【摘要】 目的:对奥氮平及氯丙嗪应用于分离性障碍治疗的临床疗效以及安全性进行探讨。方法:将75例分离性障碍患者随机分为奥氮平组36例和氯丙嗪组39例。分别给予奥氮平和氯丙嗪进行治疗,奥氮平组与氯丙嗪组使用药物剂量平均分别为(17.67±2.46)mg·d-1和(340.33±6.77)mg·d-1,均观察8周,在治疗前及治疗后的第1、2、4、6、8周末使用简明精神病量表(BPRS)、分离体验量表(DES)对临床疗效进行评定,使用副反应量表(TESS)对不良反应进行评定。结果:奥氮平和氯丙嗪的临床疗效接近,其各时间点的BPRS评分以及DES评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);而奥氮平组的患者在TESS评分上显著低于氯丙嗪组的患者(P<0.05),说明使用奥氮平的不良反应较少且较轻。结论:奥氮平及氯丙嗪应用于分离障碍均有较好的临床疗效,而奥氮平的不良反应更少,安全性相比更高,可能是分离障碍临床治疗的更优药物。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective: To discuss the clinical efficacy and safety of olanzapine and chlorpromazine in the treatment of dissociative disorders. Methods: 75 patients with dissociative mental disorders were randomly divided into olanzapine group and chlorpromazine group,36 cases in olanzapine group,39 cases in chlorpromazine group.The patients of olanzapine group were treated with olanzapine,the patients of chlorpromazine group were treated with chlorpromazine,the average dose of the two groups were( 17. 67 ± 2. 46) mg·d- 1and( 340. 33 ± 6. 77) mg·d- 1respectively. Observation time was eight weeks. The clinical efficacy and adverse reactions before the treatment and at the end of 1,2,4,6,8 week after the treatment were evaluated by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale( BPRS),Dissociative Experiences Scale( DES) and Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale( TESS). Results: The clinical efficacy of olanzapine and chlorpromazine was close,the BRPS and DES scores at all time points were not significantly different( P > 0. 05). While the TESS score of patients in olanzapine group was significantly lower than that of chlorpromazine group( P < 0. 05),which indicated that the adverse effects of using olanzapine were less and lighter. Conclusion: The clinical efficacy of olanzapine and chlorpromazine in the treatment of dissociative disorders are exact,while the adverse action of olanzapine is less and the security is better,which may be the better clinical medicine in the treatment of dissociative mental disorders.更多还原