Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:02:55.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Perphenazine, (‘Fentazin’) Sodium Amylobarbitone and a Placebo in Anxious and Depressed Out-Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

J. M. Hinton
J. M. Hinton*
Affiliation:
The Maudsley Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Perphenazine is a phenothiazine derivative, recommended as a tranquillizer (Ayd, 1957; O'Reilly et al., 1957; Goldman, 1958; Preisig and Landman, 1958) and as an anti-emetic (Scurr and Robbie, 1958). The structural formula is 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-4-3-(2-chloro-10-phenothiazyl)-propyl-piperazine; it has also been called Fentazin and Trilafon. Its action is similar to chlorpromazine, but it is said to be 5 or 6 times as potent, the side-effects are less severe and the potentiating effect on barbiturates is minimal. Extra-pyramidal symptoms have occurred but no serious blood-disorders or jaundice have been reported. The recommended out-patient dosage is 6 to 16 mg. daily; doses of 24 to 64 mg. daily may be used with in-patients. Autonomic side-effects such as blurred vision and dry mouth are said not to occur below 40 mg. daily, hypotension not below 150 mg. daily. The purpose of this trial was to see if perphenazine improved the symptoms of out-patients with anxiety and depression, as compared with a placebo, and also to match it with a recognized and widely used sedative, sodium amylobarbitone, in order to note any difference in effect.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 105 , Issue 440 , July 1959 , pp. 872 - 877
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1959 

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

Ayd, F. J., J. Amer. Geriat. Soc., 1957, 5, 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beecher, H. K., Science, 1952, 116, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, O. L., The Design and Analysis of Industrial Experiments, 1954. Edinburgh, p. 26.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. B., Biometrics, 1955, 11, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, D., Amer. J. med. Sci., 1958, 235, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasagna, L., Laties, V. G., and Dohan, J. L., J. clin. Invest., 1958, 37, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorr, M., Psychol. Bull., 1954, 51, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, P. O., Wojcicki, H. M., Hrychuk, W., and Keooh, R. T., Canad, med. Ass. J., 1957, 77, 952.Google Scholar
Preisig, R., and Landman, M. E., Amer. Practit., 1958, 9, 740.Google Scholar
Scurr, C. F., and Robbie, D. S., Brit. med. J., 1958, i, 922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.