Review Links Antipsychotics with Risk for Heart Attacks


A systematic review published this week in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology found that patients taking antipsychotic drugs were at nearly twice the risk of a heart attack compared to non-users. “Our findings provide important information about the safety of antipsychotic drugs,” Bing Ruan, a lead author of the study, wrote. “Clinicians should prescribe them only for patients with a clear need.”

A new review links a two-fold risk for heart attacks with the use of antipsychotic drugs.
A new review links a two-fold risk for heart attacks with the use of antipsychotic drugs.


Zheng-he Yu, Hai-yin Jiang, Li Shao, Yuan-yue Zhou, Hai-yan Shi and Bing Ruan, Use of Antipsychotics and Risk of Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, doi: 10.1111/bcp.12985, published online 16 May 2016. (Abstract)



    “…Seroquel’s high use in the military for the unapproved uses of sleep and PTSD was also disturbing: reports of veterans’ sudden deaths on the drug, thought to be cardiac-related, surfaced even as use of Seroquel soared 700 percent in the Department of Defense. In 2009, it was the number-two drug at the VA, accounting for $125.4 million in tax dollars.

    Months after Seroquel’s 1997 approval, an article in the South Dakota Journal of Medicine raised questions about the drug’s unsafe interaction with 11 other drugs. Within three years, researchers at the Cleveland Clinic were questioning Seroquel’s effect on the heart’s electrical activity. But even as the families of deceased veterans testified at FDA hearings in 2009 and demanded answers from officials and lawmakers, the FDA maintained Seroquel’s safety. Then in 2011, with little fanfare, the FDA issued new warnings that corroborated the swirling suspicions: …”

    Report comment

    • The very first evening I was put on Seroquel, due to a violently adverse reaction to Rispedal, I got “voices” in my head for the first time in my life. That was at 6pm on 1.14.2002, a person never forgets the exact moment when they first get “voices.” My reseach found that attempting to “cure” an allergic reaction to one antipsychotic, with another antipsychotic, results in “psychosis,” due to anticholinergic toxidrome poisoning. Although psychiatrists misdiagnose this as one of the scientifically invalid DSM disorders.

      It’s really a shame, the psychiatrists of old used to know that if a person has an allergic reaction to one neuroleptic, the person should be taken off that class of drugs. But today’s psychiatrists believe that if a person has a violently adverse reaction to one neuroleptic, the psychiatrist must poison the patient with every other antipsychotic on the market, in conjuction with massive, major drug interaction filled drug cocktails, to protect the reputation of their “new wonder drugs,” prior to finally weaning the person off the neuroleptics.

      Truly, today’s psycho / pharmacutical industries have lost it’s minds, due to their love of money. “The love of money is the root of all evil.” We need a return of ethics and sanity to the mainstream medicine.

      By the way, I do not believe this should be considered “news,” given the Cleveland Clinic was “questioning Seroquel’s effects on the heart’s electrical activity” all the way back in 2000. But I did read recently that it takes 17 years for correct medical information of pharmacutical harm to sink in to doctors minds, and for them to stop actually harming people, based upon pharmacutical misinformation. Which would imply trusting in doctors is not likely wise.

      Report comment

  2. This is not new news. And the conclusion is almost comical – “Clinicians should prescribe them only for patients with a clear need.” Oh, so clinicians should only risk doubling the person’s chances of death by heart attack if there is a “clear need.” What kind of “clear need” would justify this, and how with the mental health industry’s subjective “disorders” would a “clear need” ever be established?

    —- Steve

    Report comment

    • Or if the physician’s husband had been the “attending physician” at a “bad fix” on the patient’s broken bone, resulting in extreme paranoia on the part of the physican regarding a non-existent, but potential, malpractice suit?

      Really, any malevolent or greed inspired reason, on the part of a physician, constitutes a “clear need” for a patient to be coresed and forced to take antipsychotics.

      Report comment