4.5 Article

Effectiveness and safety of clozapine in elderly patients with chronic resistant schizophrenia

期刊

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 131-134

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610214001756

关键词

antipsychotics; psychopharmacology; schizophrenia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recommendations for the treatment of elderly schizophrenia patients are largely based on data extrapolated from studies of antipsychotic medications in younger patient populations. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of clozapine monotherapy in a diagnostically homogeneous group of elderly patients suffering from schizophrenia (DSM-IV-TR criteria). Methods: A retrospective analysis of computerized medical charts of elderly inpatients suffering from schizophrenia treated at our center during the period January 2007-December 2012 was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were: (1) 60 years and older, (2) unsuccessful treatment with at least three different antipsychotic compounds during the last five years prior to the study period. Mortality and re-hospitalization over a five-year period were the pre-defined outcome measures. Results: Of 527 elderly patients suffering from schizophrenia 43 patients, mean age 69.4 +/- 8.7 years, were treated with clozapine. There were 19 women and 24 men, mean disease duration was 38.8 years. All had been exposed to at least three first-and second-generation antipsychotics prior to clozapine treatment. Clozapine was very well tolerated by the patients and mortality rate (8/43 (18.6% vs. 87/484 (18%)) was equal to that of other first-and second-generation antipsychotics (p < 0.18). Re-hospitalization rates with clozapine were significantly lower than rates for the five-year period prior to exposure to clozapine (0.41 vs. 3.8; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that clozapine is efficacious and safe for the treatment of elderly schizophrenia patients. Prospective studies are needed to support these findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据