Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:58:06.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Differential Inter-drug Analysis: A Preliminary Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

L. R. C. Haward*
Affiliation:
Graylingwell Hospital, Chichester, Sussex

Extract

During the past decade so many psycho tropic drugs have been produced that the psychiatrist is often faced with a bewildering choice; for some mental disorders no fewer than a dozen preparations claim to remove or alleviate the symptoms. The work of La Verne (1962, 1963) and Jacobsen (1963) has been of considerable value in providing a “compendium of psychopharmacological agents”—a comprehensive classification of psychiatric drugs to assist the prescriber. Nevertheless, there are seldom any clear or universally accepted indications within a class (e.g. antidepressives or antipsychotics) why one drug should be prescribed rather than another. Many preparations share a common basic chemical formula, such as the phenothiazines, and/or a common biochemical function, like the monoamine oxidase inhibitors. The manufacturers themselves, anxious to cover every therapeutic possibility, suggest such a wide range of possible indications that their product often becomes a broad spectrum panacea, inviting increasing scepticism from the physician and concealing any potential advantage it may have for alleviating a particular symptom. Since personal experience determines choice more positively than any number of published reports, the psychiatrist gives most new products an informal trial, but tends to settle down with a limited few of proved usefulness and empirically confirmed indications. This is not a particularly efficient method for obtaining one's personal range of chemotherapeutics, but it is the one most generally used in practice. Its disadvantage lies in the idiosyncratic nature of some drugs, which may work well in one patient but ineffectively, or even adversely, in the next. On the basis of a few short and unsatisfactory trials, sometimes of only one, a potentially useful preparation may be discarded in favour of an older well-tried alternative which may be less therapeutically effective in the long run.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1964 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bonafede, V. I. (1955). A.M.A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 74, 363.Google Scholar
Brandrup, E., and Kristjansen, P. (1961). J. Ment. Sri., 107, 778.Google Scholar
Court, I. H., and Cameron, I. A. (1963). Brit. J. Med. Psychol. (in press).Google Scholar
Cramond, W. A. (1958). In Topics in Psychiatry (ed. Rodger, , Mowbray, and Roy, ). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Davis, D. R. (1957). Introduction to Psychopathology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Denbar, H. C. B., and Merlio, S. (1954). Psychiat. Quart., 28, 635.Google Scholar
Editorial (1960). Medical World, 93, 135.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1957). Dynamics of Anxiety and Hysteria. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Eysenck, S. B. G. (1957). J. Ment. Sci., 102, 517.Google Scholar
Friedgood, C. E. (1955). New England Med. J., 252, 230.Google Scholar
Gerle, B., Peterson, B., and Widmark, M. (1961). Svenska Lä Kartidningen, 58, 1415.Google Scholar
Gorham, D. R., and Overall, I. E. (1961). Dis. Nerv. System., 22, 1.Google Scholar
Haward, L. R. C. (1953). Colour Shock. University of Bristol Library.Google Scholar
Haward, L. R. C. (1955). Ind. J. Psychol., 30, 111.Google Scholar
Haward, L. R. C. (1957). Brit. med. J., 15 February.Google Scholar
Haward, L. R. C. (1958). Ind. J. Physiol. Pharmacol., 2, 367.Google Scholar
Haward, L. R. C. (1959). Brit. med. J., 28 November.Google Scholar
Haward, L. R. C. (1962). Brit. J. Med. Psychol., 35, 225.Google Scholar
Haward, L. R. C. (1964). Brit. J. Psychiat., 514519.Google Scholar
Jacobs, R. (1959). Psychiat. Verpl., 211, 20.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, E. (1963). J. Neuropsychiat., 4, 241.Google Scholar
La Verne, A. A., (Ed.) (1962). Ibid., 3, 128.Google Scholar
La Verne, A. A., (Ed.) (1963). Ibid., 4, 202.Google Scholar
McKellar, P. (1957). Imagination and Thinking. London: Cohen and West.Google Scholar
Overall, J. E., and Gorham, D. R. (1961). J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 63, 597.Google Scholar
Overall, J. E., and Gorham, D. R. Overall, J. E., and Gorham, D. R. (1962). Psychol. Rep., 10, 799.Google Scholar
Paquay, J., Arnould, F., and Burton, P. (1960). Acta Neurol. Belg., 60, 108.Google Scholar
Palmer, H. (1958). Psychopathic Personalities. London: Owen.Google Scholar
Richter, D. (1961). In Neuropsychopharmacology (ed. Rotheim, E.). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, S. (1947). J. Psychol., 24, 165.Google Scholar
Roth, M., and Hopkins, B. (1953). J. Ment. Sci., 99, 439.Google Scholar
Rubin, L. S. (1962). Arch. Gen. Psychiat., 7, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sammuels, A. S. (1962). Amer. J. Psychiat., 118, 253.Google Scholar
Saunders, L., and Fleming, S. (1957). Mathematics and Statistics. London: Pharmaceutical Society.Google Scholar
Stein, L. (1963). In Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry (ed. Wortis, J.). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Turner, W. J. (1962). Psychopharm. Serv. Cent. Bull., 2, 17.Google Scholar
Venables, P. H. (1957). J. Ment. Sci., 103, 197.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.