Summary
Until recently, antipsychotic drugs were assumed to be generally equivalent in terms of efficacy while adverse effects varied along a relative continuum. Particular compounds did not stand out as being qualitatively different. With the introduction of clozapine, discussions of novel or atypical effects began, and now there is debate as to what criteria should be used to define atypicality. I would argue that the term has served a heuristic function, but is no longer useful.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Klein DF, Davis JM. Diagnosis and drug treatment of psychotic disorders. Baltimore (MD): Williams & Wilkins, 1969
Janicak PG, Davis JM, Preskorn SH, et al. Principles and practice of psychopharmacotherapy. Baltimore (MD): Williams & Wilkins, 1993: 104–6
Kane J, Honigfeld G, Singer J, et al. Clozapine for the treatment-resistant schizophrenic: a double-blind comparison with chlorpromazine. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988; 45: 789–96
Waddington JL, O’Callaghan E. What makes an antipsychotic ‘atypical’: conserving the definition. CNS Drugs 1997 May; 7(5): 341–6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kane, J.M. What Makes an Antipsychotic ‘Atypical’?. CNS Drugs 7, 347–348 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2165/00023210-199707050-00002
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00023210-199707050-00002