利培酮替换典型抗精神病药治疗老年慢性精神分裂症阴性症状的疗效及安全性

目的评价利培酮替换典型抗精神病药治疗老年慢性精神分裂症患者阴性症状的疗效和安全性。方法53例老年慢性精神分裂症患者分为2组,观察组32例患者给予利培酮替换典型抗精神病药治疗,对照组21例患者继续接受典型抗精神病药治疗,治疗6个月。2组患者入组时(治疗前)和治疗1、3、6个月末分别进行阳性与阴性症状量表(PANSS)评定,应用治疗时出现的症状量表(TESS)评定不良反应。结果 2组患者治疗前PANSS总分、阴性因子和阳性因子评分比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组患者治疗1、3、6个月末PANSS总分、阴性因子和阳性因子评分均显著低于治疗前,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗1、3、6个月末,观察组患者PANSS总分、阴性因子和阳性因子评分均显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组患者治疗前TESS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。对照组患者治疗前与治疗1、3、6个月末TESS评分比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组患者治疗1、3、6个月末TESS评分显著低于治疗前,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组患者治疗1个月末时TESS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗3、6个月末,观察组患者TESS评分显著低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论利培酮替换典型抗精神病药治疗老年慢性精神分裂症阴性症状起效快,疗效好,不良反应少,安全性高,耐受性好。

Effect and safety of risperidone instead of conventional antipsychotics on chronic schizophrenia elderly patients with negative symptoms

Objective To evaluate the effect and safety of risperidone instead of conventional antipsychotics on chronic schizophrenia elderly patients with negative symptoms. Methods A total of 53 elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia were divided into observation group and control group,32 patients in observation group were treated with risperidone instead of conventional antipsychotics,21 patients in control group continued to receive conventional antipsychotics, all patients were treated for 6 months. All patients in the two groups were evaluated with positive and negative syndrome scale（PANSS） before treatment and the end of the 1^st, 3^rd, 6^th month after treatment; and the adverse reactions were evaluated with treatment emergent symptom scale （TESS）. Results There was no significant difference in the total score of PANSS, negative and positive factor scores between the two groups before treatment（ P 〉 0. 05 ）. The total score of PANSS, negative and positive factor scores at the end of the 1^st, 3^rd, 6^th month after treatment were significantly lower than those before treatment in the two groups（ P 〈 0.05 ）. At the end of the 1^st, 3^rd, 6^th month after treatment, the total score of PANSS, negative and positive factor scores in observation group were significantly lower than those in control group（ P 〈 0.05 ）. There was no significant difference in TESS scores between the two groups before treatment（ P 〉 0. 05 ）. There was no significant difference in TESS scores between pretherapy and the end of the 1^st, 3^rd, 6^th month after treatment in control group （ P 〉 0.05 ）. The TESS scores at the end of the 1^st, 3^rd, 6^th month after treatment were significantly lower than those before treatment（P 〈 0.05 ）. At the end of the 1^st month after treatment, there was no significant difference in TESS scores between the two groups （P 〉 0.05 ）. At the end of the 3^rd, 6^th month after treatment, the TESS scores in observation group were significantly lower than those in