奥氮平的临床应用

奥氮平(olanzapine)又称奥兰扎平,是一种非典型的抗精神病药物,于1999年4月在我国上市。现将近年来奥氮平在临床中的应用做一综述。1精神分裂症1·1精神分裂症的阳性症状奥氮平能选择性地阻断边缘系统多巴胺D2受体,明显改善精神病性阳性症状。郭涛等[1]报道,奥氮平对改善思维障碍及消除幻觉、妄想等精神病性阳性症状有明显效果。由于目前其他抗精神病药物对精神病性阳性症状也有疗效,而该药价格昂贵,故单纯针对奥氮平治疗精神分裂症阳性症状的效果研究较少。1·2精神分裂症的阴性症状奥氮平对精神分裂症的阴性症状有明显的疗效,尤其对言语…     

非典型抗精神病药物在临床的应用

目的 探讨非典型抗精神病药物的临床应用和疗效.方法 150例精神分裂症患者根据用药情况分为奥氮平组、利培酮组、阿立哌唑组、齐拉西酮组、喹硫平组、阿密舒必利组各25例,测定治疗前后患者的阴性症状和阳性症状量表（PNASS）,分析总结临床常用药物及其特点、疗效和不良反应.结果 治疗后所有患者的PNASS较治疗前均有明显改善,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;各组临床疗效比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）.奥氮平、利培酮、齐拉西酮不良反应少、安全性高.结论 非典型抗精神病药物的临床治疗作用较好,但仍然有一定的不良反应,在应用时要引起注意.     

奥氮平治疗60例精神分裂症临床分析

目的探讨奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的临床疗效。方法选取我院2008年1月～2010年3月治疗的120例精神分裂症患者的临床资料,随机分为利培酮组(60例)和奥氮平组(60例),利培酮组患者利用利培酮连续治疗12周,奥氮平患者组利用奥氮平治疗12周,使用精神病评定量表(BPRS)进行疗效评价,使用不良反应量表(TESS)进行安全性评价,比较两组患者的临床疗效和不良反应。结果在治疗1 2周之后,两组患者的BPRP均比治疗前显著降低,同时奥氮平的不良反应发生与利培酮组无明显差异。结论在临床治疗精神分裂症中利培酮和奥氮平均是安全有效的药物,奥氮平的药物持续时间更长,且不良反应的发生率较低,临床疗效满意,值得在临床推广。     

奥氮平治疗老年期精神分裂症对照研究

目的：对比奥氮平与奋乃静治疗老年期精神分裂症的疗效和安全性。方法：将60例老年期精神分裂症住院患者随机分为两组，分别给予奥氮平和奋乃静治疗，疗程8周。以阳性和阴性症状量表（PANSS）评定临床疗效，以副反应量表（TESS）评定不良反应。结果：奥氮平与奋乃静临床疗效差异无显著性。奥氮平组不良反应发生率低于奋乃静组。结论：奥氮平治疗老年期精神分裂症的疗效较好，安全性高，有利于长期巩固维持治疗。     

浅谈奥氮平与奋乃静的临床应用效果

目的探讨精神分裂症患者给予奥氮平片与奋乃静治疗的临床应用效果。方法 160例精神分裂症患者随机分为研究组（给服奥氮平的患者）80例,对照组（给服奋乃静的患者）80例,在治疗的第1、2、3、4、5、6个月,应用精神分裂症阳性症状与阴性症状量表评定临床疗效,不良反应量表评定不良反应,进行比较分析。结果经过治疗,研究组总有效率95.0%高于对照组85.0%,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;研究组不良反应情况优于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论奥氮平与奋乃静治疗精神分裂症患者疗效相近,但应用奥氮平不良反应少于应用奋乃静。     

非典型抗精神病药物在临床上的应用

目的阐述非典型抗精神病药的药物作用和临床应用及不良反应。方法对近年来文献中报道的非典型抗精神病药物进行归纳总结。结果以齐拉西酮、利培酮、氯氮平、奥氮平、阿立哌唑、奎硫平、洛沙平等为代表的非典型抗精神病药物先后被研制并用于临床。利培酮、奥氮平、奎硫平、齐拉西酮由于患者用药的依从性、安全性均高,有助于精神分裂症患者的全程治疗,可作为治疗精神分裂症的一线药物应用;氯氮平因其有粒细胞减少症,需经常作血细胞计数监测而成为二线药物。低剂量的洛沙平可作为一线抗精神病药使用。结论非典型抗精神病药物对阴性症状,认知功能障碍、敌意和情感症状的疗效优于典型抗精神病药物。对预防复发及难治性患者均有一定疗效。非典型抗精神病药物较经典抗精神病药物减少了EPS及迟发性运动障碍等不良反应,非典型抗精神病药物的主要缺点:治疗急性精神分裂症的最初阶段或急性激越状态,不如经典抗精神病药物起效快;缺乏长效制剂及短作用的肌注制剂;如奥氮平等因引起肥胖有不同程度的体质量增加。低剂量洛沙平更具有非典型抗精神病药物的特点,大剂量使用时仍有EPS不良反应出现。     

奥氮平治疗精神分裂症血药浓度与临床疗效的关系

奥氮平对精神分裂症的阳性、阴性症状均有良好疗效，较少引起锥体外系反应，因而在临床广泛应用。由于奥氮平的药代动力学参数个体差异较大，因此监测奥氮平血药浓度，探讨血药浓度与临床疗效的关系，将有助于提高疗效、减少不良反应。本研究对奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的血药浓度与疗效、剂量、副反应的关系进行了初步研究。     

奥氮平与氯氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症的对照研究

目的观察奥氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症的临床疗效及不良反应。方法将70例临床诊断为难治性精神分裂症的患者随机分为2组,分别用奥氮平与氯氮平治疗4个月,用简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)及副反应量表(TESS)评定疗效及副反应。结果奥氮平组疗效高于氯氮平组,且无严重的不良反应。结论奥氮平是治疗难治性精神分裂症安全有效的药物,适合临床应用。     

奥氮平的药物相互作用

奥氮平作为非典型抗精神病药,能显著改善精神分裂症患者的阴性、阳性症状及情感症状,由于疗效高,锥体外系不良反应少见,病人易于接受,目前已广泛用于临床,常用于精神病的急性期和维持治疗,亦可缓解精神分裂症及相关疾病常见的继发性情感症状。随着临床使用的增加,与其他药物相互作用的几率也增加,作者根据有关文献综述如下：     

奥氮平与盐酸氯丙嗪的疗效和不良反应的比较

目的探讨难治性精神分裂症的患者给服奥氮平片与盐酸氯丙嗪片的治疗疗效和不良反应的异同。方法 80例精神分裂症患者随机分为研究组（给服奥氮平）40例和对照组（给服盐酸氯丙嗪片）40例,在治疗的第1、2、3个月,应用精神分裂症阳性症状与阴性症状量表评定临床疗效,副反应量表评定不良反应,进行比较分析。结果经过3个月的治疗,对照组和研究组对普通类型的精神分裂症患者治疗有效率差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,对难治性精神分裂症和精神分裂症阴性症状盐酸氯丙嗪的疗效没有奥氮平的疗效明显。研究组不良反应率70.0%明显少于对照组100%,差异具有统计学意义。结论对于普通精神分裂症患者奥氮平与盐酸氯丙嗪疗效相近,但对于难治性精神分裂症患者和精神分裂症阴性症状奥氮平的治疗效果要远远优于盐酸氯丙嗪。不良反应方面,奥氮平不良反应出现率比较少,盐酸氯丙嗪不良反应出现的多而且严重。     

奥氮平与齐拉西酮治疗青少年精神分裂症疗效的对比研究

目的比较奥氮平与齐拉西酮治疗青少年精神分裂症的疗效及其不良反应。方法将60例青少年精神分裂症患者随机平分为两组。以奥氮平和齐拉西酮治疗,疗程8周。采用阳性与阴性症状量表(PANSS)及治疗中出现的不良反应例数评定疗效以及不良反应。结果奥氮平和齐拉西酮治疗青少年精神分裂症患者总体疗效相当,两药不良反应均较小,但奥氮平在语言表达流畅性方面明显优于齐拉西酮;齐拉西酮的体重增加方面则低于奥氮平。结论奥氮平与齐拉西酮治疗青少年精神分裂症均有效,奥氮平在治疗精神分裂症患者的阴性症状效果更好。     

奥氮平治疗青少年精神分裂症的临床疗效分析

目的：探讨奥氮平治疗青少年精神分裂症的临床疗效。方法：选择2015年1月～2016年1月我院收治的精神分裂症青少年患者80例,将其平均分为研究组与对照组。对照组采用阿立哌唑治疗,研究组应用奥氮平治疗。结果：研究组治疗总有效率为95.00%,高于对照组的80.00%（P<0.05）;研究组药物不良反应发生率为10.00%,低于对照组的30.00%（P<0.05）。结论：奥氮平治疗青少年精神分裂症疗效确切,安全性佳。     

奥氮平与氯丙嗪治疗精神分裂症阳性症状的临床疗效比较

目的 :观察奥氮平治疗精神分裂症阳性症状的疗效及安全性。方法 :采用随机临床对比研究。奥氮平组 31例 (男性 14例 ,女性 17例 ) ,剂量范围 5～ 2 0mg·d- 1;氯丙嗪组 2 7例 (男性 14例 ,女性 13例 ) ,剂量范围为 2 5～ 6 0 0mg·d- 1。结果 :奥氮平组治疗精神分裂症的显效率为 6 1% ,有效率为80 % ;而氯丙嗪组的显效率为 33% ,有效率为 5 2 % ,奥氮平组的临床疗效显著优于氯丙嗪组 (P <0 .0 5 )。奥氮平组的不良反应较少 ,未发现锥体外系不良反应及直立性低血压。结论 :奥氮平是一有效而安全的非典型性抗精神病药物 ,对精神分裂症阳性症状有效     

Olanzapine overdose: a series of analytically confirmed cases

To describe the spectrum of clinical effects in olanzapine overdose and investigate the factors that predict severe outcomes. We analysed olanzapine-overdose events confirmed by drug analysis. Demographic, clinical and outcome data were recorded for each presentation. The relationship between dose and therapeutic olanzapine use, and outcomes (length of hospital stay, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, Glasgow coma score <9 and delirium) were investigated. Thirty-seven olanzapine overdose admissions were included. Median age was 30 years (interquartile range: 24-40 years), 24 women and 27 taking olanzapine therapeutically. Median ingested dose was 150 mg (range: 10-1600 mg). Olanzapine overdose was characterized by tachycardia (73%), central nervous system depression (43%), miosis (39%) and delirium (54%), which were either present on admission or developed within 6 h. There was no relationship between the dose and length of hospital stay, intensive care unit admission, Glasgow coma score <9 or delirium, but there was a trend towards more severe outcomes in patients not taking olanzapine therapeutically. Patients with delirium had an increased length of hospital stay and intensive care unit admission rate (50%) and 70% of them required physical or chemical restraint. Olanzapine overdose causes a high rate of delirium and central nervous system sedation that requires significant inpatient resources. Olanzapine overdoses should be initially observed for 6 h and patients not taking olanzapine regularly may have more severe effects.     

Olanzapine compared to lithium in mania: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Neuroleptics are of established efficacy in mania. Controlled data on the use of olanzapine in mania is however, absent. In this study, 30 patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for mania were randomly allocated to receive either olanzapine or lithium in a 4 week double-blind randomized controlled design. There were no significant outcome differences between the two groups on any of the primary outcome measures, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (lithium 28.2; olanzapine 28.0; P = 0.44); Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement scale (lithium 2.75, olanzapine 2.36; P = 0.163) or the Mania Scale (lithium 13.2, olanzapine 10.2; P = 0.315). Olanzapine was however, significantly superior to lithium on the CGI-severity scale at week 4 (lithium 2.83, olanzapine 2.29; P = 0.025). Olanzapine did not differ from lithium in terms of treatment emergent extrapyramidal side-effects as measured by the Simpson-Angus Scale. Olanzapine appears to be at least as effective as lithium in the treatment of mania.     

Clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine compared with haloperidol for schizophrenia. Results from a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare, from the payor perspective, the clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine to those of haloperidol for the treatment of schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical, quality-of-life and resource utilisation data were prospectively collected for US-residing patients with schizophrenia who were participating in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind clinical trial comparing olanzapine and haloperidol. Direct medical costs were estimated by assigning standardised prices (1995 values) to the resource utilisation data. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: 817 patients with schizophrenia who had a baseline Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score (BPRS) > or = 18 (items scored 0 to 6) and/or were no longer tolerating current antipsychotic therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 551) or haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 266) for 6 weeks. Patients showing a predefined level of clinical response entered a 46-week maintenance phase. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: After acute treatment, BPRS-based clinical improvements were seen in 38 and 27% of olanzapine and haloperidol patients, respectively (p = 0.002). Clinically important improvements on the Quality of Life Scale were achieved during acute treatment in 33% of olanzapine recipients and 25% of haloperidol recipients (p = 0.094). Olanzapine treatment in the acute phase led to significantly lower inpatient ($US5125 vs $US5795, p = 0.038) and outpatient ($US663 vs $US692, p = 0.001) costs, resulting in a significant overall reduction in mean total medical costs of $US388 (p = 0.033). This significant reduction in total costs was found despite olanzapine mean medication costs being significantly greater than haloperidol medication costs ($US326 vs $US15, p < 0.001). No significant differences in clinical improvement were observed in the maintenance phase. Maintenance phase olanzapine mean total medical costs were $US636 lower than haloperidol total costs (p = 0.128). Although olanzapine medication costs were significantly higher than haloperidol medication costs ($US3461 vs $US95, p < 0.001), this difference was offset by significantly lower inpatient ($US8322 vs $US10,662, p = 0.044) and outpatient ($US3810 vs $US5473, p = 0.038) costs. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, olanzapine treatment was more effective than haloperidol in producing clinical response in the acute phase. In addition, olanzapine treatment led to reductions in inpatient and outpatient costs that more than offset olanzapine's higher medication costs relative to haloperidol.     

Olanzapine. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in schizophrenia.

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent which is at least as effective as the conventional agent haloperidol and the atypical agent risperidone. Olanzapine may be superior to haloperidol in some respects, including treatment of negative symptoms. A major advantage of olanzapine over haloperidol is its lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms. Olanzapine improves quality of life and other aspects of functioning to a greater extent than haloperidol, and improves quality of life to at least the same extent as risperidone. However, olanzapine has a high acquisition cost compared with conventional antipsychotics. Despite this, most pharmacoeconomic analyses indicate that treatment with olanzapine does not significantly increase, and may even decrease, the overall direct treatment costs of schizophrenia, compared with haloperidol. Total direct medical costs calculated from prospective resource utilisation data were lower with olanzapine than with haloperidol by $US388 (1995 values) per patient over 6 weeks and by $US55 per patient per month during 46 weeks extended treatment. In a mixed effects linear model of the same data, total costs over 1 year were $US10,301 (1996 values) per patient lower with olanzapine than haloperidol, and olanzapine was associated with 18.3 more symptom-free days per patient. Compared with risperidone, mean total direct medical costs over 28 weeks were $US493 (1995 values) per patient lower with olanzapine. In a Markov model of 5 years' treatment, olanzapine was associated with more time in a disability-free state than haloperidol at a total cost per patient that was lower by $US1539 (1995 values), 816 Pounds (1995/1996 values), 977 Dutch guilders (NLG; 1995 values) and 2296 Deutschmarks in US, UK, Dutch and German analyses, respectively. In a similar Spanish analysis, the overall total cost was higher with olanzapine, giving an incremental cost effectiveness for olanzapine of 32,516 pesetas (1995 values) per month of disability-free time gained. When risperidone was a comparator, the total cost per patient was $US1875 and NLG202 lower with olanzapine in US and Dutch analyses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The high acquisition cost of olanzapine is offset by reductions in other treatment costs in patients with schizophrenia. Compared with haloperidol, the drug improved patient outcome and quality of life, while overall direct treatment costs were generally not increased, or even decreased. Olanzapine has also been reported to decrease overall treatment costs compared with risperidone, but confirmation is required. Olanzapine is a cost-effective alternative to conventional agents for the treatment of moderately to severely ill patients with longstanding schizophrenia.     

Olanzapine plasma concentrations and clinical response: acute phase results of the North American Olanzapine Trial

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia. Olanzapine plasma concentrations > or = 9.3 ng/mL (24 hours postdose) have been identified as a predictor of clinical response in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. The authors report a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of 12-hour olanzapine concentrations and treatment response from the North American Double-Blind Olanzapine Trial. After a 4- to 7-day placebo lead-in, patients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine, haloperidol, or placebo. Patients who were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine were given daily doses ranging from 2.5 to 17.5 mg/day for up to 6 weeks. Blood samples for the determination of olanzapine plasma concentrations were obtained between 10 and 16 hours (11.7 +/- 1.7 hours) after the last dose was administered. Therapeutic response data and olanzapine concentrations used for analysis were obtained from the endpoint visit for each patient if the patient had been receiving a fixed olanzapine dose for at least the last 2 weeks of the study. Plasma concentrations from previous visits were used if endpoint concentrations were invalid. Response was defined as a > or = 20% reduction in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores and a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity scale score of < or = 3 or a final BPRS score of < or = 35. The final ROC analysis included data from 84 patients and suggested an olanzapine concentration > or = 23.2 ng/mL to be a predictor of therapeutic response. Fifty-two percent of patients with 12-hour olanzapine concentrations > or = 23.2 ng/mL responded, whereas only 25% of patients with concentrations < 23.2 ng/mL responded. Furthermore, an olanzapine concentration > or = 23.2 ng/mL was a predictor of response in the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (> or = 20% decrease and endpoint CGI < or = 3). Olanzapine concentrations were found to be a function of olanzapine dose (in milligrams per day) and gender such that prospective olanzapine dosing is feasible. A 12-hour olanzapine plasma concentration of > 23.2 ng/mL was a predictor of therapeutic response in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. Males required a higher olanzapine dose to reach this threshold concentration than their female counterparts.     

Olanzapine: a review of its use in the management of bipolar I disorder

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is approved in the US and Europe for the oral treatment of acute manic episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder, and for maintenance therapy to prevent recurrence in responders.Oral olanzapine is effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, both as single agent therapy and as adjunctive therapy in combination with lithium or valproate semisodium. In the treatment of acute episodes, olanzapine is superior to placebo and at least as effective as lithium, valproate semisodium, haloperidol and risperidone in reducing the symptoms of mania and inducing remission. Additional comparative studies are required to determine the efficacy of olanzapine relative to newer atypical antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, ziprasidone and aripiprazole. Olanzapine is also effective at delaying or preventing relapse during long-term maintenance therapy in treatment responders, and is currently the only atypical antipsychotic approved for this indication. Current evidence suggests that olanzapine may be more effective than lithium in preventing relapse into mania, but not relapse into depression or relapse overall. Olanzapine is generally well tolerated, and although it is associated with a higher incidence of weight gain than most atypical agents, it has a low incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Therefore, oral olanzapine is a useful first-line or adjunctive agent for both the acute treatment of manic episodes and the long-term prevention of relapse into manic, depressive or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder.     

Olanzapine: new preparation. Keep an eye on this neuroleptic

(1) Olanzapine, a neuroleptic, has obtained European marketing authorisation for the treatment of schizophrenia. (2) The clinical file is satisfactory, but in the absence of relevant trials it has not yet been demonstrated that olanzapine has a specific activity on the positive or negative symptoms of schizophrenia. (3) The global efficacy of olanzapine was not significantly different from that of haloperidol in two of the three comparative trials published to date. (4) The only relevant comparative trial fails to demonstrate the superiority of olanzapine over risperidone. (5) Olanzapine has fewer adverse neurological effects than haloperidol, but there is no evidence that it differs from other recent neuroleptics in this respect. (6) Olanzapine can have anticholinergic adverse effects and frequently causes weight gain. (7) Active pharmacovigilance is required, as subclinical cases of elevated transaminase levels, increased blood pressure and QT prolongation were observed in clinical trials (2,500 patients treated).