Table 2.
Efficacy of aripiprazole and haloperidol in the treatment of tic disorders
| Outcome measures | Aripiprazole group (n = 31) | Haloperidol group (n = 17) | Statistical valuea | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 8 weeks | Baseline | 8 weeks | Group effect | Time effect | Group × time Interaction effect | ||||
| z | p | z | p | z | p | |||||
| YGTSS mean (SD) | ||||||||||
| Motor tic scores | 17.5 (5.3) | 8.0 (4.4) | 20.5 (3.1) | 8.5 (6.7) | −1.21 | 0.227 | −8.29 | <0.001 | 0.61 | 0.540 |
| Phonic tic scores | 9.0 (6.7) | 4.5 (4.6) | 7.1 (8.3) | 2.4 (4.3) | 0.99 | 0.320 | −5.59 | <0.001 | 1.13 | 0.258 |
| Total tic scores | 26.5 (4.9) | 12.1 (6.4) | 27.6 (7.3) | 10.1 (7.5) | −0.61 | 0.543 | −9.60 | <0.001 | 1.28 | 0.201 |
| CGI-I, n (%)b | ||||||||||
| Very much improved | – | 9 (34.6) | – | 5 (45.5) | – | – | – | – | ||
| Much improved | – | 13 (50.0) | – | 5 (45.5) | ||||||
| Minimally improved | – | 3 (16.7) | – | 0 (0) | ||||||
| No change | – | 1 (3.8) | – | 1 (9.1) | ||||||
| Minimally aggravated | – | 0 | – | 0 | ||||||
| Much aggravated | – | 0 | – | 0 | ||||||
| CGI-S, n (%) | ||||||||||
| Normal, not Ill | 0 | 2 (7.7) | 0 | 1 (9.1) | −0.94 | 0.35 | −8.83 | <0.001 | 0.69 | 0.490 |
| Minimally ill | 0 | 8 (30.7) | 0 | 6 (54.5) | ||||||
| Mildly ill | 0 | 10 (38.5) | 0 | 3 (27.3) | ||||||
| Moderately ill | 4 (12.9) | 3 (11.5) | 1 (20.0) | 0 | ||||||
| Markedly ill | 12 (38.7) | 3 (11.5) | 7 (36.9) | 0 | ||||||
| Severely ill | 15 (48.4) | 0 | 9 (37.5) | 1 (9.1) | ||||||
| Extremely severely ill | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
aTo examine the group and time effects for each outcome variable, generalized estimation equation (GEE) modeling was adopted, with age, gender, duration of illness, and baseline scores for each outcome variable included as covariates
bCalculating patients who dropped-out
YGTSS yale global tic severity scale, CGI-I clinical global impression-improvement, CGI-S clinical global impression-severity of illness