Evaluation of efficacy, safety, and cognitive profile of amisulpride per se and its comparison with olanzapine in newly diagnosed schizophrenic patients in an 8-week, double-blind, single-centre, prospective clinical trial.

ISRN Psychiatry Pub Date : 2012-03-14 Print Date: 2012-01-01 DOI:10.5402/2012/703751
Ganesh R Pawar, P Phadnis, A Paliwal
{"title":"Evaluation of efficacy, safety, and cognitive profile of amisulpride per se and its comparison with olanzapine in newly diagnosed schizophrenic patients in an 8-week, double-blind, single-centre, prospective clinical trial.","authors":"Ganesh R Pawar,&nbsp;P Phadnis,&nbsp;A Paliwal","doi":"10.5402/2012/703751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background. Impaired cognitive functions in schizophrenia are the major deciding factors in response to treatment. Conventional antipsychotics have minimal impact on cognitive dysfunctions and are associated with adverse effects. Atypical antipsychotics have shown promise in treatment of cognitive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Efforts are underway to find out the best drug amongst atypical antipsychotics. Objective. To compare efficacy, safety, and cognitive profile of amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of acute psychotic exacerbations of schizophrenia. Method. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, single-center, 8-week clinical trial we used. Subjects and Treatments. Seventy four patients were treated for two months with either amisulpride (400-800 mg/d) or olanzapine (10-20 mg/d). Statistics. Mann Whitney U test we used for independent samples with P < 0.05 taken as significant. Results. Brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS) was used as a primary measure of efficacy. Other measures of efficacy and safety were also evaluated. Both amisulpride and olanzapine groups showed equivalent improvement in psychotic symptoms on BPRS scale. Less than five percent of patients suffered adverse effects only to withdraw from the study. Olanzapine group showed statistically significant (P < 0.05) weight gain compared with amisulpride group. Amisulpride group showed significant improvement (P < 0.05) in various cognitive parameters as compared to olanzapine group.</p>","PeriodicalId":14749,"journal":{"name":"ISRN Psychiatry","volume":"2012 ","pages":"703751"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5402/2012/703751","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRN Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/703751","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background. Impaired cognitive functions in schizophrenia are the major deciding factors in response to treatment. Conventional antipsychotics have minimal impact on cognitive dysfunctions and are associated with adverse effects. Atypical antipsychotics have shown promise in treatment of cognitive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Efforts are underway to find out the best drug amongst atypical antipsychotics. Objective. To compare efficacy, safety, and cognitive profile of amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of acute psychotic exacerbations of schizophrenia. Method. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, single-center, 8-week clinical trial we used. Subjects and Treatments. Seventy four patients were treated for two months with either amisulpride (400-800 mg/d) or olanzapine (10-20 mg/d). Statistics. Mann Whitney U test we used for independent samples with P < 0.05 taken as significant. Results. Brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS) was used as a primary measure of efficacy. Other measures of efficacy and safety were also evaluated. Both amisulpride and olanzapine groups showed equivalent improvement in psychotic symptoms on BPRS scale. Less than five percent of patients suffered adverse effects only to withdraw from the study. Olanzapine group showed statistically significant (P < 0.05) weight gain compared with amisulpride group. Amisulpride group showed significant improvement (P < 0.05) in various cognitive parameters as compared to olanzapine group.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在一项为期8周的双盲、单中心、前瞻性临床试验中,评估氨硫pride本身对新诊断的精神分裂症患者的疗效、安全性和认知特征及其与奥氮平的比较。
背景。精神分裂症患者的认知功能受损是对治疗反应的主要决定因素。传统的抗精神病药物对认知功能障碍的影响很小,并伴有不良反应。非典型抗精神病药物在治疗精神分裂症的认知和阴性症状方面显示出希望。在非典型抗精神病药物中寻找最佳药物的努力正在进行中。目标。比较氨硫pride和奥氮平治疗精神分裂症急性精神病性加重的疗效、安全性和认知特征。方法。我们采用了一项前瞻性、随机、双盲、单中心、为期8周的临床试验。主题和治疗。74名患者用氨硫pride (400- 800mg /d)或奥氮平(10- 20mg /d)治疗2个月。统计数据。独立样本采用Mann Whitney U检验,P < 0.05为显著性。结果。采用简短精神病学评定量表(BPRS)作为主要的疗效衡量标准。其他措施的有效性和安全性也进行了评估。氨硫pride组和奥氮平组在BPRS量表上的精神病症状改善程度相当。只有不到5%的患者因不良反应而退出研究。与氨硫pride组相比,奥氮平组体重增加有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。与奥氮平组相比,氨硫pride组各认知指标均有显著改善(P < 0.05)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Empathy in undergraduate medical students of bangladesh: psychometric analysis and differences by gender, academic year, and specialty preferences. Ziprasidone as adjunctive therapy in severe bipolar patients treated with clozapine. Clinical practice guidelines in psychiatry: more confusion than clarity? A critical review and recommendation of a unified guideline. The psychogeriatric patient in the emergency room: focus on management and disposition. Metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 negative modulation in phase I clinical trial: potential impact of circadian rhythm on the neuropsychiatric adverse reactions-do hallucinations matter?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1