您的账号已在其他设备登录,您当前账号已强迫下线,
如非您本人操作,建议您在会员中心进行密码修改

确定
收藏 | 浏览43

Asenapine is a second-generation antipsychotic approved in Europe for treating moderate-to-severe manic episodes in adults affected by type I bipolar disorder (BD-I). We aimed to compare its efficacy in psychiatric inpatients with BD-I, with or without substance use disorder (SUD).We administered flexible asenapine doses ranging from 5-20 mg/day to 119 voluntarily hospitalized patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) BD-I diagnosis, with or without SUD. Patients were assessed with clinician-rated questionnaires [i.e. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)]. Assessments were carried out at baseline (T0, prior to treatment), and 3 (T1), 7 (T2), 15 (T3), and 30 days (T4) after starting treatment for all clinical scales and at T0 and T4 for the GAF.Patients improved on all scales (p < 0.001) across all timepoints, as shown both by paired-sample comparisons and by applying a repeated-measures, generalized linear model (GLM). Patients without comorbid SUD showed greater reductions in BPRS scores at T2 and T3, greater reduction in YMRS scores at T3, and lower HARS scores at all timepoints. HDRS scores did not differ between the two groups at any timepoint. However, the reduction in HARS scores in the comorbid group was stronger than in the BD-I only group, albeit not significantly. Side effects were few and mild-to-moderate.The open-label design and the relatively short observation period may expose to both type I and type II statistical errors (false positive and false negatives). Asenapine showed effectiveness and safety in hospitalized BD-I patients. Its effect was stronger in patients without comorbid SUD.

作者:Sergio, De Filippis;Ilaria, Cuomo;Georgios D, Kotzalidis;Daniela, Pucci;Pietro, Zingaretti;Raffaella, Porrari;Camilla, Fini;Paola, Motta;Matteo, Caloro;Paolo, Girardi

来源:Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology 2017 年 7卷 2期

知识库介绍

临床诊疗知识库该平台旨在解决临床医护人员在学习、工作中对医学信息的需求,方便快速、便捷的获取实用的医学信息,辅助临床决策参考。该库包含疾病、药品、检查、指南规范、病例文献及循证文献等多种丰富权威的临床资源。

详细介绍
热门关注
免责声明:本知识库提供的有关内容等信息仅供学习参考,不代替医生的诊断和医嘱。

收藏
| 浏览:43
作者:
Sergio, De Filippis;Ilaria, Cuomo;Georgios D, Kotzalidis;Daniela, Pucci;Pietro, Zingaretti;Raffaella, Porrari;Camilla, Fini;Paola, Motta;Matteo, Caloro;Paolo, Girardi
来源:
Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology 2017 年 7卷 2期
标签:
anxiety asenapine atypical antipsychotic drugs bipolar disorder substance use disorder
Asenapine is a second-generation antipsychotic approved in Europe for treating moderate-to-severe manic episodes in adults affected by type I bipolar disorder (BD-I). We aimed to compare its efficacy in psychiatric inpatients with BD-I, with or without substance use disorder (SUD).We administered flexible asenapine doses ranging from 5-20 mg/day to 119 voluntarily hospitalized patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) BD-I diagnosis, with or without SUD. Patients were assessed with clinician-rated questionnaires [i.e. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)]. Assessments were carried out at baseline (T0, prior to treatment), and 3 (T1), 7 (T2), 15 (T3), and 30 days (T4) after starting treatment for all clinical scales and at T0 and T4 for the GAF.Patients improved on all scales (p < 0.001) across all timepoints, as shown both by paired-sample comparisons and by applying a repeated-measures, generalized linear model (GLM). Patients without comorbid SUD showed greater reductions in BPRS scores at T2 and T3, greater reduction in YMRS scores at T3, and lower HARS scores at all timepoints. HDRS scores did not differ between the two groups at any timepoint. However, the reduction in HARS scores in the comorbid group was stronger than in the BD-I only group, albeit not significantly. Side effects were few and mild-to-moderate.The open-label design and the relatively short observation period may expose to both type I and type II statistical errors (false positive and false negatives). Asenapine showed effectiveness and safety in hospitalized BD-I patients. Its effect was stronger in patients without comorbid SUD.