The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Letter to the EditorFull Access

Atypical Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome and Atypical Antipsychotics

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.155.11.1626l

To the Editor: There has been pronounced variation in the incidence of neuroleptic malignant syndrome over the last 20 years. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome was considered rare in the 1960s and 1970s until several retrospective studies were published. Thereafter, interest intensified, and reports of “atypical” formes frustes and incipient neuroleptic malignant syndrome (none of which met diagnostic criteria) appeared in the literature (1). However, later prospective studies, which cited incidence rates for neuroleptic malignant syndrome between 0.07% and 0.15%, confirmed that this is indeed a rare (but certainly not-to-be-overlooked) condition. The recent decline in incidence may, in part, be attributable to more judicious use of conventional antipsychotic medication (e.g., cessation of rapid neuroleptilization, better hydration of patients during titration of medication) (2). In addition, heightened clinical awareness, careful investigation to rule out alternative diagnoses, and greater diagnostic specificity are also major contributory factors. The recent report by Newman and colleagues (3) of atypical neuroleptic malignant syndrome with risperidone adds to an accruing literature on the syndrome with the use of novel antipsychotics but, in our opinion, complicates further this diagnostic conundrum. The spectrum concept of neuroleptic malignant syndrome, dubious at best, is particularly tenuous in treatment with novel antipsychotics (4). Several of the side effects typically observed in the initial titration period with novel antipsychotics (autonomic dysregulation; benign hyperthermia with clozapine) resemble manifestations of neuroleptic malignant syndrome (4). In another example, a recent prospective study of 37 patients receiving clozapine reported elevations of creatine phosphokinase (range: 725–20,000 IU/liter) in 29 patients who were without any other evidence of neuroleptic malignant syndrome (5). Collectively, these observations should be cause for caution in hastily ascribing a diagnosis of neuroleptic malignant syndrome during treatment with novel antipsychotics. At the present time, our understanding and diagnostic specificity for neuroleptic ma­ignant syndrome is too rudimentary to advance the notion of a clinical spectrum, particularly in the context of atypical antipsychotics.

References

1. Buckley PF, Hutchinson M: Neuroleptic malignant syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1995; 58:271–273Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

2. Sachdev P, Mason C, Hadzi-Pavlovic D: Case-control study of neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154:1156–1158LinkGoogle Scholar

3. Newman M, Adityanjee, Jampala C: Atypical neuroleptic malignant syndrome associated with risperidone treatment (letter). Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154:1475LinkGoogle Scholar

4. Hasan S, Buckley P: Novel antipsychotics and the neuroleptic malignant syndrome: a review and critique. Am J Psychiatry 1998; 155:1113–1116LinkGoogle Scholar

5. Scelsa SN, Simpson DM, McQuistion HL, Fineman A, Ault K, Reichler B: Clozapine-induced myotoxicity in patients with chronic psychotic disorders. Neurology 1996; 47:1518–1523Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar