ABSTRACT
El desarrollo de los antipsicóticos "atÃpicos" o "de segunda generación" despertó grandes expectativas a partir de la década de 1990, al atribuÃrseles mayor eficacia y tolerabilidad que los antipsicóticos "tÃpicos", "clásicos" o "de primera generación", merced al impacto de una enorme campaña publicitaria por parte de la industria farmacéutica. Sin embargo, diferentes estudios no han podido demostrar en forma fehaciente la pretendida superioridad de aquel grupo de medicamentos en términos de eficacia, prevención de recaÃdas o producción de efectos adversos. Por otro lado, la clasificación de antipsicóticos "clásicos" y "atÃpicos" tampoco se puede sustentar en base a estructura quÃmica, mecanismos de acción, costos o antigûedad, dada la heterogeneidad que exhiben ambos grupos. Por tales motivos, se plantea que la dicotomÃa existente deberÃa descartarse.
The development of "atypical" or "second generation" antipsychotics, generated great expectations from the 1990s, as they were attributed more efficacy and tolerability than the "typical", "classic" or "first generation" antipsychotics, due mostly to the impact of a huge advertising campaign by the pharmaceutical industry. However, different studies have not been able to prove, in a categorical way, the alleged superiority of that group of drugs in terms of efficacy, prevention of relapses or production of adverse effects. On the other hand, the classification of "classic" and "atypical" antipsychotics cannot be supported either by factors such as chemical structure, mechanisms of action, costs or years in the market, , given the heterogeneity that both groups exhibit. For such reasons, it is suggested that the existing dichotomy should be ruled out.