|
KMID : 0361520060170010035
|
|
Korean Journal of Psychopharmacology
2006 Volume.17 No. 1 p.35 ~ p.49
|
|
|
The Feasibility Test of Korean Medication Algorithm for the Treatment with Schizophrenic Patients(Ⅱ)：The Problem for Applying Algorithm to the Real Clinical Situation and Opinion of Revision
|
|
안용민/Ahn YM
권준수/박원명/김철응/박종익/이상열/이중서/이창화/장홍석/전덕인/정상근/Kwon JS/Park WM/Kim CE/Park JI/Lee SY/Lee JS/Lee CH/Jang HS/Jon DI/Chung SK
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Objectives: The Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology and the Korean Academy of Schizophrenia developed the Korean medication algorithm project for schizophrenia (KMAP) to aid clinical decisions. The purpose of this study was to investigate problems and revision of Korean Medication Algorithm for Schizophrenia after feasibility test.
Methods: A total of 108 schizophrenia patients were enrolled at 19 centers and treated according to the algorithm. Prescribing investigators were able to change the recommended treatment strategies of the algorithm if necessary. All subjects were assessed over a 4-month period. Appropriateness of choice, dosage, duration and switch of antipsychotics and definition of treatment response were examined.
Results: Compliance of 1st choice antipsychotics in KMAP was favorable. Atypical antipsychotics which is a 1st stage drug selected first was above 84%, especially in case of no previous medical history was nearly all. In case that shift of stage was needed, there is a trend that combination treatment stage (6th stage) and clozapine treatment stage (5th stage) were preferred to rather than 3rd stage and 4th stage (typical antipsychotics and atypical antipsychotics treatment stage). The rates of switching antipsychotics at the time points other than CDP (critical decision points) was low and the reason was almost the side effects. So the compliance of CDPs in KMAP was good in case of insufficiency of treatment response. Also the reasons why many investigators continued using current antipsychotics without switching despite insufficiency of treatment response were definition of treatment response, discrepancy between brief symptom rating scale for negative symptom and decision of clinicians. In addition, compliance of co-existence symptoms and side effect of medication in KMAP was favorable.
Conclusion: It is some difference from clinical practice such as stage of antipsychotics, definition of treatment response and usefulness of brief symptom rating scale for negative symptom. But the majority apart from points of preceding paragraph is feasible in clinical practice. These results are essential to revise the next version of KMAP.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
  
|