de Koning M B, Bloemen O J N, van Amelsvoort T A M J, Becker H E, Nieman D H, van der Gaag M, Linszen D H
Department of Psychiatry, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009 Jun;119(6):426-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01372.x. Epub 2009 Mar 10.
Prediction of transition to psychosis in the prodromal phase of schizophrenia has raised interest in intervention prior to the onset of frank psychosis. The aim of this review was to examine whether interventions in the prodromal phase have a favourable benefit/risk ratio.
A literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO was performed.
Three randomized clinical trials with antipsychotic medication and/or cognitive behavioural therapy as clinical intervention suggested a positive effect at the end of treatment, but no significant differences were found at the end of follow-up periods from 1 to 4 years. Naturalistic studies present a hypothesis about a possible preventive effect of antidepressive medication. The results of eight other studies are more difficult to interpret. Side-effects of antipsychotic medication and non-adherence with medication are essential problems.
At the present time, the data concerning the benefits and risks do not justify prodromal intervention as standard clinical practice.
预测精神分裂症前驱期向精神病性状态的转变,引发了人们对在明显精神病发作之前进行干预的兴趣。本综述的目的是研究前驱期干预是否具有良好的效益/风险比。
在PubMed、EMBASE和PsycINFO数据库中进行文献检索。
三项以抗精神病药物和/或认知行为疗法作为临床干预措施的随机临床试验表明,治疗结束时具有积极效果,但在1至4年的随访期结束时未发现显著差异。自然主义研究提出了关于抗抑郁药物可能具有预防作用的假说。其他八项研究的结果更难解释。抗精神病药物的副作用和药物治疗依从性是重要问题。
目前,关于效益和风险的数据并不足以证明前驱期干预作为标准临床实践的合理性。