Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T18:24:03.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Relationship Between Taste Threshold for Drugs and Clinical Progress in a Mixed Group of Psychiatric Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

Lynn Pan
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, London Hospital Medical College
Elisabeth Shoenberg
Affiliation:
Claybury Hospital, Woodford Green, Essex
C. R. B. Joyce
Affiliation:
London Hospital Medical College

Extract

Taste sensitivity may be a valid quantitative predictor of other kinds of reaction to the same drug by a given organism (Fischer and Griffin, 1963). Such a relationship in healthy subjects has been directly demonstrated for hyoscine butyl bromide (Joyce, Pan and Varonos, 1968), but the implications for the prediction of clinical response have apparently not yet been explored in a direct fashion. For example, in one group of female schizophrenics with a low taste threshold for quinine, a significantly lower dose of trifluoperazine elicited toxic effects than was the case in a group with a high taste threshold (Knopp, Fischer, Beck and Teitelbaum, 1966). But this study made, without testing, two important assumptions: first, that the dose necessary to produce toxic effects is positively correlated with the therapeutic dose; second, that the relationship between taste threshold and response to the drug is non-specific, so that the bitter substance quinine may serve as an indicator of response to any bitter-tasting centrally-active drug, or perhaps to any drug at all. The first of these propositions, though once fashionable, is certainly open to discussion; to accept the second would eliminate the interesting possibility of using differences in taste thresholds for a range of drugs to predict the drug to which the individual patient might best react.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1970 

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

Cornsweet, T. N. (1962). Amer. J. Psychol., 75, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R., and Griffin, F. (1963). Nature., 200, 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, H. H. (1960). Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hazleman, B., Mann, C. V., and Joyce, C. R. B. (1969), Unpublished.Google Scholar
Joyce, C. R. B., Pan, L., and Varonos, D. D. (1968),Google Scholar
Kaplan, A. R., Fischer, R., Glanville, E., Powell, W., Kamionkowski, M., and Fleshler, B. (1964). Gastroenterology, 47, 604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, A. R., Glanville, E. V. Fischer, R. (1964). Nature, 202, 1366 Life Sciences, 7, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, A. R., Glanville, E. V. Fischer, R. (1965). J. Gerontol., 20, 334.Google Scholar
Knopp, W., Fischer, R., Beck, J., and Teitelbaum, A, (1966). Dis. new. Syst. 27, 729.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.