Efficacy of newer generation antipsychotics in the treatment of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity1088 @entity910 @entity914 @entity161 @entity21 @entity1037 @entity1089 @entity1090
The advent of the newer 'atypical' antipsychotic medications has revolutionized the pharmacologic treatment of @entity161 and other @entity914 . In contrast to the older conventional antipsychotic agents, atypical medications have a broader spectrum of efficacy (greater efficacy in negative, cognitive, and mood symptoms) and a lower risk of @entity21 ( @entity21 ) and @entity910 . Due to concerns surrounding hematological safety and other adverse effects, @entity1088 is used principally in @entity1 refractory to treatment with other antipsychotic agents. The other three universally available atypical agents ( @entity1090 , @entity1037 , and @entity1089 ) collectively constitute about 70% of all antipsychotic prescriptions in the USA. Despite the broad popularity of these medications and their rapid adoption in general clinical practice, there are limited data on how they compare to each other with regards to their overall efficacy and also as to their efficacy in specific symptom domains. To address this question, two separate analyses were undertaken. First, all published, short-term, randomized, controlled clinical trials of these agents in @entity161 and @entity914 were reviewed and the extent of improvement across these agents was compared. While the amount of improvement with a particular agent across its different studies varied, the average improvement was similar for the agents for all efficacy parameters considered. Secondly, all randomized, controlled clinical trials directly comparing two or more of these agents in @entity1 with @entity161 or @entity914 were analyzed. Only three such trials (all industry sponsored) were identified; while there were differences in methodology and small differences in efficacy on a minority of measures on which comparisons were undertaken, the preponderance of data suggested no differences in efficacy. While data thus far do not support assertions of differential efficacy between @entity1090 , @entity1037 , and @entity1089 , there are clear differences in their side-effect profiles and these are briefly summarized.
