奥氮平与碳酸锂分别联合丙戊酸钠治疗双相障碍躁狂发作 的临床疗效比较

目的:比较奥氮平与碳酸锂分别联合丙戊酸钠治疗双相障碍躁狂发作的临床疗效,探讨提高双相障碍躁狂发作临床疗效的药物治疗方案。方法:选择双相障碍躁狂发作患者90例,随机均分为A组与B组,A组给予奥氮平联合丙戊酸钠治疗,B组给予碳酸锂联合丙戊酸钠治疗,比较两组患者治疗第2周、第4周、第6周躁狂量表(BRMS)评分、副反应量表(TESS)评分和治疗第6周的临床疗效。结果:两组患者在上述方面比较,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05),A组临床疗效好于B组。结论:药物治疗双相障碍躁狂发作时,应选择奥氮平联合丙戊酸钠治疗方案,可提高临床疗效,减少用药后副反应。     

奥氮平合并丙戊酸钠治疗难治性精神分裂症的对照分析

目的:探讨奥氮平联合丙戊酸钠治疗难治性精神分裂症的疗效.方法:将80例精神分裂症患者按随机数字法分为联合用药组(奥氮平+丙戊酸钠组)40例和单用药组(奥氮平组)40例.联合用药组服用奥氮平起始量为10 mg/d,1周末加至20 mg/d,同时使用丙戊酸钠起始量为600 mg/d,最大剂量1200 mg/d.单药组服用奥氮平,用法同联合用药组.2组均为8周1疗程.对2组采用阳性与阴性症状量表(PANSS)评定疗效,采用不良反应量表(TESS)评定治疗中不良反应.于治疗2周末、4周末、8周末测定奥氮平血药浓度.结果:第8周末,两组PANSS评分较治疗前均下降(P均＜0.05),联合用药组较单用药组联合用药组PANSS(P＜0.001)、阳性症状(P＜0.001)、阴性症状(P＜0.05)均明显改善,两组不良反应差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论:奥氮平联合丙戊酸钠治疗难治性精神分裂症可提高疗效且安全性高.     

西酞普兰联合利培酮治疗难治性抑郁症的近期临床疗效观察

目的：观察西酞普兰联合利培酮治疗难治性抑郁症的近期临床疗效,探讨提高难治性抑郁症近期临床疗效的药物治疗方案方法：选择难治性抑郁症患者86例,随机均分为对照组与观察组,对照组给予常规西酞普兰治疗,观察组给予西酞普兰联合利培酮治疗,比较两组患者治疗第2周、第4周、第6周汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）和副反应量表（TESS）评分,比较两组患者治疗第6周的临床疗效。结果：观察组近期临床疗效好于对照组,HAMD评分、HAMA评分和临床疗效比较,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;TESS评分比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论：药物治疗难治性抑郁症时,应选择西酞普兰联合利培酮治疗,可提高近期临床疗效,且不加重用药不良反应。     

拉莫三嗪治疗癫痫的临床研究

目的:探究拉莫三嗪单药治疗癫痫的临床疗效和安全性.方法:124例癫痫患者,随机分为拉莫三嗪治疗组和丙戊酸钠治疗组,观察治疗后的6个月和12个月癫痫发作情况、生活质量评分和不良反应.结果:拉莫三嗪治疗组患者治疗后6个月和12个月的癫痫发作次数少于丙戊酸钠组患者,但差距无统计学意义(P＞0.05).拉莫三嗪组治疗癫痫患者完全控制的患者多于丙戊酸钠组患者,总有效率高于丙戊酸钠组患者,但差距无统计学意义(P＞0.05).拉莫三嗪治疗的癫痫患者在治疗后6个月和12个月的生活质量评分改善情况明显优于丙戊酸钠组,差距有统计学意义(P＜0.05);不良反应:拉莫三嗪治疗组少于丙戊酸钠组,有统计学差异(P＜0.05).结论:癫痫患者在药物治疗方面使用拉莫三嗪的疗效显著,控制癫痫发作的效果理想,不良反应少,并在一定程度上提高癫痫患者的生活质量.     

拉莫三嗪与丙戊酸钠治疗癫痫合并抑郁障碍患者的疗效比较

目的:探讨拉莫三嗪和丙戊酸钠治疗癫痫合并抑郁障碍的疗效,为其临床治疗提供依据。方法:选择2011年2月~2015年2月在我院接受治疗的癫痫合并抑郁障碍患者60例,根据随机数字表法将患者分为观察组(30例)和对照组(30例),观察组给予拉莫三嗪治疗,对照组给予丙戊酸钠治疗,于治疗前、治疗后8周末和16周末采用HAMD-17和MADRS量表进行评分,并比较两组患者的临床疗效和不良反应。结果:治疗8周末和16周末两组患者的HAMD-17和MADRS量表评分较治疗前均降低,且观察组降低幅度大于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。治疗16周末观察组患者的总有效率为86.67%显著高于对照组的63.33%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者的不良反应主要为皮疹、嗜睡、恶心呕吐等,发生率低,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:拉莫三嗪和丙戊酸钠均可改善抑郁状态,但拉莫三嗪的疗效优于丙戊酸钠,且不会增加患者不良反应,值得临床推广应用。     

拉莫三嗪治疗青少年癫痫合并抑郁障碍的疗效观察

目的观察拉莫三嗪治疗青少年癫痫合并抑郁障碍的临床疗效及其安全性。方法将80例青少年癫痫合并抑郁障碍患者随机分为对照组(40例)与治疗组(40例),对照组给予丙戊酸钠治疗,治疗组给予拉莫三嗪治疗,观察比较两组患者治疗前后的癫痫发作次数和汉密尔顿抑郁量表24项(HAMD-24)评分,以判定临床疗效并记录不良反应。结果治疗后,两组患者的癫痫控制情况均较治疗前明显改善,治疗组的总有效率为87.5%明显优于对照组的45.0%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);治疗后,治疗组的汉密尔顿抑郁量表评分下降程度明显优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论拉莫三嗪治疗青少年癫痫合并抑郁障碍的效果理想,且安全性高。     

丙戊酸钠联合奥卡西平治疗小儿癫痫的疗效及对患儿脑电图、认知功能和血清神经因子的影响

摘要 目的：评价丙戊酸钠联合奥卡西平治疗小儿癫痫的疗效及对患儿脑电图、认知功能和血清神经因子的影响。方法：选入2019年1月~2022年12月收治的癫痫患儿104例,根据治疗方法不同分为单药组（丙戊酸钠治疗）和联合组（丙戊酸钠+奥卡西平治疗）,各52例。评价两组的临床疗效、脑电图、认知功能、血清神经因子等指标,并进行统计比较。结果：联合组治疗后癫痫发作频率及每次持续时间显著低于单药组（P<0.05）,EEG显示痫样放电率、总异常亦明显低于单药组（P＜0.05）;联合组治疗总有效率94.23%,明显高于单药组的71.15%（P<0.05）;两组治疗后WISC-CR量表VIQ、PIQ和FIQ评分均较治疗前明显升高（P<0.05）,而联合组升高幅度更大,与单药组差异显著（P<0.05）;治疗前,两组血清BDNF、NSE和S-100β蛋白无明显差异（P＞0.05）,而治疗后,联合组血清BDNF水平明显高于单药组、NSE和S-100β水平显著低于单药组（P＜0.05）;两组不良反应总发生率无差异（P＞0.05）。结论：丙戊酸钠联合奥卡西平治疗小儿癫痫疗效较好,可有效缓解临床症状,控制脑部异常放电,改善认知功能,调节血清神经因子水平,且安全性良好。     

西酞普兰联合利培酮治疗难治性抑郁症的近期临床疗效观察

目的:观察西酞普兰联合利培酮治疗难治性抑郁症的近期临床疗效,探讨提高难治性抑郁症近期临床疗效的药物治疗方案方法:选择难治性抑郁症患者86例,随机均分为对照组与观察组,对照组给予常规西酞普兰治疗,观察组给予西酞普兰联合利培酮治疗,比较两组患者治疗第2周、第4周、第6周汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)和副反应量表(TESS)评分,比较两组患者治疗第6周的临床疗效.结果:观察组近期临床疗效好于对照组,HAMD评分、HAMA评分和临床疗效比较,差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05);TESS评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论:药物治疗难治性抑郁症时,应选择西酞普兰联合利培酮治疗,可提高近期临床疗效,且不加重用药不良反应.     

注射用丹参多酚酸盐联合丙戊酸钠治疗脑卒中后癫痫患者的疗效分析

目的:研究注射用丹参多酚酸盐联合丙戊酸钠对脑卒中后癫痫的临床疗效和安全性。方法:选择2016年1月～2019年4月东南大学附属中大医院江北院区神经内科住院的80例脑卒中后癫痫患者,将其随机分为两组。对照组的40例患者仅给予丙戊酸钠治疗,观察组的40例患者给予丹参多酚酸盐联合丙戊酸钠治疗。比较两组治疗后的脑电图检查结果、癫痫症状控制情况。结果:治疗后,观察组总有效率为明显高于对照组(97.50%vs. 80%,P0.05);两组的累及导联数、痫样放电、发作持续时间、发作次数较治疗前以及血清神经元特异性烯醇化酶(Neuron specific enolase,NSE)水平均较治疗前明显降低(P0.05),且观察组以上指标均明显低于对照组(P0.05)。两组的嗜睡、皮疹、头痛、感觉异常、恶心呕吐的发生率比较差异无明显统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:注射用丹参多酚酸盐联合丙戊酸钠治疗脑卒中后癫痫的疗效明显优于单用丙戊酸钠治疗,其可更有效控制癫痫症状,且安全性较高。     

左乙拉西坦对癫痫患者认知功能及情绪影响的临床研究

目的:探讨左乙拉西坦对癫痫患者认知功能及情绪的临床影响。方法:选择同期癫痫患者60例,随机均分为对照组(n=30例)和观察组(n=30例),对照组患者给予丙戊酸钠治疗,观察组患者给予左乙拉西坦治疗,治疗第4w、8w、12w、16w比较两组患者蒙特利尔认知评估量表(MoCA)、神经电生理P300电位检查、焦虑自评量表(SAS)和抑郁自评量表(SDS)情况。结果:两组患者治疗第4w、第8w、第12w和第16w的MoCA评分和P300电位潜伏期时长比较,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05),观察组显著优于对照组;治疗第12w和第16w的SAS评分和SDS评分比较,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05),对照组显著优于观察组。结论:在癫痫患者的药物治疗过程中,左乙拉西坦对患者认知功能的改善优于丙戊酸钠,但对情绪的负性影响较丙戊酸钠明显。     

Lithium vs. valproate vs. olanzapine vs. quetiapine as maintenance monotherapy for bipolar disorder: a population‐based UK cohort study using electronic health records

It is unclear which maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder is superior in clinical practice. Randomized controlled head‐to‐head trials of available drugs either do not exist or are inconclusive. We aimed to compare rates of monotherapy treatment failure in individuals prescribed lithium, valproate, olanzapine or quetiapine by a population‐based cohort study using electronic health records. 5,089 patients with bipolar disorder were prescribed lithium (N=1,505), valproate (N=1,173) olanzapine (N=1,366) or quetiapine (N=1,075) as monotherapy. Treatment failure was defined as time to stopping medication or add‐on of another mood stabilizer, antipsychotic, antidepressant or benzodiazepine. In unadjusted analyses, the duration of successful monotherapy was longest in individuals treated with lithium. Treatment failure had occurred in 75% of those prescribed lithium by 2.05 years (95% CI: 1.63‐2.51), compared to 0.76 years (95% CI: 0.64‐0.84) for those prescribed quetiapine, 0.98 years (95% CI: 0.84‐1.18) for those prescribed valproate, and 1.13 years for those prescribed olanzapine (95% CI: 1.00‐1.31). Lithium's superiority remained in a propensity score matched analysis; when treatment failure was defined as stopping medication or add‐on of a mood stabilizer or antipsychotic; and when treatment failure was restricted to more than three months after commencing the study drug. Lithium appears to be more successful as monotherapy maintenance treatment than valproate, olanzapine or quetiapine. Lithium is often avoided because of its side effect profile, but alternative treatments may reduce the time to being prescribed more than one drug, with potential additive side effects of these treatments.     

氟哌啶醇与奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效对比探究

目的：对比分析氟哌啶醇与奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析我院2008年4月-2011年12月收治的精神分裂症患者62例,通过随机数法将其分为两组,其中31例为氟哌啶醇组,剩余31例为奥氮平组,比较两组服药后的临床疗效以及药物不良反应情况。结果：6周后氟哌啶醇组和奥氮平组的PANSS总分均明显低于治疗前PANSS总分,组间比较,治疗3周、6周后奥氮平组PANSS总分均低于氟哌啶醇组,并且同时段奥氮平组的减分率明显高于氟哌啶醇组,差异均具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。氟哌啶醇组的心电图异常例数和静坐不能例数明显高于奥氮平组,差异均具有统计学意义。而氟哌啶醇组不良反应发生率为48.39%,奥氮平组不良反应发生率为51.61%,差异无统计学意义。奥氮平组治疗6周后TG含量明显高于治疗前,并且两组的BMI也明显高于治疗前,差异均具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论：氟哌啶醇与奥氮平在治疗精神分裂症上均有较好疗效,不良反应发生率也相似,而奥氮平改善症状较好,同时对心脏影响小,但是比氟哌啶醇易引起TG和BMI的增高,临床上需要根据患者身体条件选择药物,提高其安全性。     

Long-term pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorders

Several lines of clinical, genetic, and pharmacological evidence point to an association between bipolar and psychotic disorders. The goals of maintenance and prophylactic treatment of bipolar disorder include the prevention of new episodes and the improvement of social, family, and occupational functioning. This goal can be mainly achieved by using long-term adequate pharmacological treatment that is tolerable to patients. Among mood-stabilizers, the main drugs used for such treatment, the role of atypical antipsychotics has greatly increased in recent years. Lithium still remains the drug that has produced the most convincing evidence of prophylactic action and has undergone the longest periods of observation. There has also been good confirmation for the maintenance efficacy of such anticonvulsant drugs as carbamazepine, valproate, and lamotrigine, the last having the strongest properties for prophylaxis of depressive episodes. The case for the usefulness of second-generation antipsychotic drugs in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder has been rapidly accumulating. Based on controlled trials, the best evidence for maintenance efficacy exists for olanzapine. The vast majority of patients with bipolar illness experience inadequate response to monotherapy with mood-stabilizing drugs during long-term treatment. Some issues connected with polypharmacy targeting optimal maintenance results are discussed. In addition, the long-term management and the role of antidepressants in treatment of non-bipolar I illness is also briefly described.     

Mood stabilizers target cellular plasticity and resilience cascades

Bipolar disorder is a devastating disease with a lifetime incidence of about 1% in the general population. Suicide is the cause of death in 10 to 15% of patients and in addition to suicide, mood disorders are associated with many other harmful health effects. Mood stabilizers are medications used to treat bipolar disorder. In addition to their therapeutic effects for the treatment of acute manic episodes, mood stabilizers are useful as prophylaxis against future episodes and as adjunctive antidepressant medications. The most established and investigated mood-stabilizing drugs are lithium and valproate but other anticonvulsants (such as carbamazepine and lamotrigine) and antipsychotics are also considered as mood stabilizers. Despite the efficacy of these diverse medications, their mechanisms of action remain, to a great extent, unknown. Lithium’s inhibition of some enzymes, such as inositol monophosphatase and gycogen synthase kinase-3, probably results in its mood-stabilizing effects. Valproate may share its anticonvulsant target with its mood-stabilizing target or may act through other mechanisms. It has been shown that lithium, valproate, and/or carbamazepine regulate numerous factors involved in cell survival pathways, including cyclic adenine monophospate response element-binding protein, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, bcl-2, and mitogen-activated protein kinases. These drugs have been suggested to have neurotrophic and neuroprotective properties that ameliorate impairments of cellular plasticity and resilience underlying the pathophysiology of mood disorders. This article also discusses approaches to develop novel treatments specifically for bipolar disorder.     

Psychotic mania in glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase-deficient subjects

BACKGROUND: Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency has been associated with acute psychosis, catatonic schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders by previous inconclusive reports. A particularly disproportionate rate of enzyme deficiency was found in manic schizoaffective patients from 662 lithium patients surveyed in Sardinia. The purpose of this study was to describe clinical characteristics which may be potentially associated with G6PD deficiency. METHODS: Characteristics of episodes, course of illness, family pattern of illness, laboratory tests, and treatment response of 29 G6PD-deficient subjects with a Research Diagnostic Criteria diagnosis of manic schizoaffective disorder were abstracted from available records. RESULTS: The most peculiar pattern was that of acute recurrent psychotic manic episodes, mostly characterized by loosening of associations, agitation, catatonic symptoms, and/or transient confusion, concurrent hyperbilirubinemia, positive psychiatric family history, and partial response to long-term lithium treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A relationship between psychiatric disorder and G6PD deficiency is to be searched in the bipolar spectrum, particularly among patients with a history of acute episodes with psychotic and/or catatonic symptoms or with transient confusion.     

Adverse Renal,Endocrine, Hepatic,and Metabolic Events during Maintenance Mood Stabilizer Treatment for Bipolar Disorder: A Population-Based Cohort Study

BackgroundThere is limited, poorly characterized information about adverse events occurring during maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. We aimed to determine adverse event rates during treatment with lithium, valproate, olanzapine, and quetiapine.ConclusionsLithium use is associated with more renal and endocrine adverse events but less weight gain than commonly used alternative mood stabilizers. Risks need to be offset with the effectiveness and anti-suicidal benefits of lithium and the potential metabolic side effects of alternative treatment options.     

综合护理干预对老年住院糖尿病患者影响的临床观察

目的：观察综合护理干预对老年住院糖尿病患者的临床影响,探讨改善老年住院糖尿病患者临床表现及预后的护理方式。方法：选择老年住院糖尿病患者160例,随机均分为对照组和观察组,对照组采取常规专科护理,观察组加行综合护理干预,治疗2周后比较两组患者焦虑自评量表（SAS）和抑郁自评量表（SDS）评分;出院3个月后比较两组患者自我管理和生活质量（GQOL-100）评分结果：治疗2周和出院3个月后,两组患者在上述方面比较,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.01,P〈0.05）,观察组优于对照组。结论：对老年住院DM患者施行综合护理干预措施,具有积极的临床意义。     

Electroconvulsive therapy for manic state with mixed and psychotic features in a teenager with bipolar disorder and comorbid episodic obsessive–compulsive disorder: a case report

Background

Comorbidity of bipolar disorder and obsessive–compulsive disorder is common in adolescence. Obsessive–compulsive disorder symptoms may be episodic and secondary to alterations in mood, and display specific features. Management of pediatric bipolar disorder-obsessive–compulsive disorder is challenging, as pharmacotherapy of obsessive–compulsive disorder may induce or exacerbate manic episodes and there is limited evidence of treatment efficacy. Electroconvulsive therapy is sparsely used in children and adolescents, but is documented to be a safe and efficacious intervention in adults with bipolar disorder. In view of the severity of symptoms in juvenile mania, studies on treatment strategies are warranted. We report a case of an adolescent with bipolar disorder-obsessive–compulsive disorder who was successfully treated with electroconvulsive therapy during an episode of severe mania.

Case presentation

A 16-year-old girl of Middle East origin first presented to us with depressed mood, irritability, and increased obsessive–compulsive disorder symptoms, which were initially interpreted in the context of acute stress secondary to migration. She had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and obsessive–compulsive disorder in her previous home country, but had difficulties in accounting for earlier psychiatric history. During hospitalization her mood switched to a manic state with mixed and psychotic features, at times showing aggression toward others. Interruption in her lithium treatment for a short period and possibly the introduction of an atypical antipsychotic could in part have been triggering factors. After 8 weeks of in-patient care and psychotropic drug trials, electroconvulsive therapy was initiated and administered every second or third day for 4 weeks, with marked positive response. No apparent side effects were reported.

Conclusions

This case demonstrates the need for a detailed medical history, taking special note of periodicity and character of obsessive–compulsive disorder symptoms, in adolescents with mood disorders. When treating culturally diverse patients, extra consideration should be taken. Special concerns in the pharmacological treatment to avoid the patient’s condition from worsening must be addressed, including giving priority to mood stabilization before obsessive–compulsive disorder symptoms. There are potential benefits in considering electroconvulsive therapy in young patients with severe mania where first-line treatment options have failed.