中华精神科杂志
中華精神科雜誌
중화정신과잡지
CHINESE JOURNA OF PSYCHIATRY
2010年
1期
24-27
,共4页
宋梓祥%涂德华%潘佳%蔡占魁%闫同军%刘丽%强亮%汪卫华%汪广剑%王焕林
宋梓祥%塗德華%潘佳%蔡佔魁%閆同軍%劉麗%彊亮%汪衛華%汪廣劍%王煥林
송재상%도덕화%반가%채점괴%염동군%류려%강량%왕위화%왕엄검%왕환림
利哌立酮%治疗结果%安全%精神分裂症%奥氮平
利哌立酮%治療結果%安全%精神分裂癥%奧氮平
리고립동%치료결과%안전%정신분렬증%오담평
Risperidone%Treatment outcome%Safety%Schizophrenia%Olanzapine
目的 比较奥氮平与利培酮对难治性精神分裂症的疗效及安全性.方法 68例难治性精神分裂症患者按照排列表法随机分为奥氮平组[34例,(24.1±5.4)mg/d]和利培酮组[34例,(7.9±1.8)mg/d],疗程均为12周.采用阳性和阴性症状量表(PANSS)、临床总体印象量表(CGI)及治疗中需处理的不良反应症状量表(TESS),在治疗前及治疗第1,2,4,8,12周末分别评定疗效和不良反应.结果 (1)奥氮平组PANSS总分、阳性症状分、阴性症状分及一般病理分均从治疗第2周末起较治疗前下降(P<0.05～0.01);利培酮组PANSS总分、阳性症状分、一般病理分从治疗第2周末起,阴性症状分从第4周末起,较治疗前下降(P<0.05～0.01);奥氮平组从治疗第2周末起各时点PANSS总分、阴性症状分均低于利培酮组(P<0.05～0.01).(2)治疗第2周末起,2组临床总体印象量表-严重程度和改善程度(CGI-SI)总分均较治疗前下降(P<0.05～0.01);2组间各时点CGI-SI分的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).(3)治疗第12周末,奥氮平组、利培酮组临床总有效率分别为65%、41%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).(4)奥氮平组、利培酮组不良反应发生率分别为53%(18/34)和59%(20/34),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);奥氮平组体质量增加发生率高于利培酮组(P<0.05);利培酮组静坐不能、异常泌乳和(或)闭经、肌张力增高的发生率高于奥氮平组(P<0.05).结论 奥氮平对难治性精神分裂症有良好疗效,不良反应轻微.
目的 比較奧氮平與利培酮對難治性精神分裂癥的療效及安全性.方法 68例難治性精神分裂癥患者按照排列錶法隨機分為奧氮平組[34例,(24.1±5.4)mg/d]和利培酮組[34例,(7.9±1.8)mg/d],療程均為12週.採用暘性和陰性癥狀量錶(PANSS)、臨床總體印象量錶(CGI)及治療中需處理的不良反應癥狀量錶(TESS),在治療前及治療第1,2,4,8,12週末分彆評定療效和不良反應.結果 (1)奧氮平組PANSS總分、暘性癥狀分、陰性癥狀分及一般病理分均從治療第2週末起較治療前下降(P<0.05～0.01);利培酮組PANSS總分、暘性癥狀分、一般病理分從治療第2週末起,陰性癥狀分從第4週末起,較治療前下降(P<0.05～0.01);奧氮平組從治療第2週末起各時點PANSS總分、陰性癥狀分均低于利培酮組(P<0.05～0.01).(2)治療第2週末起,2組臨床總體印象量錶-嚴重程度和改善程度(CGI-SI)總分均較治療前下降(P<0.05～0.01);2組間各時點CGI-SI分的差異無統計學意義(P>0.05).(3)治療第12週末,奧氮平組、利培酮組臨床總有效率分彆為65%、41%,差異有統計學意義(P<0.05).(4)奧氮平組、利培酮組不良反應髮生率分彆為53%(18/34)和59%(20/34),差異無統計學意義(P>0.05);奧氮平組體質量增加髮生率高于利培酮組(P<0.05);利培酮組靜坐不能、異常泌乳和(或)閉經、肌張力增高的髮生率高于奧氮平組(P<0.05).結論 奧氮平對難治性精神分裂癥有良好療效,不良反應輕微.
목적 비교오담평여리배동대난치성정신분렬증적료효급안전성.방법 68례난치성정신분렬증환자안조배렬표법수궤분위오담평조[34례,(24.1±5.4)mg/d]화리배동조[34례,(7.9±1.8)mg/d],료정균위12주.채용양성화음성증상량표(PANSS)、림상총체인상량표(CGI)급치료중수처리적불량반응증상량표(TESS),재치료전급치료제1,2,4,8,12주말분별평정료효화불량반응.결과 (1)오담평조PANSS총분、양성증상분、음성증상분급일반병리분균종치료제2주말기교치료전하강(P<0.05～0.01);리배동조PANSS총분、양성증상분、일반병리분종치료제2주말기,음성증상분종제4주말기,교치료전하강(P<0.05～0.01);오담평조종치료제2주말기각시점PANSS총분、음성증상분균저우리배동조(P<0.05～0.01).(2)치료제2주말기,2조림상총체인상량표-엄중정도화개선정도(CGI-SI)총분균교치료전하강(P<0.05～0.01);2조간각시점CGI-SI분적차이무통계학의의(P>0.05).(3)치료제12주말,오담평조、리배동조림상총유효솔분별위65%、41%,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).(4)오담평조、리배동조불량반응발생솔분별위53%(18/34)화59%(20/34),차이무통계학의의(P>0.05);오담평조체질량증가발생솔고우리배동조(P<0.05);리배동조정좌불능、이상비유화(혹)폐경、기장력증고적발생솔고우오담평조(P<0.05).결론 오담평대난치성정신분렬증유량호료효,불량반응경미.
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and risperidone in treatment of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.Methods A total of 68 patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia were randomly assigned to olanzapine group and risperidone group, and received olanzapine or risperidone treatment for 12 weeks respectively.The efficacy and adverse events were assessed with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) and Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale(TESS) at week 0 and 1,2,4,8,12.Results The PANSS scores in both groups decreased significantly after treatment (P< 0.05-0.01).The PANSS total score and negative syndrome score in olanzapine group were significant lower than that in risperidone group at each time point from 2nd weekend after treatment (P<0.05 - 0.01 ).The CGI-SI score in both groups decreased significantly after treatment ( P < 0.05 - 0.01 ).The differences in CGI-SI score at each time point in both groups were not significant (P>0.05).The response rate was higher in olanzapine group than risperidone group ( P<0.05).There were similar rates of side effects between both groups(P>0.05), with olanzapine being associated with more weight gain, and risperidone with more akathisia, abnormal lactation and/or menostasia,hypermyotonia.Conclusion The results suggest olanzapine be of good efficacy and less side effects in the treatment of treatment-resistant schizophrenia in comparison with risperidone.
