Posted by yxibow on September 9, 2005, at 15:28:20
In reply to Is akathesia necessary ??, posted by linkadge on September 8, 2005, at 10:11:34
> The only AD's that have worked have been the ones that have caused strong akathesia. Is akathesia necessary for a theraputic responce ?
>
> Is it indicitive of some sort of positive neurochemical change, or is it a compltetely unneccesary side effect ?
>
> LinkadgeIts an indication dopamine-blocking agents, mostly at D2, making their way toward the basal ganglia, the part of the involuntary primitive motor system of the human body.
As for antidepressants, its rare but can happen especially with long term Zoloft usage. But primarily it occurs with antipsychotics.
The old, 1950s, pre-atypical model of antipsychotics was to dial the patient up until you started seeing side effects like akathisia and pseudoparkinsonism and other unpleasant EPS, and then you'd say, yup, we have enough Haldol for that patient now, we've hit their D2 receptors.
Times have changed and there is more of a shift to atypicals (at least in parts of the world where they can be afforded at the moment), and this model is definately not followed. It doesn't mean akathisia and other EPS still cant happen, and they do, in my own experience. But its now more of a benefit vs. humane experience that charges most care under antipsychotics.
Sure, there are still the schizophrenic patients who have to be on heavy doses of older non atypicals or even ghastly combinations of several, but the model of dial 'em up is not the exclusive way of thinking.
poster:yxibow
thread:552273
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050909/msgs/552784.html