Remington Gary, Foussias George, Fervaha Gagan, Agid Ofer, Takeuchi Hiroyoshi, Lee Jimmy, Hahn Margaret
Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada ; Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada ; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), 250 College St., Toronto, ON M5T 1R8 Canada.
Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada ; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), 250 College St., Toronto, ON M5T 1R8 Canada.
Curr Treat Options Psychiatry. 2016;3:133-150. doi: 10.1007/s40501-016-0075-8. Epub 2016 Apr 8.
Interest in the negative symptoms of schizophrenia has increased rapidly over the last several decades, paralleling a growing interest in functional, in addition to clinical, recovery, and evidence underscoring the importance negative symptoms play in the former. Efforts continue to better define and measure negative symptoms, distinguish their impact from that of other symptom domains, and establish effective treatments as well as trials to assess these. Multiple interventions have been the subject of investigation, to date, including numerous pharmacological strategies, brain stimulation, and non-somatic approaches. Level and quality of evidence vary considerably, but to this point, no specific treatment can be recommended. This is particularly problematic for individuals burdened with negative symptoms in the face of mild or absent positive symptoms. Presently, clinicians will sometimes turn to interventions that are seen as more "benign" and in line with routine clinical practice. Strategies include use of atypical antipsychotics, ensuring the lowest possible antipsychotic dose that maintains control of positive symptoms (this can involve a shift from antipsychotic polypharmacy to monotherapy), possibly an antidepressant trial (given diagnostic uncertainty and the frequent use of these drugs in schizophrenia), and non-somatic interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, CBT). The array and diversity of strategies currently under investigation highlight the lack of evidence-based treatments and our limited understanding regarding negative symptoms underlying etiology and pathophysiology. Their onset, which can precede the first psychotic break, also means that treatments are delayed. From this perspective, identification of biomarkers and/or endophenotypes permitting earlier diagnosis and intervention may serve to improve treatment efficacy as well as outcomes.
在过去几十年里,人们对精神分裂症阴性症状的兴趣迅速增加,这与对功能恢复(除临床康复外)的兴趣不断增长相平行,且有证据强调阴性症状在功能恢复中所起的重要作用。人们继续努力更好地定义和测量阴性症状,区分其与其他症状领域的影响,并建立有效的治疗方法以及评估这些方法的试验。到目前为止,多种干预措施都在研究范围内,包括众多药理策略、脑刺激和非躯体方法。证据的水平和质量差异很大,但到目前为止,尚无具体治疗方法可推荐。对于那些存在阴性症状而阳性症状轻微或不存在的患者来说,这一问题尤为突出。目前,临床医生有时会转向那些被认为更“温和”且符合常规临床实践的干预措施。这些策略包括使用非典型抗精神病药物,确保维持对阳性症状控制的最低抗精神病药物剂量(这可能涉及从联合使用多种抗精神病药物转向单一疗法),可能进行抗抑郁试验(鉴于诊断的不确定性以及这些药物在精神分裂症中的频繁使用),以及非躯体干预措施(如认知行为疗法,CBT)。目前正在研究的策略的种类和多样性凸显了缺乏循证治疗方法以及我们对阴性症状潜在病因和病理生理学的了解有限。阴性症状的出现可能先于首次精神病发作,这也意味着治疗被延迟。从这个角度来看,识别能够实现早期诊断和干预的生物标志物和/或内表型可能有助于提高治疗效果和改善预后。