4.4 Article

Comparative evaluation of conventional and novel antipsychotic drugs with reference to their subjective tolerability, side-effect profile and impact on quality of life

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
卷 43, 期 2-3, 页码 135-145

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0920-9964(99)00154-1

关键词

antipsychotic drugs; patient satisfaction; quality of life; schizophrenia; subjective responses; subjective tolerability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effectiveness of conventional and novel antipsychotic drugs from a patient's perspective. Five comparable groups of schizophrenic patients (n = 230) clinically stabilized on conventional antipsychotic drugs, risperidone, olanzepine, quetiapine or clozapine for a period of 6 months or longer were cross-sectionally evaluated. Patients' clinical symptom profile, subjective responses and attitudes toward drugs, prevalence of dysphoria, akathisia, abnormal involuntary movements and Parkinsonian symptoms, and quality of life were ascertained using standardized rating scales. Between-group differences were examined with analysis of variance and chi-square tests. Patients receiving novel antipsychotic drugs experienced fewer side-effects reported positive subjective responses and favourable attitudes toward their treatment, and revealed a lower prevalence of neuroleptic dysphoria. The differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05) with the risperidone, olanzepine and quetiapine groups. Self-rated quality of life, measured with the sickness impact profile, was also significantly better among patients receiving novel antipsychotic drugs. These perceived benefits, however, were not reflected in the clinician rated (objective) measures of psychosocial functioning and quality of life. These findings substantiate the general notion that novel antipsychotic medications are uniformly better tolerated as indicated by the measures of subjective responses, side-effects and self rated quality of life. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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