阿立哌唑合用文拉法辛治疗难治性抑郁症

目的探讨阿立哌唑合用文拉法辛治疗难治性抑郁症的疗效和安全性。方法将72例难治性抑郁症病人随机分成阿立哌唑合用文拉法辛组(研究组,n=36)与单用文拉法辛组(对照组,n=36),文拉法辛剂量:起始25 mg,bid,7～10 d内加至175～300 mg·d~(-1);阿立哌唑剂量:5 mg·d~(-1),治疗6 wk。用HAMD,HAMA,TESS量表评定疗效和不良反应。结果2组间HAMD,HAMA于wk 1,2,6末减分率比较差异均有非常显著意义(P<0.01),6 wk末研究组有效率86%,对照组56%,2组差异有显著意义(P<0.05),不良反应均表现较轻,大多出现在治疗早期,经对症治疗逐渐缓解。结论阿立哌唑合用文拉法辛治疗难治性抑郁症的疗效优于单用文拉法辛,且耐受性好。     

氟西汀联用马普替林治疗抑郁伴发焦虑障碍

目的:探讨氟西汀与马普替林联用治疗抑郁伴发焦虑障碍的疗效及安全性。方法:联用组(氟西汀加马普替林)30例,年龄(43±s13)a,用药剂量氟西汀(20±4)mg·d-1,晨服;马普替林(139±20)mg·d-1,分2次服。文拉法辛组28例,年龄(35±11)a,用药剂量(204±44)mg·d-1,分2次服。2组均治疗6wk。结果:治疗后2,4,6wk时HAMD和HAMA总分及因子分与治疗前相比,2组均有非常显著差异(P<0.01),但在2组间比较中,6wk时联用组较文拉法辛组更少出现睡眠障碍(P<0.01)和体重下降(P<0.05)。6wk疗效评定联用组痊愈率43%,显进+好转率57%,文拉法辛组痊愈率50%,显进+好转率50%。2组间疗效经Ridit分析,P>0.05。不良反应中联用组多见口干,恶心呕吐反更少见(P<0.05)。结论:氟西汀联用马普替林对抑郁伴发焦虑症状与文拉法辛疗效相当,不良反应相似。     

文拉法辛与氯米帕明治疗抑郁症伴焦虑症状的疗效比较

目的 :比较文拉法辛与氯米帕明治疗抑郁症伴焦虑症状的疗效及安全性。方法 :文拉法辛组2 6例 ,用文拉法辛 50～ 2 0 0mg·d- 1,po ,bid～tid ;氯米帕明组 2 4例 ,用氯米帕明 50～ 2 0 0mg·d- 1,po ,bid～tid ;2组均以HAMD ,HAMA ,TESS评定观察 6wk。结果 :对抑郁症状的治疗 ,文拉法辛组与氯米帕明组显效率均为 84 % (P >0 .0 5) ;对伴随的焦虑症状的治疗 ,文拉法辛组显效率为 92 % ,氯米帕明组显效率为 63% (P <0 .0 5)。文拉法辛组常见不良反应为恶心 ( 2 7% )、口干 ( 19% )、便秘( 19% )、震颤 ( 12 % )、乏力 ( 8% )、头晕 ( 8% )等。结论 :文拉法辛治疗抑郁症伴焦虑症状的疗效肯定、耐受性良好 ,而且对焦虑症状的治疗效果优于氯米帕明     

文拉法辛缓释剂和帕罗西汀治疗抑郁症随机对照研究

目的:比较文拉法辛缓释剂和帕罗西汀治疗抑郁症的疗效及安全性。方法:80例住院抑郁症病人随机分为文拉法辛组和帕罗西汀组,疗程8 wk,用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD),临床疗效总体评定量表(CGI)和不良反应症状量表(TESS)在基线及治疗后wk 1、2、4、8末进行评定。结果:治疗1 wk文拉法辛组HAMD评分与帕罗西汀组比较有显著差异(P<0.05),治疗8 wk末2组减分值分别为14±s 4和14±4,2组治疗前后比较差异均有非常显著意义(P<0.01),但2组间比较差异无显著意义(P>0.05)。文拉法辛组不良反应发生率为20%,帕罗西汀组为20%,2组间比较差异无显著意义(P>0.05)。结论:文拉法辛与帕罗西汀对抑郁症病人的疗效相当,而文拉法辛缓释剂起效快于帕罗西汀,2药不良反应有所不同,但均较轻,安全性好。     

文拉法辛缓释剂(24例)与氯米帕明(25例)治疗广泛性焦虑症的比较

目的 :比较文拉法辛缓释剂与氯米帕明治疗广泛性焦虑症的疗效和安全性。方法 :文拉法辛缓释剂组 (文拉法辛组 ) 2 4例 ,年龄为 (36±s1 2 )a,1 8～ 55a;氯米帕明组 2 5例 ,年龄为 (35± 1 2 )a,2 0～55a。文拉法辛用量 75～ 2 2 5mg·d-1 ,po,qd,氯米帕明用量 50～ 2 50mg·d-1 ,po,bid。共 6wk。疗效评定采用HAMA减分率。安全性评价应用TESS、体检和实验室检查。结果 :经过 6wk的治疗 ,文拉法辛组痊愈率为 2 7% ,有效率为 59%。氯米帕明组痊愈率为 33 % ,有效率为 62 % ,P >0 .0 5。另外 ,文拉法辛组的抗焦虑起效时间与氯米帕明组相近 ,不良反应较氯米帕明组少。结论 :文拉法辛缓释剂治疗广泛性焦虑症疗效与氯米帕明相似 ,可用于广泛性焦虑症的治疗     

度洛西汀与文拉法辛治疗产后抑郁的临床疗效比较

目的 比较度洛西汀与文拉法辛治疗产后抑郁的临床疗效和不良情况.方法 分娩后出现抑郁症的产妇126位,按随机数字表法分成度洛西汀组和文拉法辛组进行治疗,每组63例.度洛西汀组和文拉法辛组起始用药量都为20 mg/d,1周后用药量加为60 mg/d,持续用药6周.使用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)和汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)判断治疗前、治疗1、2、4、6周末各时点的治疗效果,使用副反应量表(TESS)评定两种药物的安全性.结果 两组患者在实施药物治疗6周以后,度洛西汀组显效率74.60％,有效率88.89％;文拉法辛组显效率69.84％,有效率84.13％,两组的治疗效果差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);治疗后1、2、4、6周末各时间点两组的HAMD评分和HAMA评分均比治疗前有明显下降(P＜0.01),两组减分率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);治疗过程中,度洛西汀组的不良反应率为46.8％,文拉法辛组的不良反应率为49.2％,两组的不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);治疗1、2、4、6周末以后两组的TESS评分差异无统计学意义,可是均和治疗前差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).结论 度洛西汀与文拉法辛治疗产后抑郁的治疗效果接近,治疗过程出现的不良反应近似.     

文拉法辛与氟西汀治疗伴焦虑症状的重型抑郁症疗效比较

目的 :探讨文拉法辛对伴有焦虑症状的抑郁症临床疗效。方法 :经性别、年龄、病程、严重程度严格配对。文拉法辛组男性 9例、女性 11例。年龄37a±s9a。病程 9mo± 6mo。给文拉法辛 75～2 0 0mg .d- 1,po分 3次服× 6wk。氟西汀组男性 9例 ,女性 11例。年龄 37a± 9a。病程 9mo± 9mo。给氟西汀 2 0～ 4 0mg .d- 1,po分 2次服× 6wk。分别于治疗前及wk 1,2 ,4 ,6末进行HAMD ,HAMA ,TESS评定。结果 :文拉法辛组与氟西汀组 :HAMDwk 1,2末减分率差异有显著和非常显著意义 (P <0 .0 1和P <0 .0 5)。HAMA减分率wk 1,2 ,4末差异有非常显著意义 (P <0 .0 1)。wk 6末差异有显著意义 (P <0 .0 5)。TESS评定 2组各周末均无差异性。结论 :文拉法辛对伴有焦虑症状的重型抑郁症有良好的治疗效果     

文拉法辛缓释剂治疗抑郁症的双盲、随机、平行对照、多中心临床研究

目的 :比较文拉法辛缓释剂与氟西汀治疗抑郁症的疗效及安全性。方法 :文拉法辛缓释剂组(文拉法辛组 ) 6 4例 ,年龄为 4 1a±s 13a ,氟西汀组6 3例 ,年龄为 4 2a± 12a。按双盲双模拟法文拉法辛组用量 75m·d- 1,qd或氟西汀组用量 2 0mg·d- 1,qd。共 6wk。疗效评定采用HAMD ,HAMA及CGI。安全性评价应用TESS、实验室检查及体检。结果 :经过 6wk治疗 ,文拉法辛组痊愈率 6 9% ,有效率为 83%。氟西汀组的痊愈率 5 9% ,有效率为 71% ,P >0 .0 5。另外 ,文拉法辛组的抗抑郁作用起效较快 ,对伴随的焦虑症状也有较好疗效。文拉法辛组不良反应轻 ,安全性好 ;常见不良反应有 :恶心、呕吐、口干及出汗等。结论 :文拉法辛缓释剂是一种安全而有效的抗抑郁药 ,病人对药物的耐受性及依从性好     

文拉法辛缓释剂和帕罗西汀治疗惊恐障碍的随机对照研究

目的:比较文拉法辛缓释剂和帕罗西汀治疗惊恐障碍的有效性和安全性。方法:将73例符合CCMD-3R的惊恐障碍病人随机分为2组,分别给予文拉法辛(38例,初始剂量75 mg·d~(-1))和帕罗西汀(35例,初始剂量10 mg·d~(-1))。采用惊恐症状评定量表(PASS)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、临床总体印象量表(CGI)和不良反应量表(TESS)分别在治疗前,治疗后wk 2、4、8末各评定1次,并进行对比分析。结果:2组间在治疗后wk 2、4末PASS、HAMA、CGI评分有显著差异(P<0.05);在wk 8末2组间差异无显著意义(P>0.05);文拉法辛组PASS、HAMA、CGI评分在治疗后wk 2末比治疗前明显降低(P<0.05),在wk 4、8末有进一步改善(P<0.01);帕罗西汀组PASS、HAMA、CGI评分在治疗后wk 4、8末与治疗前相比均降分明显(P<0.01)。2组不良反应发生率无显著差异。结论:文拉法辛是一种快速有效且安全性较高的治疗惊恐障碍的药物。     

文拉法辛与阿米替林治疗卒中后抑郁的对照分析

目的:观察文拉法辛与阿米替林治疗卒中后抑郁(PSD)的疗效及副作用。方法:50例PSD患者被随机分为文拉法辛组(25例)与阿米替林组(25例),疗程为6wk。治疗前及治疗后1、2、4、6wk,分别以汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、副反应量表(TESS)评定。结果:文拉法辛组与阿米替林组显效率分别为88%、84%,2组无显著性差异(χ2=0.003,P>0.05);治疗后1、2wk末HAMD2组有显著性差异(P<0.05);文拉法辛组治疗后1、2、4、6wk末TESS总分均显著低于阿米替林组,2组有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论:文拉法辛具有起效快、副作用小的优点,是治疗PSD较为理想的药物。     

Duloxetine as an SNRI treatment for generalized anxiety disorder: results from a placebo and active-controlled trial

This study examined the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine 60-120 mg/day for the treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, placebo and active-controlled (venlafaxine extended-release 75-225 mg/day) trial designed to assess duloxetine 60-120 mg/day during 10 weeks of treatment in adults with Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders-IV-defined generalized anxiety disorder. The primary efficacy outcome measure was mean change from baseline to endpoint in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale total score assessed using analysis of covariance. A total of 487 patients were randomly assigned to duloxetine (n=162), venlafaxine XR (n=164), or placebo (n=161). Significantly greater improvement on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale total score occurred in the duloxetine (P=0.007) and venlafaxine XR (P<0.001) groups compared with the placebo group. Overall discontinuation rates did not differ among the three groups, but adverse event-related discontinuation was significantly higher in the duloxetine (14.2%, P<0.001) and venlafaxine XR (11.0%, P=0.001) groups than in the placebo group (1.9%). During the 2-week drug-tapering phase, discontinuation-emergent adverse events were significantly greater in the venlafaxine XR group (26.9%, P=0.04), but not in the duloxetine group (19.4%, P=0.448) compared with placebo (15.8%). Duloxetine 60-120 mg/day and venlafaxine XR 75-225 mg/day were each efficacious treatments for patients with generalized anxiety disorder.     

盐酸文拉法辛缓释胶囊治疗青少年抑郁症对照研究

目的：评价盐酸文拉法辛缓释胶囊治疗抑郁症的疗效与安全性。方法：采用随机、双盲、双模拟、氟西汀平行对照研究。60例青少年抑郁症患者随机分为盐酸文拉法辛缓释胶囊组30例与氟西汀组30例,分别口服盐酸文拉法辛缓释胶囊150mg/d或氟西汀20mg/d,疗程8周。以汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）和临床疗效总评量表（CGI）为评估临床疗效的工具。结果：两组HAMD评分在治疗结束时较基线均显著减少（P〈0.01）;盐酸文拉法辛缓释胶囊组与氟西汀组有效率分别为70.0%与65.5%,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。取Λ=0.1,α=0.05进行等效性检验,u=1.97,P〈0.05。盐酸文拉法辛缓释胶囊组常见的不良反应为恶心、头痛、失眠和食欲减退,发生率与氟西汀组差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论：两组药物不良反应发生率无统计学差异,盐酸文拉法辛缓释胶囊治疗青少年抑郁症和氟西汀一样有效。     

A non-inferiority comparison of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the treatment of adult patients with generalized anxiety disorder

The present study is a non-inferiority comparison of duloxetine 60-120 mg/day and venlafaxine extended-release (XR) 75-225 mg/day for the treatment of adults with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). The non-inferiority test was a prespecified plan to pool data from two nearly identical 10-week, multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of duloxetine 60-120 mg/day and venlafaxine 75-225 mg/ day for the treatment of GAD. An independent expert consensus panel provided six statistical and clinical criteria for determining non-inferiority between treatments. Response was defined as > or =50% reduction in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) total score. In the pooled sample, patients were randomly assigned to duloxetine (n = 320), venlafaxine XR (n = 333) or placebo (n = 331). For the non-inferiority analysis, the per-protocol patients who were treated with duloxetine (n = 239) or venlafaxine XR (n = 262) improved significantly more (mean HAMA reductions were -15.4 and -15.2, respectively) than placebo-treated patients (n = 267; -11.6, P < or = 0.001, both comparisons). Response rates were 56%, 58% and 40%, respectively. Discontinuation rate because of AEs was significantly higher for duloxetine (13.4%, P < or = 0.001) and venlafaxine XR (11.4%, P < or = 0.01) groups compared with placebo (5.4%). Duloxetine 60-120 mg/day met all statistical and clinical criteria for non-inferiority and exhibited a similar tolerability profile compared with venlafaxine XR 75-225 mg/day for the treatment of adults with GAD.     

An open-label study of duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder: comparison of switching versus initiating treatment approaches

This study compared the stabilized duloxetine dose through approximately 12 weeks of treatment in patients initiating duloxetine therapy with that in patients switching to duloxetine from selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or venlafaxine. All patients met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria for major depressive disorder. Patients (n = 112) exhibiting suboptimal response or poor tolerability to their current antidepressant medication (citalopram, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, or venlafaxine) were switched to duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD) without intermediate tapering or titration ("switching" group). A comparator group (n = 137), comprising patients not currently receiving antidepressant medication, was randomized to receive duloxetine 30 or 60 mg QD ("initiating" group). At the end of week 1, patients receiving 30 mg QD had their dose increased to 60 mg QD. During the remainder of the study, each patient's duloxetine dose could be titrated on the basis of degree of response within a range from 60 to 120 mg QD, with 90 mg QD as an intermediate dose. At the study end point, approximately one third of the patients in each treatment group were stabilized at each of the 3 studied duloxetine doses (60, 90, and 120 mg QD), and the distribution of stabilized doses among patients initiating duloxetine therapy did not differ significantly from that observed in patients switching to duloxetine. The efficacy of duloxetine in patients switching from selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor/venlafaxine did not differ significantly from that observed in untreated patients initiating duloxetine therapy (baseline-to-end point mean changes: 17-Item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score, -13.1 vs. -13.5; Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, -10.6 vs. -10.3; and Clinical Global Impression of Severity, -2.22 vs. -2.38, respectively). The rate of discontinuation caused by adverse events among patients switched to duloxetine was significantly lower than that in patients initiating duloxetine therapy (6.3% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.018). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in more than 10% of patients in both treatment groups were nausea, headache, dry mouth, insomnia, diarrhea, and constipation. In the first week of therapy, patients switched to duloxetine reported significantly lower rates of headache and fatigue compared with patients initiating duloxetine. Thus, the efficacy of duloxetine in switched patients was comparable to that observed in patients initiating duloxetine therapy. Immediate switching from a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or venlafaxine to duloxetine (60 mg QD) was well tolerated.     

换用文拉法辛或度洛西汀对抑郁症残留症状的疗效观察

目的 探索文拉法辛或度洛西汀对选择性五羟色胺再摄取抑制剂（selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor,SSRI）类药物抗抑郁疗效不佳抑郁症患者的疗效及安全性。方法 对2015年11月-2016年10月间就诊且SSRI类抗抑郁药疗效不佳或有残余症状的96例首发抑郁症患者,以单纯随机的方式分为2组,经洗脱期后,分别给予可变剂量的文拉法辛或度洛西汀治疗,进行为期12周的前瞻性研究,在基线及第2,4,6,8,12周末评定汉密尔顿抑郁量表（Hamilton Depression Scale,HAMD-17）、汉密尔顿焦虑量表（Hamilton Anxiety Scale,HAMA）、治疗出现的不良反应量表（Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale,TESS）;同时由患者自评快感缺失量表（Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale,SHAPS）、愉快情绪体验量表（Temporal Experience Pleasure Scale,TEPS）,分析和评价2组的疗效及安全性。结果 12周末,换用去甲肾上腺素和五羟色胺再摄取抑制剂（serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor,SNRI）类药物后,患者总体有效率和治愈率分别为73.96%和39.58%,同治疗前相比,HAMD-17、HAMA、SHAPS、TEPS分值均有较大改善（P<0.05或P<0.01）,但文拉法辛组及度洛西汀组间的疗效无统计学差异（P>0.05）。2组的不良反应相似,主要为口干、便秘、乏力、性功能障碍等,但文拉法辛组的血压增高现象略多（P<0.05）。结论 SSRI类药物抗抑郁疗效不佳者,换用SNRI类药物后能有效改善包括快感缺失在内的抑郁症状。文拉法辛和度洛西汀疗效相近,安全性均较好,其中文拉法辛对血压影响较度洛西汀明显,应慎用于高血压患者。     

Duloxetine in the treatment of depression: a double-blind placebo-controlled comparison with paroxetine

CONTEXT: Major depressive disorder causes significant morbidity and mortality. Current therapies fail to fully treat both emotional and physical symptoms of major depressive disorder. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate duloxetine, a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine, on improvement of emotional and painful physical symptoms. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, evaluation of duloxetine at 40 mg/d (20 mg twice daily) and 80 mg/d (40 mg twice daily) versus placebo and paroxetine 20 mg/d in depressed outpatients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy measure was the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Visual Analog Scales for pain, Clinical Global Impression of Severity, Patient's Global Impression of Improvement, and Quality of Life in Depression Scale were also used. Safety was evaluated by assessing discontinuation rates, adverse event rates, vital signs, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: Duloxetine 80 mg/d was superior to placebo on mean 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total change by 3.62 points (95% CI 1.38, 5.86; P = 0.002). Duloxetine at 40 mg/d was also significantly superior to placebo by 2.43 points (95% CI 0.19, 4.66; P = 0.034), while paroxetine was not (1.51 points; 95% CI -0.55, 3.56; P = 0.150). Duloxetine 80 mg/d was superior to placebo for most other measures, including overall pain severity, and was superior to paroxetine on 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale improvement (by 2.39 points; 95% CI 0.14, 4.65; P = 0.037) and estimated probability of remission (57% for duloxetine 80 mg/d, 34% for paroxetine; P = 0.022). The only adverse event reported significantly more frequently for duloxetine 80 mg/d than for paroxetine was insomnia (19.8% for duloxetine 80 mg/d, 8.0% for paroxetine; P = 0.031). Hypertension incidence was not affected by any treatment. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine therapy was efficacious for emotional and physical symptoms of depression, with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-like profile of side effects.     

Comparison of efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine and venlafaxine XR in major depression and major depression with anxiety features: an open label study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and MDD with anxiety features to venlafaxine XR. METHOD: Patients with MDD, aging 18 between 65 years, were randomly allocated to two groups receiving either open-label venlafaxine XR capsules (n = 50) or reboxetine tablets (n = 43). Subjects were administered Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) at baseline and 2, 4, 7, 10 weeks after the baseline visit. RESULTS: Response rates to antidepressant treatment were significantly higher in the venlafaxine XR group at 10th week. When patients having anxious depression were analysed separately; response rate for anxiety of reboxetine group was significantly higher at 7th week only. Mean number of side effects were significantly higher in reboxetine group. Only one subject in each group was dropped out due to side effect. CONCLUSION: We may suggest that reboxetine is as effective and tolerable as venlafaxine XR in the treatment of MDD and MDD with anxiety features, and it may be considered a treatment option to venlafaxine XR.     

The efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine and paroxetine in outpatients with depressive disorder or dysthymia

A 24-week, double-blind, randomized trial was performed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine and paroxetine in patients with major depression or dysthymia. Outpatients aged 18-70 years with a baseline score of 17 on the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to venlafaxine, 37.5 mg, in the morning and evening or paroxetine, 20 mg, in the morning and placebo in the evening, which could be increased to venlafaxine, 75 mg twice daily, or paroxetine, 20 mg twice daily, after 4 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with the 21-item HAM-D, the Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale. Forty-one patients were randomized to venlafaxine and 43 to paroxetine. At week 6, a response was observed in 55% of patients on venlafaxine and 29% on paroxetine (P = 0.03). At week 12, significantly (P = 0.011) more patients in the venlafaxine group had a HAM-D remission score of 8 or less (59% versus 31%). Discontinuation for any reason occurred in 16 (39%) patients on venlafaxine and 11 (26%) on paroxetine. The most common adverse events were nausea (28%), headache (18%) and dry mouth (15%) with venlafaxine and headache (40%) and constipation (16%) with paroxetine. Venlafaxine was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate depression or dysthymia. A consistently higher proportion of patients had a response or remission on venlafaxine than on paroxetine.     

度洛西汀和氟西汀治疗癌症抑郁患者的随机对照研究

目的探讨度洛西汀治疗癌症抑郁患者的临床疗效。方法采用前瞻性随机开放试验方法,将60例癌症抑郁患者分为度洛西汀和氟西汀组各30例,观察治疗6wk。于治疗前及治疗1、2、4、6 wk末采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)和焦虑量表(HAMA)评定疗效,用副反应量表(TESS)评定药物不良反应,根据卡氏功能量表(KPS)进行生活质量评估。结果 HAMD和HAMA评分显示,与治疗前相比,度洛西汀组治疗1wk末起评分有显著下降(P<0.05),氟西汀组治疗2wk末起评分有显著下降(P<0.05),2组评分同期比较1、2 wk末均有显著差异(P<0.05);2组在6wk末疗效、生活质量和不良反应方面均无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论度洛西汀治疗癌症抑郁疗效与氟西汀相当,但起效更快,耐受性好。     

Duloxetine: a review of its use in the treatment of major depressive disorder

Duloxetine (Cymbalta) is an orally administered, selective serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that has been approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).Based on a considerable body of evidence, duloxetine at dosages ranging from 40 to 120 mg/day was effective in the short- and long-term treatment of MDD. Significant improvements versus placebo in core emotional symptoms as well as painful physical symptoms associated with depression, were seen in most, but not all, appropriately designed studies; results of meta-analyses suggested that improvements in these efficacy measures were apparent after 1-2 weeks' treatment with the highest recommended dosage of 60 mg once daily. Short-term (< or =15 weeks) administration of duloxetine at fixed or flexible dosages between 60 and 120 mg/day was noninferior to paroxetine 20 mg once daily, noninferior or inferior to escitalopram 10-20mg once daily, and had a similar global benefit-risk (GBR) profile to that of venlafaxine extended-release (XR) 150-225 mg/day in the treatment of MDD. Longer-term (6-8 months) treatment with duloxetine was similar in efficacy to paroxetine and escitalopram. Duloxetine is generally well tolerated, although it may be appropriate to avoid initiating treatment with the 60 mg/day dosage, as this has been associated with a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events in some (but not all) comparative studies with escitalopram and venlafaxine XR.Definitive comparisons are awaited, although duloxetine seemingly provides a useful alternative to SSRIs and other SNRIs for the treatment of MDD. It also appears to be an attractive option for MDD patients presenting with painful physical symptoms.