Gaebel Wolfgang, Riesbeck M, Janssen B, Schneider F, Held Tilo, Mecklenburg Hermann, Sass Henning
Department of Psychiatry, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Bergische Landstrasse 2, 40629 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2003 Aug;253(4):175-84. doi: 10.1007/s00406-003-0422-9.
Atypical neuroleptics have improved drug treatment in schizophrenia. However, their use varies greatly between countries and continents. Recent metaanalyses have deemphasized the range and magnitude of their superiority compared to typical neuroleptics. Aims of the present study were to contribute effectiveness data to this discussion. In 725 inpatients with ICD-10 diagnoses F20, 22-25 from four German psychiatric inpatient units acute neuroleptic treatment and outcome were analyzed under naturalistic conditions. Treatment strategies were stratified post hoc to answer the question, which proportion - and which kind - of patients are primarily given atypicals or typicals, for how long, at which rate and when the atypical/typical drugs are switched to typical/atypical drugs, and what the respective outcomes are. As the results demonstrate, atypicals were administered one time during inpatient treatment in nearly 48% of the patients, however as first choice drugs in only 15% of this population. Treatment change occurred in 28% after 5-6 weeks irrespective of the first drug choice. Outcome differences were, if at all, only modest and not systematically biased towards a single strategy. In conclusion, frequency of inpatient treatment with atypical neuroleptics corresponds to pharmaco-epidemiological data in Europe, but is still lower than in the US. Contrary to contemporary guideline recommendations atypical neuroleptics under routine inpatient treatment conditions were scarcely administered as first choice treatment, and acute clinical outcome is comparable to that under treatment with typical neuroleptics. Reasons and implications of these findings considering the methodological limitations are discussed.
非典型抗精神病药物改善了精神分裂症的药物治疗。然而,其在不同国家和各大洲的使用情况差异很大。最近的荟萃分析淡化了其与典型抗精神病药物相比的优势范围和程度。本研究的目的是为这一讨论提供有效性数据。对来自四个德国精神病住院单元的725例ICD - 10诊断为F20、22 - 25的住院患者在自然条件下进行急性抗精神病药物治疗及转归分析。对治疗策略进行事后分层,以回答以下问题:多大比例的患者以及何种类型的患者主要使用非典型或典型药物,使用多长时间,以何种速率使用,以及何时将非典型/典型药物转换为典型/非典型药物,各自的转归如何。结果表明,近48%的患者在住院治疗期间使用过一次非典型药物,但仅15%的患者将其作为首选药物。无论首选药物如何,5 - 6周后28%的患者发生了治疗改变。转归差异即使存在也很小,且未系统地偏向单一策略。总之,非典型抗精神病药物的住院治疗频率与欧洲的药物流行病学数据相符,但仍低于美国。与当代指南建议相反,在常规住院治疗条件下,非典型抗精神病药物很少作为首选治疗药物使用,且急性临床转归与使用典型抗精神病药物治疗的情况相当。考虑到方法学局限性,对这些发现的原因及影响进行了讨论。