4.6 Article

Normal P50 suppression in schizophrenia patients treated with atypical antipsychotic medications

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 157, 期 5, 页码 767-771

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.5.767

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Patients with schizophrenia have deficits in attention, cognition, and information processing. Measures such as P50 suppression are used to study cognitive and attentional dysfunction among these patients. P50 suppression is an operational measure of sensory gating that can be assessed by averaging electroencephalographic responses to multiple pairs of auditory clicks separated by 500 msec. Normally, the P50 response to the second click is smaller than the response to the first click. Many studies have demonstrated that schizophrenia patients have deficient P50 suppression, meaning that the difference between the first and second clicks is not as large as normal. Atypical antipsychotic medications may have superior clinical efficacy for negative symptoms and cognitive deficits. It is important, therefore, to evaluate the effects of atypical antipsychotic medications on measures such as P50 suppression. Method: P50 suppression of 13 patients with schizophrenia receiving clinically effective doses of clozapine, olanzapine, or risperidone (classified as atypical antipsychotic medications) was compared to that of 13 patients receiving conventional antipsychotic medications. Results: The patient groups did not differ on clinical or demographic measures. The patients receiving atypical antipsychotic medications had normal-range P50 suppression (mean=72%). In contrast, the patients receiving typical antipsychotic medications had dramatically lower P50 suppression (mean= 27%). Conclusions: The results support the hypothesis that patients treated with atypical antipsychotic medications have normal P50 measures of sensory gating. Longitudinal within-subjects studies are warranted to clarify the mechanisms mediating this effect.

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

4.6
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