CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较利培酮口服液与奥氮平治疗老年人脑血管病所致精神障碍的疗效及安全性。方法：把67例年龄≥60岁的脑血管病所致精神障碍的老年患者分为两组,分别给予服用利培酮口服液(1.9依0.78)ml/d或奥氮平(6.75依2.65)mg/d,疗程为4周。采用简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)、临床疗效总评量表(CGI)及不良反应量表(TESS)于治疗前和治疗后第1、2、4周末分别评定疗效和不良反应。结果：(1)利培酮口服液组患者的治疗有效率为76.4%,奥氮平组患者的治疗有效率为75.7%,差异无统计学意义(x2=0.006,P>0.05)；(2)两组治疗前后BPRS评分的差异均有统计学意义(配对t检验,P<0.05)；(3)两组间CGI评分的差异无统计学意义(Z1周=0.57,Z2周=0.75,Z4周=0.67, P>0.05)；(4)TESS评定,两组间患者治疗的不良反应发生率的差异无统计学意义。治疗期间利培酮口服液组与奥氮平组患者治疗合用盐酸苯海索,差异无统计学意义(x2=3.608,P>0.05)；利培酮口服液合用苯二氮类药者多于奥氮平组,差异有统计学意义(x2=6.788,P<0.05)。结论：利培酮口服液和奥氮平对老年人脑血管病所致精神障碍有效,安全性较好。
목적：비교리배동구복액여오담평치료노년인뇌혈관병소치정신장애적료효급안전성。방법：파67례년령≥60세적뇌혈관병소치정신장애적노년환자분위량조,분별급여복용리배동구복액(1.9의0.78)ml/d혹오담평(6.75의2.65)mg/d,료정위4주。채용간명정신병평정량표(BPRS)、림상료효총평량표(CGI)급불량반응량표(TESS)우치료전화치료후제1、2、4주말분별평정료효화불량반응。결과：(1)리배동구복액조환자적치료유효솔위76.4%,오담평조환자적치료유효솔위75.7%,차이무통계학의의(x2=0.006,P>0.05)；(2)량조치료전후BPRS평분적차이균유통계학의의(배대t검험,P<0.05)；(3)량조간CGI평분적차이무통계학의의(Z1주=0.57,Z2주=0.75,Z4주=0.67, P>0.05)；(4)TESS평정,량조간환자치료적불량반응발생솔적차이무통계학의의。치료기간리배동구복액조여오담평조환자치료합용염산분해색,차이무통계학의의(x2=3.608,P>0.05)；리배동구복액합용분이담류약자다우오담평조,차이유통계학의의(x2=6.788,P<0.05)。결론：리배동구복액화오담평대노년인뇌혈관병소치정신장애유효,안전성교호。
Objective:To compare efficacy and safety of risperidone oral solution and olanzapine in treatment of mental disor-ders due to cerebrovascular disease in the elderly. Methods:A total of 67 cases (≥60 years old) with mental disorders due to cerebro-vascular disease were divided into risperidone oral solution group [34 cases, (1. 9±0. 78) ml/d, 4 weeks] and olanzapine [33 cases, (6. 75±2. 65) ml/d, 4 weeks]. Brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS), clinical global impression (CGI-SI) and treatment emergent symptom scale (TESS) were adopted to evaluate the efficacy and side effects at base line and 1, 2 and 4 weeks after the treatment. Re-sults:(1) After 4 weeks' treatment, the response rate between risperidone oral solution group and olanzapine group was statistically in-significant (76. 4% vs 75. 7%, x2=0. 006, P>0. 05). (2) The BPRS scores of the two groups before and after the treatment both had the statistical significance (paired T test, P<0. 05). (3) The CGI-SI score was not significantly different between the two groups 1, 2, and 4 weeks after the treatment. (Z1w=0. 57, Z2w=0. 75, Z4w=0. 67, all P>0. 05). (4) The TESS showed the rate and severi-ty of side effects did not differ between the two groups (P>0. 05). The co-medications for extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was no significantly different between the two groups (x2=3. 608, P>0. 05). The co-medications for anxiety was significantly less frequent in olanzapine group than that in risperidone oral solution group(x2 =6. 788, P<0. 05). Conclusions: Risperidone oral solution and olanzapine are both effective and safe for the elderly with mental disorders due to cerebrovascular disease.