两种应用氟西汀维持治疗惊恐障碍的临床疗效比较

目的 比较每周1次与每天1次氟西汀维持治疗惊恐障碍临床疗效。方法 将45例已接受每天1次氟西汀治疗，且临床疗效已达治愈的惊恐障碍患者，随机分为研究组（22例）和对照组（23例），研究组在观察期前2周开始改变原用药方法，第1周改为隔日1次用药，第2周改为每周2次用药，观察组改为每周1次用药。对照组原用药方法不变，每天1次使用氟西汀治疗，疗程3个月。采用汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）和副反应症状量表（TESS）评定疗效和药物不良反应。结果 研究组与对照组在治疗前后组内和组间HAMA评分比较都无显著差异；研究组在治疗后4、8、12周的累计保持率分别为：100％、95．2％、90．5％；对照组分别95．6％、95．6％、95．6％；两组比较都无显著差异（P〉0．05）。结论 经过急性期治疗临床症状已达治愈的惊恐障碍患者，采用氟西汀每周1次的治疗方案，也可以维持原有疗效。     

普萘洛尔对焦虑症的辅助治疗作用

目的：观察帕罗西汀联合普萘洛尔治疗焦虑症的临床疗效和不良反应。方法：205例广泛性焦虑患者随机分为研究组105例（帕罗西汀联合普萘洛尔治疗）,对照组100例（单用帕罗西汀治疗）,疗程6周。采用汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）、临床疗效总评量表（CGI）评定临床疗效;采用治疗中出现的症状量表（TESS）评定安全性。结果：研究组和对照组治疗总有效率分别为87.8%和75.5%,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。研究组治疗2、4、6周时的HAMA减分率均高于对照组（P均〈0.01）。研究组头痛、心动过速、震颤等不良反应均较对照组少而轻。结论：帕罗西汀联合普萘洛尔治疗广泛性焦虑症具有良好的疗效和安全性,且优于单用帕罗西汀。     

氟西汀合并多塞平治疗抑郁症的疗效对照研究

目的 评价氟西汀合并多塞平治疗抑郁症的疗效及安全性.方法 将52例符合CCMD-3诊断标准的抑郁症患者随机分为研究组和对照组.研究组在常规给予氟西汀治疗的基础上,合并小剂量的多塞平治疗;对照组则仅给予氟西汀治疗.疗程6周.采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）及不良反应量表（TESS）评定疗效及不良反应.结果 两组疗效相当（P＞0.05）,即研究组显效率为80.8%,对照组为73.1%;但在第1及第2周末研究组HAMD评分显著低于对照组（P＜0.05）;治疗后各周研究组HAMA评分均显著低于对照组;TESS评分两组间无显著性差异.结论 氟西汀合并小剂量多塞平治疗抑郁症起效快,能显著改善患者伴发的焦虑症状,安全性亦高.     

阿立哌唑合并氟西汀治疗难治性抑郁症

目的：探讨阿立哌唑合并氟西汀治疗难治性抑郁症的效果。方法：将56例难治性抑郁症患者随机分成两组，分别给予阿立哌唑合并氟西汀（合用组）与单用氟西汀（单用组）治疗12周，以汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）和汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）评定临床疗效，以治疗中出现的症状量表（TESS）和相关检查评定不良反应。结果：治疗结束时两组HAMD和HAMA的评分均显着降低，以合用组疗效显著较好而快。结论：阿立哌唑合并氟西汀治疗难治性抑郁症的疗效优于单用氟西汀，且耐受性好。     

西酞普兰治疗广泛性焦虑症的对照研究

目的：探讨西酞普兰对广泛性焦虑症的治疗效果及不良反应。方法：将64例广泛性焦虑症患者随机分为西酞普兰组（32例）和氯硝西泮组（32例）,治疗4周。采用焦虑自评量表（SAS）、Hamilton焦虑量表（HAMA）和副反应量表（TESS）评定疗效及不良反应。结果：西酞普兰与氯硝西泮对广泛性焦虑症均有显著疗效,两组间差异无显著性。西酞普兰组不良反应明显小于氯硝西泮组。结论：西酞普兰治疗广泛性焦虑症安全有效,不良反应小。     

帕罗西汀与氯硝西泮治疗广泛性焦虑症的对照研究

目的 探讨帕罗西汀治疗广泛性焦虑症的临床疗效及副反应。方法 采用随机分组的方法，将符合CCMD-3诊断标准的86例广泛性焦虑症分为帕罗西汀组（43例），氯硝西泮组（43例），疗程6周，用焦虑自评量表（SAS）Hamilton焦虑量表（HAMA）和副反应量表（TESS）评定疗效和副反应。结果 氯硝西泮和帕罗西汀对广泛性焦虑症均有显著疗效，两组间无显著性差异（P〉0．05）。两药不良反应比较差异也无显著性（P〉0．05）。结论 帕罗西汀治疗广泛性焦虑安全、有效。     

氟伏沙明治疗伴有焦虑的抑郁症对照研究

目的：比较氟伏沙明与氟西汀治疗伴有焦虑的抑郁症疗效和不良反应。方法：71例伴有焦虑的抑郁症患者随机分为氟伏沙明组36例和氟西汀组35例,分别给予氟伏沙明和氟西汀治疗。疗程8周。采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）、治疗中出现的症状量表（TESS）评定疗效和不良反应。结果：两组HAMD和HAMA评分治疗后均较治疗前显著下降（P均〈0.01）;以氟伏沙明组在治疗1周起即显著下降（P〈0.01）,而氟西汀组在治疗2周起显著下降（P〈0.01）;两组间比较差异有显著性（P〈0.05或P〈0.01）。两组不良反应相仿。结论：氟伏沙明与氟西汀治疗伴有焦虑的抑郁症均安全有效,但氟伏沙明起效更快。     

九味镇心颗粒与丁螺环酮治疗广泛性焦虑症的对照研究

目的探讨九味镇心颗粒治疗广泛性焦虑症的疗效及安全性。方法将78例广泛性焦虑症患者随机分为九味镇心颗粒组（研究组）和丁螺环酮组（对照组）,治疗6周,采用汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）与治疗中需处理的不良反应症状量表（TESS）评定临床疗效和不良反应。结果治疗6周后,研究组显效率为81．25％,对照组为77．14％,两组显效率比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。治疗后第2周末HAMA评分研究组低于对照组（P〈0．05）。研究组治疗后第4、6周末HAMA评分低于治疗前（P〈0．05）,对照组治疗后第4、6周末HAMA评分低于治疗前（P〈0．05）。两组在不良反应方面差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论九味镇心颗粒治疗广泛性焦虑症与丁螺环酮疗效相当,是安全有效的,且较丁螺环酮显效快。     

重复经颅磁刺激合并药物治疗广泛性焦虑症早期疗效的初步研究

目的 探讨重复经颅磁刺激（rTMS）联合药物对广泛性焦虑症（GAD）早期治疗阶段的效果.方法 将首诊的GAD患者随机分成两组,研究组采用低频对右侧前额叶背外侧皮质进行rTMS联合帕罗西汀＋苯二氮类药物治疗,对照组采用单纯帕罗西汀＋苯二氮类药物治疗.采用汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）评价疗效、副反应量表（TESS）评价安全性.结果 研究组完成34例,对照组完成32例,治疗1周后两组HAMA均分比较无显著差异（P＞0.05）;治疗2周后研究组HAMA均分显著低于对照组（P＜0.05）,研究组帕罗西汀和苯二氮类药物治疗剂量均显著小于对照组（P＜0.05）;研究组副反应发生率小于对照组.结论 重复经颅磁刺激合并药物对GAD早期阶段的治疗比单纯药物治疗起效快,疗效佳,可减少抗焦虑药的用量,是一种治疗GAD的有效手段.     

度洛西汀与氟西汀改善躯体形式障碍患者症状及社会功能效果的对照研究

目的 探讨度洛西汀与氟西汀对改善躯体形式障碍患者症状及社会功能的效果.方法 将134例躯体形式障碍患者随机分为研究组（度洛西汀系统治疗）和对照组（氟西汀系统治疗）,共治疗8周.在基线及治疗后第1、2、4、8周末采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）、社会功能缺陷量表（SDSS）及治疗中需处理的不良反应症状量表（TESS）评定疗效及不良反应.结果 研究组患者在治疗后第1周末起HAMD及HAMA量表评分均显著低于基线时（P＜0.05）,而对照组治疗后第2周末起HAMD及HAMA量表评分均显著低于基线时（P＜0.05）;治疗后第1、2、4、8周末研究组HAMD及HAMA量表评分均低于对照组（P＜0.05）.研究组治疗后第4周末起SDSS量表评分显著低于基线时（P＜0.05）,而对照组治疗后第8周末SDSS量表评分显著低于基线时（P＜0.05）.治疗后第4、8周末研究组SDSS量表评分均低于对照组（P＜0.05）.两组均未出现严重不良反应.结论 度洛西汀可有效、快速的改善躯体形式障碍患者的抑郁、焦虑症状及社会功能,效果优于氟西汀.     

Once-weekly dosing of fluoxetine in the maintenance of remission in panic disorder.

BACKGROUND: Fluoxetine and its active metabolite norfluoxetine have long half-lives of 4-6 days and 4-16 days, respectively. We postulated that, owing to the long elimination half-life, patients diagnosed with panic disorder might be maintained on fluoxetine taken once a week, after being treated initially with daily doses of fluoxetine. METHOD: Ten patients with DSM-III-R panic disorder were treated openly with fluoxetine, 20-40 mg daily. Once panic free, these patients were switched to once-weekly dosing of fluoxetine, and dosage was titrated as needed. RESULTS: All 10 patients successfully switched to once-weekly dosing. One patient reported recurrence of panic attacks 18 months after the switch. After a brief treatment for 4 weeks with benzodiazepines and daily fluoxetine, the patient was once again maintained on once-weekly dosing when rechallenged. Patients have been maintained in a panic-free state for up to 26 months with a single weekly dose of fluoxetine ranging from 10 to 60 mg. The medication was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine at doses ranging from 10 to 60 mg administered once weekly appears to be effective maintenance treatment for patients with panic disorder who were initially treated successfully with daily fluoxetine. A once-weekly regimen may allow for considerable cost savings and may serve as a convenient alternative method for treating panic disorder.     

国产丁螺环酮片与安定治疗广泛性焦虑症的随机双盲对照研究

目的评价国产丁螺环酮片治疗广泛性焦虑症的临床效果和副作用。方法采用与安定的随机双盲对照方法，将符合中国精神疾病分类方案与诊断标准第２版修订本广泛性焦虑症标准的２０６例患者随机分为丁螺环酮组（１０７例）和安定组（９９例），治疗４周。用汉密尔顿焦虑量表、Ｚｕｎｇ焦虑自评量表、临床总体印象量表及临床疗效和治疗药物副作用量表评定疗效和药物的不良反应。结果丁螺环酮与安定的疗效相近。丁螺环酮对精神性焦虑症状的起效时间较安定稍慢，但没有明显的镇静、嗜睡及体重增加作用，对焦虑症状的治疗具有选择性，尤适用于门诊治疗。丁螺环酮主要的不良反应是轻微的口干及头昏和眩晕等，偶可致窦性心律不齐，但不影响治疗。结论丁螺环酮治疗焦虑症有效，副作用轻微。     

利培酮合并氟西汀治疗强迫症疗效分析

目的:探讨利培酮合并氟西汀治疗强迫症的疗效.方法:将符合条件的39例强迫症患者随机分为利培酮合并氟西汀组和氟西汀组,治疗8周.采用强迫症量表(Y-BOCS)、汉密顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、汉密顿抑郁量表(HAMD)评定疗效.结果:治疗结束时两组Y-BOCS、HAMD、HAMA的评分均显著降低,更以合用组明显.结论:利培酮合并氟西汀治疗强迫症可以增加疗效.     

氟西汀和曲唑酮的抗焦虑作用

目的　观察氟西汀 (fluoxetine)和曲唑酮 (trazodone)对焦虑症状的改善作用。方法　选择符合CCMD II R抑郁症诊断标准、伴有焦虑或单纯广泛性焦虑的病例共 148例 ,按就诊顺序随机分为 4组。一组单用氟西汀2 0mg/d ,一组用氟西汀 2 0mg/d加曲唑酮 50～ 10 0mg/d ,一组用氟西汀 2 0mg/d加罗拉 1 5mg/d ,一组用安慰剂加少量安定或 10g/dL水化氯醛。观察 8周。结果　氟西汀能有效的改善焦虑症状 ,但疗效出现较晚 ,第 6周才显示抗焦虑效果。加用曲唑酮或罗拉能加强氟西汀的抗焦虑作用 ,同时能缓解氟西汀在用药早期加重焦虑和影响睡眠的副作用。结论　氟西汀有抗焦虑疗效。用氟西汀抗焦虑的早期加用曲唑酮或罗拉有利于病情的缓解和提高患者的治疗依从性。     

米氮平治疗强迫症对照研究

目的:比较米氮平与氟西汀治疗强迫症的疗效和不良反应.方法:分别用米氮平和氟西汀治疗强迫症各27例,疗程8周.应用Yale-Brown强迫症量表(Y-BOCS)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)及汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)评定疗效.结果:治疗后米氮平组与氟西汀组Y-BOCS、HAMD、HAMA分值均显著下降,两组间疗效差异无显著性.米氮平组不良反应明显少于氟西汀组.结论:米氮平治疗强迫症疗效与氟西汀相仿,不良反应少,可在临床使用.     

Long-term treatment outcomes of depression with associated anxiety: efficacy of continuation treatment with fluoxetine

BACKGROUND: Severity of anxiety does not appear to influence the antidepressant response to fluoxetine during acute treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). We report a retrospective pooled analysis of 2 studies to assess the effect of associated anxiety on the efficacy of fluoxetine in the continuation treatment phase of MDD. METHOD: Patients whose MDD remitted (study 1) or responded (study 2) after approximately 12 to 13 weeks of open-label treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg daily were randomly assigned in double-blind fashion to placebo, continued treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg daily, or, in study 2 only, treatment with enteric-coated fluoxetine 90 mg once weekly, for at least 25 weeks. Both studies included male and female outpatients who met criteria for MDD as assessed by DSM-III-R (study 1) or DSM-IV (study 2). Patients were categorized into high anxiety (> or = 7) or low anxiety (< 7) subgroups based on baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) anxiety/somatization subfactor scores. Subgroups were compared by therapy for time from randomization to relapse and change in efficacy scores. RESULTS: No significant differences in time to relapse were observed between anxiety subgroups in either active treatment group. However, in patients switched to placebo for continuation treatment, the high anxiety subgroup had a significantly higher risk of relapse than those with low anxiety (risk ratio = 1.63, p =.013). Significant differences between anxiety groups were seen in change in HAM-D anxiety/somatization subfactor scores in the fluoxetine 20 mg and placebo treatment groups, and in change in HAM-D-17 scores in the placebo treatment group (p <.05). CONCLUSION: Although high baseline anxiety does not appear to impact the benefit of continuation therapy with fluoxetine, it does appear to predict increased risk of relapse in individuals who do not remain on antidepressant therapy for the duration of continuation treatment.     

文拉法辛缓释剂替换治疗门诊抑郁症患者观察

目的:了解文拉法辛缓释剂替换选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂类(SSRIs)疗效欠佳的门诊抑郁症患者的有效性和安全性. 方法:将符合抑郁症诊断标准并经氟西汀,舍曲林,氟伏沙明和西酞普兰4种SSRIs抗抑郁剂之一治疗量治疗6周而疗效不佳的抑郁症患者72例随机分为两组.文拉法辛组34例换用文拉法辛缓释剂,帕罗西汀组38例换用帕罗西汀,疗程6周.换药前均停原用SSRIs药物.以汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、临床疗效总评量表病情严重程度(CGI-SI)分别于入组时、治疗2周末、4周末、6周末评定疾病的严重程度及好转情况;以治疗中出现的症状量表(TESS)评定药物的不良反应. 结果:两组在治疗4周末及6周末时其HAMD、CGI-SI评分差异有显著性,HAMA评分则从治疗2周末起即表现出显著性差异.文拉法辛组疗效优于帕罗西汀组,两组显效率分别为70.6%和52.6%,不良反应发生率无明显差异. 结论:文拉法辛缓释剂替换经SSRIs抗抑郁剂治疗效差的门诊抑郁症患者可取得好的疗效,且安全性好.     

Switching patients from daily citalopram, paroxetine, or sertraline to once-weekly fluoxetine in the maintenance of response for depression

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is frequently a chronic, recurrent condition necessitating maintenance treatment. For some patients, compliance with daily pharmacotherapy is difficult over time. As an alternative approach, a once-weekly administered formulation of fluoxetine has recently been made available. This raises the important question of whether once-weekly enteric-coated fluoxetine, 90 mg, is effective for maintenance of response in patients whose depressive symptoms have responded to daily dosing with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as citalopram, paroxetine, or sertraline. METHOD: Patients had met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder prior to beginning treatment for their current episode, had received 6 to 52 weeks of treatment with citalopram (20-40 mg/day [N = 83]), paroxetine (20 mg/day [N = 77]), or sertraline (50-100 mg/day [N = 86]), and had responded to that treatment (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness [CGI-S] score < or = 2, modified 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D-17] score < or = 10). Patients meeting these criteria (N = 246) continued treatment with their current SSRI for 1 week, then were switched to open-label enteric-coated fluoxetine, 90 mg, taken once weekly for 12 weeks. Safety measures were comparisons of spontaneously reported and solicited treatment-emergent adverse events. Efficacy measures were percentages of patients who discontinued the study for relapse and lack of efficacy and comparison of change from baseline to endpoint in scores on the modified HAM-D-17, subscales of the HAM-D-28, and the CGI-S. Quality of life measures were assessed with the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). We hypothesized that the once-weekly administration of fluoxetine could be safely and effectively initiated among subjects who had been stabilized on daily SSRI treatment. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of patients successfully completed a switch to enteric-coated fluoxetine, 90 mg, with 9.3% discontinuing due to relapse or lack of efficacy. Enteric-coated fluoxetine at a once-weekly dose of 90 mg was well tolerated in all groups. No significant increases were found in the HAM-D-17 total, HAM-D-28 subscores, or CGI-S score. Patients showed improvement from baseline to endpoint in most of the SF-36 health concepts. CONCLUSION: Enteric-coated fluoxetine taken once weekly appears to be well tolerated and efficacious in patients who responded to acute therapy with other SSRIs and were subsequently switched to fluoxetine once weekly for continuation/maintenance therapy.     

The efficacy and safety of a new enteric-coated formulation of fluoxetine given once weekly during the continuation treatment of major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: A simple, once-weekly dosing regimen could be a convenient alternative for many patients during long-term treatment of depression. Such a strategy might also be effective for improving medication compliance and the outcome of continuation treatment. The safety and effectiveness of a new formulation of enteric-coated fluoxetine (90 mg) given once weekly was tested during the continuation treatment of major depressive disorder. METHOD: Patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder with modified 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) scores > or = 18 and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) scores > or = 4 were treated 13 weeks with open-label 20 mg/day of fluoxetine in a multicenter U.S. study. Responders (N = 501) were randomly assigned to receive 20 mg of fluoxetine daily, placebo, or 90 mg of enteric-coated fluoxetine weekly for 25 weeks of double-blind continuation treatment. The primary efficacy measure was the percentage of patients who relapsed. Time to relapse was tested over the 25-week continuation period using log-rank analyses of the Kaplan-Meier estimates of relapse rates. Additional analyses of efficacy included comparison of change from baseline to endpoint for the HAM-D-17, CGI-S, and HAM-D-28 subscales by last observation carried forward (LOCF). Safety measures included comparison of treatment-emergent adverse events, both spontaneous and solicited (using the Association for Methodology of Documentation in Psychiatry-Module 5), vital signs, and laboratory measures. RESULTS: Relapse rates for patients assigned to fluoxetine, either 20 mg daily or 90 mg weekly, were significantly lower than for placebo by log-rank analysis and LOCF analyses of secondary efficacy measures. Efficacy did not significantly differ between the 2 active drug groups by these measures. Enteric-coated fluoxetine at a once-weekly dose of 90 mg was well tolerated, and its safety profile was similar to that of daily 20 mg of fluoxetine. CONCLUSION: The formulation of enteric-coated fluoxetine taken once weekly is effective, safe, and well tolerated for continuation treatment of depression in patients who responded to acute treatment with 20 mg/day of fluoxetine. Monitoring during long-term treatment for evidence of sustained remission is important regardless of dosing regimen.