奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效与其血药浓度的相关性分析

目的　探讨奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效、副反应与血药浓度的关系 ,有效血药浓度的范围。方法　用阴性与阳性症状量表 (PANSS)、简明精神病评定量表 (BPRS)、社会功能缺陷筛选量表 (SDSS)和副反应量表 (TESS)评定疗效和副反应 ;用反相高效液相色谱法测定病人第 1、8周末的奥氮平血药浓度。结果　奥氮平能明显降低精神分裂症病人的阳性和阴性症状评分 (P <0 0 1) ,副反应主要为嗜睡、口干和体重增加。奥氮平的血药浓度个体差异较大 ,最高浓度为 5 9 83ng/mL ,最低浓度为 3 71ng/mL ,在此浓度范围内 ,奥氮平血药浓度与剂量成正相关 (r=0 3 3 ,P =0 0 2 1)。血药浓度大于 9ng/mL的病人疗效较好 (P <0 0 1) ;BPRS和SDSS的减分率与奥氮平血药浓度之间呈正相关 (P <0 0 5 )。结论　奥氮平能有效治疗精神分裂症 ,改善其社会功能障碍 ;其治疗精神分裂症的疗效与血药浓度有相关性 ,9ng/mL是奥氮平治疗精神分裂症适宜血药浓度的下限。     

奥氮平治疗精神分裂症70例临床分析

目的 了解奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效和安全性。方法 对70例精神分裂症病人用奥氮平治疗6周,以阳性和阴性症状量表(PANSS)和简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)评定临床疗效。以副反应量表(TESS)和实验室监测评价安全性。于基线时、实验第1、2、4、6周末分别评定各量表。统计方法为描述性分析和配对t检验。结果 共收集有效病例70例,其中基本痊愈24.2％(17/70),显著进步37.1％(26/70),好转21.4％(15/70)和无效17.1％(12/70)。BPRS总分、PANSS总分、PANSS各分量表分治疗前后比较均有显著性差异(P<0.001)。奥氮平对阳性、阴性症状以及一般精神病症状均有良好疗效。常见副反应为胆碱能作用、嗜睡、体重增加和一过性肝酶升高等。结论 奥氮平是一种安全有效、服用方便的新型抗精神病药物,病人的服药依从性好。     

精神分裂症患者奥氮平治疗的血药浓度与剂量及临床效应的关系

目的　观察奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的血药浓度与剂量和临床效应的关系。方法　 6 0例精神分裂症患者 ,其中男 4 0例 ,女 2 0例 ;入组时阳性和阴性症状量表 (PANSS)总分≥ 70分 ,随机分为 :奥氮平低剂量组 (0 0 9mg·kg-1·d-1) 15例 ,中剂量组 (0 .18mg·kg-1·d-1) 30例 ,高剂量组(0 36mg·kg-1·d-1) 15例 ,疗程为 8周。在治疗前及治疗后第 2 ,4 ,6 ,8周末评定PANSS、临床疗效总评量表和副反应量表 (TESS)。采用高效液相色谱法测定治疗后第 4 ,8周末奥氮平血浓度。结果　 (1)血药浓度与日剂量呈正相关 (r =0 5 6 7,P <0 0 1)。 (2 )血药浓度 10～ 2 0 μg/L组的疗效明显优于 <10 μg/L组 (P <0 0 5 ) ;与 >2 0 μg/L组的差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 )。(3)血药浓度与TESS评分无相关 (r=0 2 4 7,P >0 0 5 ) ;与丙氨酸转氨酶升高呈正相关 (r =0 35 ,P <0 0 5 )。结论　奥氮平是一种有效的抗精神病药 ,有效血药浓度的低限为 10 μg/L ;血药浓度测定对指导临床用药具有实际意义。     

奥氮平与氯丙嗪治疗精神分裂症对照研究

目的:比较奥氮平与氯丙嗪治疗精神分裂症伴阳性症状的疗效及不良反应。方法:对86例精神分裂症患者,随机分为奥氮平组(42例)和氯丙嗪组(44例)。疗程8周。采用简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)、阳性症状量表(SAPS)及副反应量表(TESS)评定疗效及安全性。结果:奥氮平和氯丙嗪治疗精神分裂症伴阳性症状的疗效相当,均无严重不良反应。奥氮平对焦虑抑郁、缺乏活力、激越冲动及行为障碍的疗效优于氯丙嗪。结论:奥氮平是一种安全有效的抗精神病药,特别是在改善认知功能和阳性症状方面疗效较好。     

奥氮平治疗精神病性障碍36例初步观察

目的 了解奥氮平治疗各类精神病的有效性及副反应.方法 对36例各类精神病人单一使用奥氮平治疗6周,采用PANSS、BPRS和TESS量表评价疗效和副反应.结果 显效率为80.5%,副反应罕见,平均日剂量为9.5±2.3 mg.结论 奥氮平对多种精神病症状有效,极少副反应,适用于各年龄组,病人依从性好.     

奥氮平治疗以阴性症状为主的精神分裂症对照研究

目的：评价奥氮平对以阴性着状为主的精神分裂症的疗效和副作用。方法：对40例以阴性症状为主的精神分裂症住院病人随机分为两组,每组20例,分别服用奥氮平或舒必利,治疗6周。采用简明精神病评定量表（BPRS）、湖南精神病协会制定的阴性症状量表[NEN(Ⅲ）]、大体功能评定量表（GAS）、不良反应症状量表（TESS）等评定疗效和副作用。结果;奥氮平组的疗效明显优于舒必利组,且无明显副反应。结论：奥氮平是一种安全有效的抗精神病药,对精神分裂症的阴性症状及情感有显著的疗效,病人服用方便,依从性好。     

氯氮平治疗精神分裂症疗效与血药浓度的关系

氯氮平系非典型抗精神病药物,以往关于其临床疗效与血药浓度之间关系的报道结果不一,为此选择了30例符合ICD—10与CCMD—2—R诊断标准的偏执型与未定型精神分裂症病人进行氯氮平固定剂量300mg/日,为期8周的研究。治疗前和治疗后第1、2、4、8周末取血检测氯氮平血药浓度,同时用简明精神病症状评定量表(BPRS)及副反应量表(TESS)对疗效与副反应进行评定。结果:有效率为80％,无效率为20％,氯氮平血浓度最佳截断值为300ng/ml。30例病人中≥此值者21例,其中有效组19例(90％),占整个有效组的79％(灵敏度),无效组2例(10％),占整个无效组的33％(假阳性),<此值者9例,其中有效组5例(21％假阴性),无效组4例(67％特异度)。用氯氮平血药浓度指导治疗精神分裂症病人的的氯氮平用量具有临床意义。     

奥氮平治疗儿童精神分裂症30例疗效观察

目的：了解奥氮平治疗儿童精神分裂症的有效性及不良反应。方法：对30例儿童精神分裂症患者使用奥氮平治疗6周，采用阳性与阴性症状量表(PANSS)，简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)和副反应量表(TESS)评价疗效和不良反应。结果：奥氮平治疗显效率为86．7％。常见不良反应为体重增加。结论：奥氮平疗效好，不良反应少，服用简便，依从性好，适用于儿童精神分裂症患者。     

国产甲硫达嗪治疗精神分裂症阳性阴性症状双盲对照及血药浓度测定

以氯氮平做双盲对照，用国产甲硫达嗪治疗精神分裂症６周，简明精神病量表、临床疗效总量表、阳性症状量表、阴性症状量表、副反应量表评定发现，国产甲硫达嗪对阳性、阴性症状有同样显著的疗效，且与氯氮平相当。锥外系副反应轻微，病人容易耐受。高效液相色谱仪测定发现，国产甲硫达嗪血药浓度超出１．４９～２．４６μｍｏｌ／Ｌ时，副反应增加。     

奥氮平口服冲击疗法与氟哌啶醇肌注治疗精神病激越状态的随机开放性对照研究

目的 验证奥氮平口服冲击疗法治疗精神病激越状态的疗效和安全性.方法 将69例符合激越状态标准的住院患者随机分入口服奥氮平冲击治疗组(34例)和氟哌啶醇肌注组(35例),进行1周相应治疗方案的开放式研究.采用阳性和阴性症状量表兴奋因子分(PANSS-EC)、阳性症状分、临床总体印象量表评定疗效,副反应量表(TESS)、锥体外系副反应量表(RSESE)等评定安全性.结果 治疗结束时,PANSS-EC减分率、临床总有效率奥氮平组分别为(76.6±26.5)%和78.8%,氟哌啶醇组分别为(69.7±24.8)%和76.1%,2组疗效差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).奥氮平组的不良反应较少,锥体外系反应如肌强直和震颤的发生率(8.8%和0%)显著低于氟哌啶醇组(51.4%和37.1%)(P均小于0.01).结论 奥氮平冲击疗法对激越状态的疗效与氟哌啶醇肌注治疗相当,安全性良好,可适于临床应用.     

Olanzapine in the treatment of dopamimetic-induced psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies in elderly patients demonstrate antipsychotic efficacy and favorable safety profiles for olanzapine. We report results from two placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of olanzapine for treatment of dopamimetic drug-induced psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Patients were treated with olanzapine or placebo for 4 weeks while dopamimetic therapy was held constant. Olanzapine was initiated at 2.5 mg/day, with 2.5-mg/day increases allowed every 3 to 4 days up to the maximum dose of 15 mg/day. RESULTS: Olanzapine patients showed significant improvements from baseline on positive symptoms and most efficacy measures, but no significant treatment-group differences were observed. Olanzapine performed significantly worse than placebo in both studies on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) total, Motor, and Activities of Daily Living scales, but not the UPDRS Tremor item or Complications scores. Corrected QT interval, vital signs, and body weight were not significantly different from placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These findings did not demonstrate superior efficacy of olanzapine for treatment of dopamimetic-induced psychosis in PD. The initial dose-titration schedule and mild baseline levels of psychosis may account for these findings. Future studies involving gradual dose titration are needed to explore further olanzapine's optimum use for patients with PD with treatment-related psychosis.     

奥氮平治疗酒精所致精神障碍对照研究

目的:探讨奥氮平对酒精所致精神障碍的临床疗效. 方法:66例患者随机分入两组,分别服用奥氮平或氟哌啶醇6周,用阳性与阴性症状量表(PANSS)和副反应量表(TESS)评定疗效和不良反应. 结果:奥氮平组有效率69.7%,显著较氟哌啶醇组42.4%为高. 结论:奥氮平对酒精所致精神障碍的临床疗效优于氟哌啶醇,且不良反应较少.     

奥氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症临床观察

目的：评价奥氮平对难治性精神分裂症的疗效与不良反应。方法：对难治性精神分裂症80例换用奥氮平治疗24周。用阳性症状和阴性症状量表(PANSS)评定疗效，用副反应量表(TESS)及锥体外系副反应量表(ESRS)评定不良反应。结果：PANSS量表总分及各分量表评分疗后均有显著下降。最常见的不良反应是体重增加。结论：奥氮平对难治性精神分裂症疗效肯定，不良反应较轻。     

奥氮平与齐拉西酮对精神分裂症患者生活质量影响的对照研究

目的:比较奥氮平与齐拉西酮对精神分裂症患者生活质量的影响.方法:将68例精神分裂症患者随机分为2组,各34例,分别采用奥氮平和齐拉西酮治疗8周,分别于治疗前及治疗2、4、6、8周采用阳性和阴性症状量表(PANSS)评定疗效,用治疗中出现的症状量表(TESS)评定不良反应,用生活质量综合评定问卷( GQOLI-74)于治...     

奥氮平与利培酮治疗精神分裂症伴阳性症状的对照研究

目的比较奥氮平与利培酮治疗精神分裂症伴阳性症状的疗效及不良反应。方法对74例符合CCMD-3精神分裂症诊断标准的患者，随机分为奥氮平组(n=36)及利培酮组(n=38)进行治疗，分别在治疗前及治疗后第1、2、4、6及8周采用简明精神病量表(BPRS)，阳性症状量表(SAPS)及不良反应量表(TESS)评定其疗效及药物不良反应。结果奥氮平和利培酮治疗精神分裂症伴阳性症状的疗效相当，均对阳性症状有效，但奥氮平对焦虑抑郁、缺乏活动、激越冲动及行为障碍的效果优于利培酮；两药均无严重不良反应，但奥氮平的EPS、泌乳及月经紊乱发生率低于利培酮。结论奥氮平与利培酮治疗精神分裂症伴阳性症状均有效，前者不良反应更少、更安全。     

The treatment of negative symptoms and deficit states of chronic schizophrenia: olanzapine compared to amisulpride and placebo in a 6-month double-blind controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine (5 and 20 mg/day) over a 6-month period in chronic schizophrenic patients experiencing predominantly negative symptoms. METHOD: Two hundred and forty-four patients participated in a 6-month multicenter double-blind trial of placebo (n = 34), olanzapine 5 mg/day (n = 70), olanzapine 20 mg/day (n = 70), or amisulpride 150 mg/day (n = 70). Primary measure was the scale for the assessment of negative symptoms. RESULTS: Olanzapine 5 mg/day showed significantly greater improvement than placebo in negative symptoms and in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score. Baseline positive symptoms were low at baseline and changed minimally. The neurological tolerance of olanzapine, amisulpride and placebo were comparable. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine 5 mg/day was effective in treating negative symptoms in a group of schizophrenic with predominantly negative symptoms during the stabilization phase. Improvement in positive symptoms or extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was unlikely to explain this result while improvement in depression may have partially contributed.     

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of dialectical behavior therapy plus olanzapine for borderline personality disorder

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of dialectical behavior therapy plus olanzapine compared with dialectical behavior therapy plus placebo in patients with borderline personality disorder. METHOD: Sixty patients with borderline personality disorder were included in a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. All patients received dialectical behavior therapy and were randomly assigned to receive either olanzapine or placebo following a 1-month baseline period. RESULTS: Seventy percent of the patients completed the 4-month trial. Combined treatment showed an overall improvement in most symptoms studied in both groups. Olanzapine was associated with a statistically significant improvement over placebo in depression, anxiety, and impulsivity/aggressive behavior. The mean dose of olanzapine was 8.83 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: A combined psychotherapeutic plus pharmacological approach appears to lower dropout rates and constitutes an effective treatment for borderline personality disorder.     

Olanzapine versus placebo in the treatment of borderline personality disorder

BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotics are increasingly used in clinical practice in the management of borderline personality disorder (BPD), and a small but growing body of literature supports their efficacy. Here, we report the results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of olanzapine as a treatment for BPD. METHOD: Forty BPD patients (25 female, 15 male) were randomly assigned in equal numbers to olanzapine and placebo. Diagnoses were made using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders and the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or current major depression were excluded. Olanzapine dosage was flexible, and the dose range was 2.5 to 20 mg/day, with most patients receiving 5 to 10 mg/day. No concomitant psychotropic medications were allowed. Patients were assessed at baseline and at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the total score for the 9 BPD criteria on a 1-to-7 Likert scale, the Clinical Global Impressions scale modified for borderline personality disorder (CGI-BPD), using an analysis of covariance model including baseline score as covariate. Data were collected from July 2000 to April 2002. RESULTS: Olanzapine was found to be significantly (p <.05) superior to placebo on the CGI-BPD at endpoint, with separation occurring as early as 4 weeks. Similar results were found for the single-item Clinical Global Impressions scale. Weight gain was significantly (p =.027) greater in the olanzapine group. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the efficacy of olanzapine for symptoms of BPD in a mixed sample of women and men. Further studies with olanzapine and other atypical antipsychotics are needed.     

Olanzapine and haloperidol in first episode psychosis: two-year data

Few studies have assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of atypical and typical antipsychotic medications in patients within their first episode of psychosis. This study examined the effectiveness of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine and the typical antipsychotic haloperidol in patients experiencing their first episode of a schizophrenia-related psychotic disorder over a 2-year treatment period. Two hundred and sixty-three patients were randomized to olanzapine or haloperidol in a doubleblind, multisite, international 2-year study. Clinical symptoms and side effects were assessed at baseline and longitudinally following randomization for the duration of the study. Olanzapine and haloperidol treatment were both associated with substantial and comparable reductions in symptom severity (the primary outcome measure) over the course of the study. However, the treatment groups differed on two secondary efficacy measures. Patients were less likely to discontinue treatment with olanzapine than with haloperidol: mean time (in days) in the study was significantly greater for those treated with olanzapine compared to haloperidol (322.09 vs. 230.38, p<0.0085). Moreover, remission rates were greater in patients treated with olanzapine as compared to those treated with haloperidol (57.25% vs. 43.94%, p<0.036). While extrapyramidal side effects were greater in those treated with haloperidol, weight gain, cholesterol level and liver function values were greater in patients treated with olanzapine. The data from this study suggest some clinical benefits for olanzapine as compared to haloperidol in first episode patients, which must be weighed against those adverse effects that are more likely with olanzapine.