradiction with PTSD suffers as we are hyper vigilant and feel uncomfortable with a drug that puts you to sleep and makes you sluggish.
That's why drugs like Zyprexa don't work for PTSD survivors like myself.

-Daniel Haszard FMI http://www.zyprexa-victims.com
*Tell the truth don't be afraid*

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.