From the Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York; and the Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Reearch, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.
Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 1;173(2):166-73. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15030332. Epub 2015 Nov 6.
The authors compared the effectiveness of initiating treatment with either clozapine or a standard antipsychotic among adults with evidence of treatment-resistant schizophrenia in routine clinical practice.
U.S. national Medicaid data from 2001 to 2009 were used to examine treatment outcomes in a cohort of patients with schizophrenia and evidence of treatment resistance that initiated clozapine (N=3,123) and in a propensity score-matched cohort that initiated a standard antipsychotic (N=3,123). Interventions were new initiation of clozapine or a standard antipsychotic medication, defined as no exposure to the new medication in the prior 365 days. The primary outcome was hospital admission for a mental disorder. Secondary outcomes included discontinuation of the index antipsychotic, use of an additional antipsychotic, incidence of serious medical conditions, and mortality.
Initiation of clozapine was associated with a significantly decreased rate of psychiatric hospital admission (hazard ratio=0.78, 95% CI=0.69-0.88), index antipsychotic discontinuation (hazard ratio=0.60, 95% CI=0.55-0.65), and use of an additional antipsychotic (hazard ratio=0.76, 95% CI=0.70-0.82). Clozapine was associated with significantly increased incidence of diabetes mellitus (2.8% for clozapine vs. 1.4% for standard antipsychotic; hazard ratio=1.63, 95% CI=0.98-2.70), hyperlipidemia (12.9% for clozapine vs. 8.5% for standard antipsychotic; hazard ratio=1.40, 95%CI=1.09-1.78), and intestinal obstruction (0.9% for clozapine vs. 0.3% for standard antipsychotic; hazard ratio=2.50, 95% CI=0.97-6.44).
In adults with schizophrenia and evidence of treatment resistance, initiating clozapine compared with initiating a standard antipsychotic was associated with greater effectiveness on several important outcomes. Increasing the judicious use of clozapine is warranted together with vigilance to prevent and detect serious medical adverse effects.
作者比较了在常规临床实践中,对于有治疗抵抗证据的成年精神分裂症患者,起始使用氯氮平或标准抗精神病药物治疗的效果。
利用 2001 年至 2009 年美国全国医疗补助数据,对一个起始使用氯氮平(N=3123)和一个起始使用标准抗精神病药物(N=3123)的具有治疗抵抗证据的精神分裂症患者队列的治疗结果进行了考察。干预措施为新起始使用氯氮平或标准抗精神病药物治疗,定义为在之前 365 天内未使用新药物。主要结局为因精神障碍住院。次要结局包括起始抗精神病药物停药、使用另一种抗精神病药物、发生严重医疗情况和死亡。
起始使用氯氮平与较低的精神科住院率(风险比=0.78,95%CI=0.69-0.88)、起始抗精神病药物停药率(风险比=0.60,95%CI=0.55-0.65)和使用另一种抗精神病药物率(风险比=0.76,95%CI=0.70-0.82)显著相关。氯氮平与糖尿病(氯氮平为 2.8%,标准抗精神病药物为 1.4%;风险比=1.63,95%CI=0.98-2.70)、高脂血症(氯氮平为 12.9%,标准抗精神病药物为 8.5%;风险比=1.40,95%CI=1.09-1.78)和肠梗阻(氯氮平为 0.9%,标准抗精神病药物为 0.3%;风险比=2.50,95%CI=0.97-6.44)的发生率显著增加相关。
在有治疗抵抗证据的成年精神分裂症患者中,起始使用氯氮平与起始使用标准抗精神病药物相比,在几个重要结局上效果更好。有必要更谨慎地使用氯氮平,同时要警惕和发现严重的药物不良反应。