奥氮平与利培酮在精神分裂症治疗中疗效比较

Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy of Olanzapine and Risperidone in the Treatment of Schizophrenia

目的 对比分析在为精神分裂症患者实施治疗的过程中奥氮平与利培酮的临床疗效。方法 本次试验研究随机选取2018年2月至2020年2月期间在我院接受精神分裂症治疗的患者98例作为研究对象,根据治疗药物的不同将患者分为两组,其中将奥氮平作为治疗药物的49例患者作为奥氮平组,将利培酮作为治疗药物的49例患者作为利培酮组,对比分析两组患者的治疗效果。结果对比分析两组患者治疗效果可知,利培酮组患者与奥氮平组患者差异无统计学意义(P> 0.05)。奥氮平组与利培酮组患者治疗前后PANSS评分情况、生活质量差异均无统计学意义(P> 0.05)。奥氮平组患者与利培酮组患者的不良反应率存在显著统计学差异(P <0.05)。结论 在为精神分裂症患者实施药物治疗的过程中,奥氮平与利培酮均为较为理想的治疗效果,其治疗效果相当,对改善患者临床症状、体征以及生活质量均有着显著的效果,但是利培酮的不良反应发生率相对较低,其临床推广价值更高。

Objective To compare and analyze the clinical efficacy of olanzapine and risperidone in the course of treatment of schizophrenia patients. Methods In this experimental study, 98 patients who received schizophrenia treatment in our hospital from February 2018 to February 2020 were randomly selected as the research objects. The patients were divided into two groups according to the different treatment drugs. Fortynine patients with olanzapine as a therapeutic drug were taken as the olanzapine group, and 49 patients with risperidone as the therapeutic drug were taken as the risperidone group. The therapeutic effects of the two groups were compared and analyzed. Results A comparative analysis of the treatment effects of the two groups showed that there was no significant difference between the risperidone group and the olanzapine group(P>0.05). There was no significant difference in PANSS scores and quality of life between the olanzapine group and the risperidone group before and after treatment(P>0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the adverse reaction rate between the olanzapine group and the risperidone group(P<0.05). Conclusion In the process of drug treatment for patients with schizophrenia, olanzapine and risperidone are relatively ideal therapeutic effects, and their therapeutic effects are equivalent, and they have significant effects on improving the clinical symptoms, signs and quality of life of patients, but the incidence of adverse reactions of risperidone is relatively low, and its clinical promotion value is higher.