Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T13:46:29.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Low dose typical antipsychotics – a brief evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Piet P. Oosthuizen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Stellenbosch, PO Box 19063, Tygerberg 7505, Cape Town, South Africa
Robin A. Emsley
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Stellenbosch, PO Box 19063, Tygerberg 7505, Cape Town, South Africa
Jadri Turner
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Stellenbosch, PO Box 19063, Tygerberg 7505, Cape Town, South Africa
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
The Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © 2001, The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Sir: We were disturbed by David Taylor's article in the December 2000 issue of the Psychiatric Bulletin (vol. 24, pp. 465-468). The paper comes across as a somewhat selective interpretation of current knowledge on this highly controversial and very topical issue. This paper clearly supports a particular point of view, giving selective weight to some studies and downplaying the importance of those that do not fit with the author's hypothesis. Some important recent studies on the issue have been completely omitted (e.g. Reference Kapur, Zipursky and JonesKapur et al, 2000) and the findings of the study by McEvoy et al (Reference McEvoy, Hogarthy and Steingard1991) are presented in such a way that the principal message of the paper is obscured. It is also regrettable that the author chooses not to consider the opinions of those leaders in the field with a different point of view (Reference Kulkarni, Power, McGorry and JacksonKulkarni & Power, 1999) and seems to disregard the side-effects of the second-generation antipsychotics altogether.

We believe that, at this time, there is insufficient evidence to come to the kind of conclusions that the author has come to and that the paper is more of a statement of personal opinion than of scientific fact. There has never been a real dose-finding study with haloperidol (or most of the traditional antipsychotics) and no proper evaluation of low-dose traditional antipsychotics v. second-generation antipsychotics. Until properly designed studies are done, it would probably be wise not to come to premature conclusions. The harsh reality is that, for most patients in the world, medications like haloperidol are the only option. Finding the optimal dose of the so-called typical antipsychotics is something that should be pursued with vigour. This issue is far from resolved and a more balanced evaluation of the current state of knowledge would be welcome.

References

Kapur, S., Zipursky, R., Jones, C., et al (2000) Relationship between dopamine D(2) occupancy, clinical response, and side effects: a double-blind PET study of first-episode schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 514520.Google Scholar
Kulkarni, J. & Power, P. (1999) Initial treatment of first-episode psychosis. In The Recognition and Management of Early Psychosis (eds McGorry, P. D. & Jackson, H. J.), pp. 184205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEvoy, J. P., Hogarthy, G. E. & Steingard, S. (1991) Optimal dose of neuroleptic in acute schizophrenia. A controlled study of the neuroleptic threshold and higher haloperidol dose. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 739745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.