4.7 Article

Olanzapine vs. risperidone in patients with first-episode schizophrenia and a lifetime history of cannabis use disorders: 16-week clinical and substance use outcomes

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 188, 期 3, 页码 310-314

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.05.001

关键词

Psychosis; Marijuana; Atypicals; Alcohol; Negative symptoms; Positive symptoms

资金

  1. Bristol-Meyers Squibb
  2. Eli Lilly
  3. Janssen Pharmaceutica
  4. NIH [K23 DA015541, MH60004, MH41960, RR018535]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of olanzapine and risperidone for the acute treatment of first-episode schizophrenia patients with cannabis use disorders. This secondary analysis of a previously published study included 49 first-episode patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder and a co-occurring lifetime diagnosis of cannabis use disorders randomly assigned to treatment with either olanzapine (n = 28) or risperidone (n = 21) for 16 weeks. The olanzapine group did not differ significantly from the risperidone group for initial response rates of positive symptoms, and rates of cannabis use or alcohol use during the study. Positive symptoms and the Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) global asociality-anhedonia scores improved over time but did not differ between study medications. In both groups, cannabis use during the study was higher in patients who used cannabis within three months of the admission. Thus, our results suggest that olanzapine and risperidone had a similar initial efficacy on psychotic symptoms and substance use in first-episode patients with co-occurring cannabis use disorders. If clinicians are choosing between olanzapine versus risperidone treatment for this population, their decision should be based upon factors other than symptom response and short-term substance misuse. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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