利培酮治疗首发精神分裂症的临床疗效观察

目的：观察利培酮治疗首发精神分裂症的疗效，副反应及最佳剂量。方法：首次使用可变剂量的利培酮治疗首发精神分裂症8周，使用阳性和阴性症状量表（PANSS）及不良反应症状量表（TESS）分别评定疗效和副反应。结果：全部病例完成8周治疗。治疗前后PANSS减分率比较，差异有极显著性（P＜0．001），显效率为81．63％，有效率达95．92％，起效时间在第2－4周，最佳剂量≤4mg/d，低剂量组（≤4mg/d)PANSS减分率大于高剂量组（＞4mg/d)，较多见副反应为EPS（20．41％），结论：低剂量利培酮（≤4mg/d)治疗首发精神分裂症安全，有效，病人依从性好。     

齐拉西酮与奥氮平治疗精神分裂症对照研究

目的：探讨齐拉西酮与奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效及安全性。方法：共59例精神分裂症，分别以齐拉西酮（30例）及奥氮平（29例）治疗。采用阳性与阴性症状量表（PANSS）、治疗中出现的症状量表（TESS）评定疗效及不良反应。结果：齐拉西酮组有效率为80．0％，显效率为63．3％，与奥氮平组相当，对阴性症状疗效优于奥氮平组。结论：齐拉西酮治疗精神分裂症疗效较好，不良反应较少。     

奥氮平与氟哌啶醇治疗精神分裂症急性期的临床研究

目的 比较奥氮平与氟哌啶醇治疗精神分裂症急性期的疗效及安全性.方法 奥氮平组30例,剂量范围10～20mg/d;氟哌啶醇组30例,剂量范围5～20mg/d,两组均以PANSS、CGI量表及TESS、RSESE量表评定观察2周.结果 奥氮平组治疗精神分裂症急性期症状与氟哌啶醇组相比总体疗效相当.奥氮平组PANSS兴奋激越因子减分在第1周末（t=3.16,P＜0.05）及2周末（t=3.59,P＜0.05）优于氟哌啶醇组.奥氮平组的药物不良反应小.结论 奥氮平治疗精神分裂症伴兴奋激越症状患者疗效较肯定,起效较快,副反应较小,安全性良好.     

奥氮平治疗精神分裂症临床观察

目的：探讨奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效与安全性。方法：对123例精神分裂症患者随机分成两组，奥氮平组61例，氯氮平组62例，于治疗前和治疗1、2、4、6、8周末进行阳性与阴性症状量表（PANSS）及副反应量表（TESS）评定疗效及不良反应。结果：奥氮平与氯氮平总的疗效差异无显著性；在认知因子和阴性症状方面，以奥氮平显著较好。奥氮平主要不良反应明显低于氯氮平。结论：奥氮平是一种安全、有效的非典型抗精神病药。     

奥氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症生活质量研究

目的：评价国产奥氮平替代氯氮平对难治性精神分裂症患者的疗效与生活质量的影响。方法：对60例服用氯氮平的难治性精神分裂症患者换用奥氮平治疗12周。采用阳性与阴性症状量表（PANSS）评定疗效，用治疗中出现的症状量表（TESS）评定不良反应，使用健康状况问卷（SF-36）评定患者生活质量。结果：PANSS总分及阴性症状评分在治疗后有显著下降，某些不良反应比替换前明显减少。与治疗前相比较，治疗后生理机能（PF）、生理职能（RP）、生命活力（VT）、情感职能（RE）评分及SF-36总分显著升高。结论：奥氮平对难治性精神分裂症疗效肯定，安全性高，对阴性症状的治疗效果优于氯氮平，能更好改善患者的生活质量。     

维思通与奥氮平对首发性精神分裂症患者个人和社会功能影响的对照研究

目的 探讨维思通与奥氮平用于首发性精神分裂症住院治疗患者的个人和社会功能的恢复.方法 在为期12周的双盲研究中,首发性精神分裂症患者被随机分为维思通组、奥氮平组.靶剂量为药物的最大推荐剂量：维思通为6 mg/d、奥氮平为30 mg/d.主要疗效指标是在12周单药治疗结束时比较维思通组和奥氮平组的个人和社会功能量表（PSP）均分、阳性和阴性症状量表（PANSS）总分变化差异.结果 在12周单药治疗结束时,维思通组的PANSS评分与奥氮平组无显著差异（P＞0.05）,但维思通组的PSP均分改善优于奥氮平组（P＜0.01）.结论 对于首发性精神分裂症患者,与奥氮平相比,维思通能够更显著的改善患者个人和社会功能,早日回归社会.     

不同剂量奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效及对患者糖、脂代谢的影响

目的:探讨不同剂量奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效及对患者糖、脂代谢的影响。方法:96例精神分裂症患者随机分为奥氮平低剂量组(50例,<10mg/d)和高剂量组(46例,>10mg/d);分别于治疗前、治疗2、4、8周末采用阳性与阴性症状量表(PANSS)进行评分,并检测体质量指数(BMI)、血糖及血脂;8周末评价疗效。结果:低剂量组和高剂量组起效时间和疗效比较差异无统计学意义;与治疗前相比,8周末低剂量组总胆固醇明显增高(P<0.05);高剂量组BMI、血糖、总胆固醇和甘油三酯明显增高(P<0.05或P<0.01)。结论:奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的剂量范围内,低剂量和高剂量起效时间及疗效相当,但均可影响脂代谢;高剂量对血糖、血脂代谢的影响更明显。     

奥氮平与氯氮平治疗精神分裂症对照研究

目的探讨奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效和安全性。方法将60例精神分裂症患者随机分为研究组和对照组，每组各30例。研究组应用奥氮平治疗，起始剂量5mg／d，第2天增至10mg／d，最大剂量≤20mg／d；对照组应用氯氮平治疗，起始剂量50mg／d，1周内递增到300mg／d，最大剂量≤600mg／d。疗程均为8周。分别于治疗前及治疗第1、2、4、8周末，采用阳性和阴性症状量表评定临床疗效，副反应量表评定不良反应。结果奥氮平有效率76．66％，氯氮平有效率70％；奥氮平在阴性症状方面优于氯氮平，两组比较差异有显著性（P〈0．05），奥氮平组主要不良反应有轻度头昏、瞌睡、体质量增加等。结论奥氮平是一种安全有效的抗精神病药物，对改善急性期精神症状以及阴性症状方面，优于氯氮平。     

奥氮平联合氯氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症患者的疗效观察

目的：观察奥氮平联合氯氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症的疗效和不良反应。方法：50例难治性精神分裂症患者随机分为合用药组和单用药组各25例。合用药组给予奥氮平合并小剂量氯氮平治疗,单用药组仅给予奥氮平治疗。疗程12周。采用阳性与阴性症状量表（PANSS）及治疗中出现的症状量表（TESS）于治疗前及治疗4、8、12周分别评定疗效和不良反应。结果：治疗后两组PANSS总分、阳性症状及阴性症状分均较治疗前明显降低（P〈0.05或P〈0.01）,以合用药组显著低于单用药组（P〈0.05）。两组不良反应比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论：奥氮平联合氯氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症疗效好,不良反应少且依从性好。     

奥氮平治疗老年期难治性精神分裂症临床分析

目的：评价奥氮平治疗老年期难治性精神分裂症的疗效与安全性. 方法：用奥氮平治疗老年期难治性精神分裂症患者62例.疗程16周.采用阳性与阴性症状量表（PANSS）评价临床疗效,副反应量表（TESS）评价不良反应. 结果：PANSS总分、阳性症状、阴性症状及一般精神病理分在治疗前后差异有显著性.有效率为58.1%,显效率为32.3%,未见严重的不良反应. 结论：奥氮平对老年期难治性精神分裂症安全有效,服用方便.     

An open-label study of olanzapine in children and adolescents with schizophrenia

The purpose of this open-label study was to evaluate the use of olanzapine in the treatment of children and adolescents with schizophrenia. Sixteen children who were 8-17 years of age and met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia were admitted into a 10-week, open-label, optimizing dose study of olanzapine. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity/Improvement scales were used to assess improvement during the study. Of the 16 subjects who completed the study, 12 demonstrated significant improvement on end of treatment BPRS, CGI, and PANSS scores compared with baseline. Male subjects showed greater improvement and also gained more weight. Weight gain occurred in all but 2 subjects. Weight gain was significant, with patients averaging a gain of about 6.2 kg during the 6-week course of the study. Two of the subjects experienced extrapyramidal symptoms. The average dose of olanzapine for all subjects was 0.17 mg/kg.     

帕利哌酮缓释片治疗急性精神分裂症疗效及安全性的对照研究

Objective The study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of flexible doses of paliperidone extended-release tablets (paliperidone ER) (3 -12) mg/d comparing with olanzapine (5 -15)mg/d in acute hospitalized patients with schizophrenia. Methods All 288 hospitalized patients with DSM-Ⅳ schizophrenia were randomized into paliperidone ER ( n = 143 ) or olanzapine ( n=145 ) treatment in a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study. The primary efficacy measure was the total score changes of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Clinical Global Impression (CGI),response rate and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were adopted as secondary efficacy measures. Results Both paliperidone ER and olanzapine groups demonstrated a significant improvement in total PANSS score (P<0.001). The PANSS total score in paliperidone ER group was reduced (32.3 ± 17.1) at end point,and olanzapine group (34.1 ± 17.4). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P =0.369) after 6-week treatment. There were no statistical differences between two groups in CGI,response rate and VAS sleep quality assessments by the end of the treatment. The common adverse events were extrapyramidal symptoms, insomnia, constipation and prolactin increasing in paliperidone ER group,and somnolenee, EPS, abnormal liver function and abnormal lipid metabolism in olanzapine group.Conclusion Paliperidone ER and olanzapine are similarly effective in significantly improving the symptoms of inpatient with acute schizophrenia. Paliperidone ER demonstrates a favorable safety profile with fewer somnolence, abnormal liver function and abnormal lipid metabolism comparing with olanzapine.     

奥氮平与氯丙嗪治疗精神分裂症急性期的对照研究

目的 比较奥氮平与氯丙嗪治疗精神分裂症急性期的疗效和安全性。方法 奥氮平组36例，剂量5—20mg／d；氯丙嗪组32例，剂量100-400mg／d。两组均以PANSS、CGI及TESS量表评定2周。结果两组总体疗效相当，奥氮平组PANSS兴奋激越因子减分在第5天（t=3．47，P〈0．05）、1周末（t=3．21，P〈0．05）及2周末（t=3．64，P〈0．05）优于氯丙嗪组。结论奥氮平治疗精神分裂症急性期的疗效肯定，起效较快，不良反应较小，且安全性良好。     

Randomized double blind comparison of olanzapine vs. clozapine on subjective well-being and clinical outcome in patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE: This randomized double-blind multicenter trial evaluated the effects of olanzapine vs. clozapine on subjective well-being, quality of life (QOL) and clinical outcome. METHOD: The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of olanzapine, mean dosage 16.2 +/- 4.8 (5-25 mg/day) vs. clozapine, mean dosage 209 +/- 91 (100-400 mg/day) regarding improvement on the 'Subjective Well-Being under Neuroleptic Treatment' (SWN) Scale after 26 treatment weeks in 114 patients with schizophrenia. Secondary outcome parameters included: Munich QOL Dimension List (MLDL), Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression (CGI). RESULTS: SWN scores improved significantly in both groups, olanzapine was non-inferior to clozapine (group difference 3.2 points in favor of olanzapine; 95% CI: 4.2;10.5). MLDL-satisfaction, PANSS and CGI-S improved similarly, olanzapine yielded a higher CGI Therapeutic Index. Individual SWN and PANSS changes correlated only moderately (r = -0.45). CONCLUSION: Olanzapine was non-inferior to clozapine. The lack of a marked correlation between PANSS and SWN improvements indicates that patients and psychiatrists perceive treatment differently.     

A prospective,open-label trial of olanzapine in adolescents with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that has efficacy in adults with psychotic disorders. This preliminary study examined the effectiveness of olanzapine in adolescents with schizophrenia or its related conditions. METHOD: Adolescents aged 12-17 years (inclusive) with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or schizophreniform disorder were enrolled in this 8-week, open-label, outpatient study. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI), and the Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) were administered as outcome measures. Extrapyramidal side effects were assessed at each visit. Olanzapine was initiated at a dose of 2.5 mg/day and could be increased to a maximum total daily dose of 20 mg. RESULTS: Sixteen participants with a mean age of 13.8 (SD = 1.5) years were treated. Significant improvements were found in the PANSS, CGI severity, and CGAS scores. Reductions in both positive and negative symptoms were found. Increased appetite and sedation were the most frequently reported side effects. Two subjects required treatment for extrapyramidal side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Psychotic symptoms significantly improved during study. Overall, olanzapine was well tolerated. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings, to assess long-term treatment outcomes, and to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine with that of other antipsychotics.     

Olanzapine vs. haloperidol in the treatment of elderly chronic schizophrenia patients

OBJECTIVE: Most of the data supporting the use of atypical antipsychotics (AA) is based on studies in young adult patients. The present study is an open-label naturalistic follow-up study of olanzapine treatment vs. haloperidol for elderly chronic schizophrenia patients. MEHTOD: 20 patients (mean age 72.7+/-5.9 years, mean disease duration 33.1+/-12.0 years) who met the DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to olanzapine (n=10) or haloperidol (n=10) treatment during acute exacerbation. Primary outcome measure was rating on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS). RESULTS: Between-group differences were computed using analysis of covariance. PANSS Total score decreased from 84 at baseline to 65 after treatment with olanzapine while decreased only from 79 to 74 with haloperidol treatment (F= 6.66, P=.02). PANSS Negative subscale decreased from 19 at baseline to 15 with olanzapine treatment while increased (deteriorated) from 18 to 20 with haloperidol treatment (F=23.37, P=.0003). CGI decreased from baseline with both olanzapine and haloperidol treatments (1.1 vs. 0.4) but the decrease in the olanzapine group was significantly greater (F=4.63, P=.05). Mean weight increased in both groups but without statistical difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly chronic schizophrenia patients, olanzapine treatment is superior to haloperidol in reducing negative symptoms as well as less induction of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS).     

Strategies for switching from conventional antipsychotic drugs or risperidone to olanzapine

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy and safety of 4 therapeutically relevant strategies for switching clinically stable patients from a conventional antipsychotic drug or risperidone to olanzapine. METHOD: Two hundred nine outpatients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizo-affective disorder who were clinically stable while being treated with a conventional antipsychotic drug or risperidone were openly randomly assigned to either abrupt or gradual discontinuation of their prior antipsychotic drug. Patients were further randomly assigned in a double-blind fashion to immediate olanzapine initiation (olanzapine, 10 mg q.d. for 3 weeks) or stepwise initiation (a sequence of 1 week each on placebo; olanzapine, 5 mg q.d.; and olanzapine, 10 mg q.d.). The efficacy of these 4 switching paradigms was assessed using the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-Improvement scale, Patient's Global Impressions (PGI)-Improvement scale, and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Safety assessments included ratings for extrapyramidal symptoms, cognitive impairment, adverse events, laboratory parameters, weight change, and vital signs. RESULTS: The paradigm of gradual antipsychotic drug discontinuation combined with an initial full dose of olanzapine, 10 mg/day, had the most favorable efficacy and tolerability profile overall. By week 3, the majority of completing patients on all 4 switching paradigms were either improved or clinically unchanged (> 90%). No clinically significant differences between switching paradigms were seen in laboratory values or vital signs. CONCLUSION: In this study, switching clinically stable outpatients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder to olanzapine was most successful when a full therapeutic dose of olanzapine was immediately initiated while gradually discontinuing prior conventional antipsychotic drug or risperidone treatment. Overall, switching was achieved without increased vulnerability to relapse or to occurrence of clinically burdensome antipsychotic drug withdrawal symptoms in the majority of patients.     

中、小剂量利培酮治疗首发精神分裂症患者的血药浓度与疗效关系的对照研究

目的探讨中、小剂量利培酮治疗精神分裂症患者的血药浓度、临床疗效及不良反应。方法将82例精神分裂症患者随机分为口服利培酮剂量2mg／d组和4nq·g／d组。采用RP—HPLC和LC—MS方法测定利培酮（RSP）和9-羟利培酮（9-OH—RSP）之和的血浆浓度。用阳性和阴性症状量表（PANSS）评定临床疗效,用不艮反应症状量表（TESS）评定不良反应。结果4mg／d组（RSP4-9-OH—RSP）血浓度均显著高于2mg／d组。2rag,／d组第l周末PANSS平均减分率〈20％,其它各周末PANSS平均减分率〉20％,而4mg／d组各周末PANSS平均减分率〉20％．2mg／d组TESS评分明显低于4mg／d组。结论（RSP＋9-OH—RSP）血浓度能较好地反映其临床效应。2mg／d和4mg／d利培酮治疗精神分裂症患者疗效相当,4mg／d利培酮治疗时起效更快,但易发生不良反应。     

International multisite double-blind trial of the atypical antipsychotics risperidone and olanzapine in 175 elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the effects of the two most commonly used atypical antipsychotics, risperidone and olanzapine, in elderly patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: In an 8-week, international, double-blind study, patients (outpatients, hospital inpatients, and residents of nursing or boarding homes) were randomly assigned to receive risperidone (1 mg to 3 mg/day) or olanzapine (5 mg to 20 mg/day). The main outcome measures were changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores and rates of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). RESULTS: Subjects were 175 patients age 60 years or over with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The mean duration of illness was 36.5 years. Median doses were 2 mg/day of risperidone and 10 mg/day of olanzapine. PANSS total scores and four of the five PANSS factor scores (positive symptoms, negative symptoms, disorganized thoughts, and anxiety/depression) improved significantly at all time-points and at endpoint in both groups; between-treatment differences were not significant. EPS-related adverse events were reported by 9.2% of patients in the risperidone group and 15.9% in the olanzapine group; the between-treatment difference was not significant. Total scores on the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale were reduced in both groups at endpoint; between-treatment differences were not significant. Clinically relevant weight gain was seen in both groups, but was significantly less frequent in risperidone patients than in olanzapine patients. CONCLUSIONS: Stable elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia receiving appropriate doses of risperidone or olanzapine over an 8-week period experienced significant reductions in the severity of psychotic and extrapyramidal symptoms, with a relatively low risk of side effects.     

A double-blind randomised comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine for 2 months in the treatment of subjects with schizophrenia and comorbid depression

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of amisulpride and olanzapine in subjects with schizophrenia and comorbid depression in a randomised double-blind trial. PATIENTS: Eighty-five adult patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia and presenting a depressive episode were randomised to amisulpride (200-600 mg/day) or olanzapine (5-15 mg/day) for 8 weeks. Primary efficacy variables were change in Calgary Depression Scale (CDS) score and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) of Change. Safety was monitored by adverse event reporting and determination of extrapyramidal function and metabolic variables. RESULTS: The mean change from baseline of CDS score was -6.84 in the amisulpride group and -7.36 in the olanzapine group. 65.9% and 61.5% of subjects, respectively, were considered "much" or "very much" improved. No significant inter-group difference in effect size was observed. The frequency of adverse events was low and emergence of extrapyramidal symptoms was not seen. Four patients in the olanzapine group developed abnormal triglyceride levels. Mean weight gain was 1.45 and 0.5 kg, respectively, in the olanzapine and amisulpride groups. CONCLUSION: Amisulpride and olanzapine are effective in patients with schizophrenia and comorbid depression. Tolerance of both drugs was acceptable, although use of olanzapine was associated with a trend toward greater metabolic side-effects .