A Control Study Of Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation And Aripiprazole Treatment For Tic Disorders In Children

Objective:To evaluate whether cranial electrotherapy stimulation(CES) is aeffective, safe and feasible treatment method for children with tic disorders throughcomparing the clinical efficacy, safety, efficiency and patient compliance of CES witharipiprazole treatment.Methods: A randomized, case-controlled clinical trial was designed. Sampleswere all meet the revised fourth edition of Psychiatric Diagnostic and StatisticalManual in2000(DSM-IV-TR) diagnostic criteria of chronic tic disorders (CTD) andTourette’s syndrome (TS). Seventy-five Han Chinese children aged5to16years oldwith CTD (n=44) or TS(n=31) were randomly assigned to CES group(n=41) andaripiprazole group(n=34). After4weeks treatment, the clinical efficacy and safetywere assessed by the Yale global tic severity scale(YGTSS) and the treatmentemergent symptom scale(TESS) respectively. And the cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA), calculate the ratio of cost and effectiveness(C/E) were used, to assess theeconomical efficiency.Results:(1)Before treatment, the YGTSS score of CES group and aripiprazolegroup were (34.00±9.41) and (33.64±8.25). There was no significant differencebetween two groups (P>0.05). The YGTSS score in both groups decreased from thesecond week of treatment. Compared with the aripirazole treatment group, the CEStreatment group showed a less decreased YGTSS score [(17.91±10.44)%vs(28.60±12.99)%; P<0.01] by the second week of treatment.Similarly, the decline rateof YGTSS score in CES treatment group [(33.03±19.65)%] was significantly lowerthan aripirazole treatment group by the forth week of treatment. The overall effectiverate in the CES and aripiprazole treatment groups was45.71%and76.47%,respectively4weeks after treatment which was significantly difference (P<0.05).(2)The incidences of adverse reactions in the CES and aripiprazole groups were separately14.29%and11.76%, which had no significant difference (P>0.05). Therewere also no serious adverse reactions in the two groups.(3)The ratio of cost andeffectiveness in the CES group was significantly higher than the aripiprazole group’s.(4)There were6patients drop out treatment in the CES group while all patients in thearipiprazole group got through treatment during follow-up. There was significantdifference between the two groups’lost rate(P<0.05).Conclusions: CES could have a certain efficacy and less adverse reaction intreating children with tic disorders. But the efficacy of CES could be less and slowerthan that of aripiprazole. Furthermore, CES might have a poor compliance and highcost in treating children with tic disorders.