中药解郁丸与麦普替林治疗抑郁症的疗效对照观察

目的 观察中药解郁丸治疗抑郁症的临床疗效、不良反应及安全性。方法 通过随机对照试验，共纳入中药组(解郁丸)28列，对照组(麦普替林)29例，于用药前及用药后14、28、42天分别采用Hamilton抑郁量表(HAMD)、抑郁自评量表(SDS)、焦虑自评量表(SAS)和临床总体印象量表(CGI)评定药物疗效，用Asberg副反应量表评定不良反应，结果 解郁丸对抑郁症治疗有效，愈显率为78．6％，与麦普替林(82．8％)相当(P>0．05)；解郁丸与麦普替林治疗后HAMD、SDS和SAS分数均明显低于治疗前(P<0．01)，两组间比较差异无显著性(P>0．05)。治疗后解郁丸的Asberg副反应量表分数明显低于麦普替林(P<0．01)，中药解郁丸疗效指数显著高于麦普替林(P<0．01)。结论 解郁丸治疗抑郁症疗效与麦普替林相当，不良反应明显少于麦普替林。

Comparative Observation on Efficacy of Jieyu Pill and Maprotiline in Treating Depression

To investigate the clinical efficacy, adverse reaction and safety of Jieyu pill (JYP) in treating depression. Methods The randomized controlled trial was conducted in 28 patients in the treated group and 29 patients in the control group treated with maprotiline (Map). The efficacy of treatment was evaluated before treatment and 14, 28 and 42 days after treatment, with Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD), self-rating scale for depression (SDS), self-rating scale for anxiety (SAS) and clinical global impression (CGI), the adverse reaction was assessed by Asberg Rating Scale (ARS). Results JYP was effective in treating depression, the markedly effective rate being 78. 8 % , corresponded to that of Map (82.8%, P > 0.05). After treatment, the scores assessed by HAMD, SDS and SAS were all lower than those before treatment (P<0.01) respectively, but comparison between the two groups showed insignificant difference (P>0.05). However, scores of ARS were significantly lower in the treated group than that in the control group, and the efficacy index of JYP was significantly higher than that of Map (P<0.01). Conclusion JYP in treating depression shows the efficacy corresponded to that of Map and with less adverse reaction.