Weiden P, Glazer W
Neurobiologic Disorder Service, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, NY 10025, USA.
Psychiatr Q. 1997 Winter;68(4):377-92. doi: 10.1023/a:1025499131905.
The goals of this study are 1) to determine causes and patterns of relapse for a cohort of "revolving door" schizophrenia inpatients, and 2) to assess the feasibility of starting a new psychopharmacologic intervention before discharge, either depot therapy or an atypical antipsychotic.
Consecutive admissions to an acute inpatient unit in New York City were screened for "revolving door" criteria. Patients had to have a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and have either 1) two hospitalizations in the last year, or 2) three hospitalizations in the last three years. Patients were then assessed for probable causes of relapse for the index and prior two hospitalizations. Treatment selection, based on this information, was trichotomized to: 1) oral conventional antipsychotic, 2) depot conventional antipsychotic (either haloperidol or fluphenazine decanoate), or 3) atypical antipsychotic (either risperidone or clozapine).
Sixty-three out of 131 screened admissions met the above revolving door criteria. They were indeed "revolving", having an average of 1.3 hospitalizations per year over the last 3 years and were only out of the hospital for five months (median) before index admission. The treatment selection process was hampered by lack of information about events leading to relapse, and by the lack of outpatient participation in the medication selection process. Of the 50 patients with complete histories about precipitants for the index episode, the most common reason for rehospitalization was judged to be medication noncompliance (n = 25; 50%), followed by medication nonresponse (n = 13; 26%). Not surprisingly, medication recommendations were closely linked to the assessed reason for relapse (depot therapy [n = 27; 49%] with medication noncompliance; atypical antipsychotic [n = 20; 37%] with medication nonresponse [X2 = 26.9, p < .001]). These two recommendations were implemented before discharge for about one-half of the cases. Patient refusal was a relatively greater problem for depot recommendation while constraints in the outpatient environment were more problematic for patients recommended for atypical antipsychotics.
Medication noncompliance and medication nonresponse, in that order, were judged to be the most common causes of relapse for "revolving door" inpatients. Both depot therapy and atypical antipsychotics were commonly recommended and ultimately accepted by about 2/3rds of patients. Choice between depot and atypical was driven by the assessed cause of relapse. In summary, it seems possible to identify "revolving door" inpatients, and to target specific medication interventions within the time frame of an acute inpatient admission.
本研究的目标是:1)确定一组“旋转门”型精神分裂症住院患者复发的原因和模式;2)评估在出院前开始一种新的精神药物干预(长效注射治疗或非典型抗精神病药物)的可行性。
对纽约市一家急性住院单元的连续入院患者进行筛查,以确定是否符合“旋转门”标准。患者必须有精神分裂症或分裂情感性障碍的初步诊断,并且必须满足以下条件之一:1)在过去一年中有两次住院;2)在过去三年中有三次住院。然后评估患者本次及前两次住院复发的可能原因。根据这些信息,治疗选择分为三类:1)口服传统抗精神病药物;2)长效传统抗精神病药物(氟哌啶醇或癸酸氟奋乃静);3)非典型抗精神病药物(利培酮或氯氮平)。
131例筛查入院患者中有63例符合上述“旋转门”标准。他们确实处于“旋转”状态,在过去三年中平均每年住院1.3次,在本次入院前仅出院五个月(中位数)。治疗选择过程受到导致复发事件信息不足以及门诊患者未参与药物选择过程的阻碍。在50例有本次发作诱因完整病史的患者中,再次住院最常见的原因被认为是药物不依从(n = 25;50%),其次是药物无反应(n = 13;26%)。不出所料,药物推荐与评估的复发原因密切相关(长效注射治疗[n = 27;49%]用于药物不依从;非典型抗精神病药物[n = 20;37%]用于药物无反应[X2 = 26.9, p <.001])。这两种推荐在约一半的病例中在出院前实施。对于长效注射治疗推荐患者拒绝是一个相对更大的问题,而对于推荐使用非典型抗精神病药物的患者门诊环境的限制则更成问题。
药物不依从和药物无反应,按此顺序,被认为是“旋转门”型住院患者复发最常见的原因。长效注射治疗和非典型抗精神病药物都被普遍推荐,最终约三分之二的患者接受。长效注射治疗和非典型抗精神病药物之间的选择由评估的复发原因驱动。总之,似乎有可能识别出“旋转门”型住院患者,并在急性住院期间的时间框架内针对特定的药物干预措施。