Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
J Clin Psychiatry. 2011 Dec;72(12):1616-27. doi: 10.4088/JCP.11r06927.
Our aim in this article is 2-fold: first, to examine the mid-term to long-term data on efficacy, from controlled and naturalistic and other studies, in order to determine if they are consistent with the quantitative meta-analyses of mostly short-term, randomized controlled trials Our second (and most important) aim is to use these and other data to provide guidance about the potential relationship of these differences among antipsychotics to the individual patient's own experience with antipsychotic drugs in the process of shared decision-making with the patients and their significant others.
A search of PubMed, Embase, and PsychINFO was conducted for articles published in English between January 1, 1999, and April 2011, using the search terms double-blind AND randomized AND olanzapine AND (ziprasidone OR risperidone OR quetiapine OR haloperidol OR fluphenazine OR perphenazine OR aripiprazole).
Studies with a duration 3 months or longer, including patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, reporting survival analysis for all-cause discontinuation and relapse or dropout due to poor efficacy were selected.
We extracted the number of patients relapsed due to poor efficacy and hazard rates for relapses.
Overall, the efficacy patterns of both controlled effectiveness and observational long-term studies closely parallel the efficacy observed in the short-term, controlled studies. The results of Phase 1 Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness are very similar to, but not identical with, the controlled short-term efficacy studies, the European First-Episode Schizophrenia Trial, and naturalistic studies. The mid-term and long-term data suggest that olanzapine is more effective than risperidone and that both of these are better than the other first- and second-generation antipsychotics except for clozapine, which is the most efficacious of all. Further large differences emerged regarding the specific mid-term and long-term safety profiles of individual antipsychotics.
Despite intraclass differences and the complexities of antipsychotic choice, the second-generation antipsychotics are important contributions not only to the acute phase but, more importantly, to the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia.
本文的目的有两个:首先,从对照和自然主义及其他研究中检查中期至长期的疗效数据,以确定这些数据是否与主要为短期的随机对照试验的定量荟萃分析结果一致。我们的第二个(也是最重要的)目的是利用这些数据和其他数据,为不同抗精神病药物之间的差异与患者及其重要他人在共同决策过程中患者自身对抗精神病药物的体验之间的潜在关系提供指导。
在 1999 年 1 月 1 日至 2011 年 4 月期间,使用双盲和随机、奥氮平和(齐拉西酮或利培酮或喹硫平和或氟哌啶醇或氟奋乃静或奋乃静或阿立哌唑)的检索词,在 PubMed、Embase 和 PsychINFO 上进行了英文文献检索。
选择了持续时间为 3 个月或更长时间的研究,包括患有精神分裂症或分裂情感障碍的患者,报告了所有原因停药和因疗效不佳而复发或脱落的生存分析。
我们提取了因疗效不佳而复发的患者人数和复发的危险率。
总体而言,对照有效性和长期观察研究的疗效模式与短期对照研究的疗效模式非常相似。干预有效性的 1 期临床抗精神病药物试验的结果与对照短期疗效研究、欧洲首次发作精神分裂症试验和自然主义研究非常相似,但并不完全相同。中期和长期数据表明,奥氮平比利培酮更有效,而这两种药物都比其他第一代和第二代抗精神病药物更好,除了氯氮平,氯氮平是所有药物中最有效的。关于个别抗精神病药物的具体中期和长期安全性概况,进一步出现了较大差异。
尽管存在类内差异和抗精神病药物选择的复杂性,但第二代抗精神病药物不仅对抗精神病药物的急性期,而且更重要的是对精神分裂症的维持治疗做出了重要贡献。