Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T12:53:03.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Treatment of Restless Psychotics with Methotrimeprazine (Veractil)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

David Muller
David Muller*
Affiliation:
Park Prewett Hospital, Basingstoke, Hants
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the introduction of methotrimeprazine (Veractil) to psychiatry in 1956 by the French workers, Sigwald, Henne, Bouttier, Raymoneaud and Quetin (1), this drug has been used here and on the Continent for the treatment of various psychiatric conditions with varying and inconsistent success. A rapid review of some examples in the literature will suffice to illustrate this. Deschamps and Madre (2) stated that the drug was more rapidly effective and more powerful than chlorpromazine (Largactil). Gayral et al. (3) reported on their findings in 409 patients, most of them (304) out-patients, and the majority (316) with depression: it was considered that Veractil was not an adequate substitute for electroplexy (E.C.T.) in depression. Larue and Gosselin (4) treated 82 patients with a variety of disorders including 2 cases of trigeminal neuralgia, with marked success. Letailleur, le Borgne and Lebrun (5) reported the side-effects of drowsiness and fainting to be relatively common, but with no true Parkinsonism, in a series of 75 patients of which they regarded 36 as cured and 25 as improved. Baruk, Launay and Roberti (6) claimed good results, not only in depression, as stated by others, but also in obsessive and digestive neuroses; and in patients with syndromes in which other neuroleptics were usually without effect. Deschales, Lanteri-Lausa and Fargeon (7) however concluded that Veractil was no more efficacious than other neuroleptics though they preferred it for depressives: it could usefully be combined with E.C.T. in these cases but it could not replace it. Baker and Thorpe (8) found no difference in comparison with Largactil while treating deteriorated schizophrenics, except that the effective dose of Veractil was only two-thirds that of Largactil. Leitch and Seager (9) found no statistical significance in a placebo-controlled study comparing Veractil, Largactil, acepromazine and promazine. But Quinn, Johnston, Latner and Kiloh (10) again reported a 42 per cent. clinical improvement in patients given Veractil compared with Largactil and a placebo in 146 schizophrenics using the working capacity in males and the degree of deterioration in females as pointers for assessment.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 107 , Issue 449 , July 1961 , pp. 783 - 786
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1961 

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

1 Sigwald, J., Henne, M., Bouttier, D., Raymoneaud, C., and Queitn, A., “Activité d'une nouvelle phénothiazine en psychiatrie et en neurologic Propriétés thérapeutiques du maleate acide de lévo methoxy-3 (diméthylamino-3′ méthyl-2′-propyl) 10 phénothiazine (7044 R.P.)”, Pr. méd., 1956, 64, 2011.Google Scholar
2 Deschamps, A., and Madre, J., “Traitements en psychiatrie par un nouveau neuroleptique (7044 R.P.). Quelques résultats”, ibid., 1957, 65, 1071.Google Scholar
3 Gayral, L., Bacchiochi, M., Carrié, J., Stern, H., and Turnin, J., “La lévomepromazine (médicament neuroleptique)”, Sent. Hop., Paris (Sem., thérap.), 1958, 34, (10).Google Scholar
4 Larue, L., and Gosselin, J.-Y., “Usage d'une nouvelle phénothiazine (Rapport préliminaire)”, Laval Méd., 1958, 26, 43.Google Scholar
5 Letailleur, M., Le Borgne, Y., and Lebrun, C., “Essais de la lévomepromazine (7044 R.P.) dans les etats dépressifs”, Sent. Hop., Paris (Sem. méd.), 1958, 34, 758.Google Scholar
6 Baruk, H., Launay, J., and Roberti, A., “Action thérapeutique du 7044 R.P. dans les névroses obsessionnelles, les névroses digestives et les états de cénestopathies”. Ann. méd-psychol., 1958, 116, 149.Google Scholar
7 Deschales, G., Lanteri-Lausa, G., and Fargeon, A., “La lévopromazine en thérapeutique psychiatrique”, ibid., 1958, 116, 965.Google Scholar
8 Baker, A. A., and Thorpe, J. G., “Assessing a new phenothiazine”, J. Ment. Sci., 1958, 104, 855.Google Scholar
9 Leitch, A., and Seager, C. P., “A clinical trial of four tranquillizing drugs”, ibid., 1960, 106, 1093.Google Scholar
10 Quinn, P. J. G., Johnston, J., Latner, G., and Kiloh, L. G., “A comparative controlled trial of Veractil in chronic schizophrenia”, ibid., 1960, 106, 160.Google Scholar
11 Telatin, L., and Maccagnani, G., “Laevo-promazine—a new phenothiazine derivative for psychiatric therapy”, (Trans.), Riv. Sper. Fremat., 1959, 83/2 Supp. (847–898).Google Scholar
12 Haefner, D. P., Sacks, J. M., and Mason, A. S., “Physicians' attitudes towards chemotherapy as a factor in psychiatric patients' responses to medication”, J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 1960, 131, 1, pp. 64.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.