氯硝西泮辅助治疗躯体形式障碍的临床研究

目的探讨氯硝西泮辅助治疗躯体形式障碍的临床疗效和不良反应。方法将符合CCMD-3诊断标准的68例躯体形式障碍患者随机分为两组,对照组予氟西汀合并奥氮平治疗,研究组在氟西汀合并奥氮平治疗的基础上辅助静滴氯硝西泮,疗程均为8周。以汉密顿抑郁量表（HAMD）于治疗前后评定疗效,用治疗中出现的症状量表（TESS）监测药物不良反应。结果研究组疗效明显高于对照组,且两组间不良反应未见显著性差异。结论氯硝西泮辅助治疗躯体形式障碍疗效好,不良反应轻,安全性高。     

曲唑酮治疗酒精依赖症状的对照研究

目的比较曲唑酮与氯硝西泮治疗酒精依赖症状的疗效及不良反应。方法将40例酒精依赖的患者随机分为曲唑酮组和氯硝西泮组,每组各20例,治疗4周。采用戒断症状（22项）计分和汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）评定疗效,采用副反应量表（TESS）评定不良反应。结果曲唑酮组的显效率为85％,氯硝西泮组的显效率为80％,两组差异无显著性。HAMA减分率两组无显著差异。曲唑酮组不良反应较少而且轻微。结论曲唑酮治疗酒精依赖疗效肯定,不良反应轻,依从性好。     

丙戊酸镁联用氯硝西泮治疗躁狂症对照研究

目的：探讨丙戊酸镁联用氯硝西泮治疗躁狂症的疗效与安全性。方法：对符合中国精神疾病分类方案与诊断标准第2版修订本62例躁狂症患者，其中40例用丙戊酸镁联用氯硝西泮，22例用碳酸锂治疗。疗程6周。以躁狂量表(BRMS)评定疗效，副反应量表(TESS)评定不良反应。结果：两组疗效差异无显著性。联用组不良反应明显低于对照组。结论：丙戊酸镁联用氯硝西泮治疗躁狂症．疗效确切，起效时间与安全性优于碳酸锂。     

氯硝西泮在治疗慢性酒精中毒者的辅助作用

目的：观察氯硝西泮对戒酒患者的疗效。方法：对82例慢性酒精中毒以氯丙嗪治疗患者，按是否合用氯硝西泮进行对照观察，以汉密顿焦虑量表(HAMA)和汉密顿抑郁(HAMD)及副反应量表(TESS)进行评定。结果：两组戒断症状均在20天内戒除，在治疗后2及4周两组间各量表分均以合用组显著较好。结论：氯硝西泮组起效更快、安全、不良反应小。     

利培酮口服液合并氯硝西泮治疗精神分裂症急性兴奋的临床研究

目的研究利培酮口服液合并氯硝西泮治疗精神分裂症患者急性兴奋的疗效和安全性。方法将精神分裂症急性兴奋患者87例随机分为两组，治疗组44例予利培酮口服液合并氯硝西泮肌内注射；对照组43例予氟哌啶醇肌内注射，疗程均为7天。采用阳性症状和阴性症状量表（PANSS）评定临床疗效，副作用量表（TESS）评定不良反应。结果治疗7天的疗效相当（P〉0．05），治疗组不良反应的发生率明显低于对照组（P〈0．05）。结论利培酮口服液合并氯硝西泮治疗精神分裂症急性兴奋疗效肯定，安全性优于氟哌啶醇。     

奥氮平与氯硝西泮治疗广泛性焦虑症的疗效观察

目的 观察奥氮平治疗广泛性焦虑症的疗效.方法 将40例广泛性焦虑症的患者随机分为两组,分别给予奥氮平(1.25-5mg/d)和氯硝西泮(0.5-3mg/d)治疗,疗程6周.治疗前后采用汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)评定疗效,用治疗中出现的症状量表(TESS)评定药物不良反应.结果 奥氮平和氯硝泮治疗广泛性焦虑症均有显著疗效,两组间无显著性差异(P＞0.05).奥氮平组不良反应明显小于氯硝西泮组(P＜0.01).结论 奥氮平治疗广泛性焦虑的疗效确切,不良反应轻微.     

氯硝西泮治疗急性躁狂发作的辅助作用

目的:研究氯硝西泮与碳酸锂合用治疗急性躁狂发作的疗效及不良反应。方法:对72例急性躁狂发作患者随机分为氯硝西泮合并碳酸锂组和氟哌啶醇合并碳酸锂组治疗,在治疗前及治疗第1、2、3、4周末分别用Bech-Rafaelsen躁狂量表(BRMS),副反应量表(TESS)评定疗效和不良反应。结果:氯硝西泮组与氟哌啶醇组疗效相仿。氟哌啶醇组锥体外系反应发生率高于氯硝西泮组。结论:氯硝西泮合并碳酸锂可有效治疗急性躁狂的兴奋患者,疗效与氟哌啶醇相仿,安全性优于氟哌啶醇。     

抑郁症的药物治疗(二)氟西汀合用氯硝西泮治疗抑郁症对照研究

目的：评价氟西汀合用氯硝西泮对抑郁症的疗效。方法：将氟西汀、氯硝西泮和氟西汀、安慰剂作随机双盲对照治疗50例抑郁症,以汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)分值为依据,作疗效评定。以不良反应症状量表(TESS)评定副反应。结果：研究组显效时间平均为(12.31±4.65)天,2周末、3周末时减分率与对照组相比有显著差异。两组不同时间TESS总分无显著差异。结论：氟西汀合用氯硝西泮治疗抑郁症,起效早,减少自杀率及某些副反应。     

酒依赖患者稽延性戒断症状的心理干预及效果观察

目的探讨心理护理干预是否缓解酒依赖患者稽延性戒断症状及心理渴求。方法选取符合标准的酒依赖患者,经苯二氮革类替代递减治疗后,抑郁自评量表（SDS）〉53分,焦虑自评量表（SAS）〉50分者80例。随机分成干预组和对照组各80例。干预组患者根据制定的心理干预模式实施心理干预,对照组以抗抑郁治疗为主,并辅予常规心理护理,评估并比较两组患者的心理状态。结果干预后,干预组SDS、SAS、SQ量表分下降明显,与对照组量表分有显著差异（P〈0．01）。结论心理干预模式可缓解酒依赖患者稽延性戒断症状,降低心理渴求,帮助其维持戒断后的操守状态。     

氟西汀合用氯硝西泮治疗抑郁症对照研究

目的评价氟西汀合用氯硝西泮对抑郁症的疗效。方法将氟西汀、氯硝西泮和氟西汀、安慰剂作随机双盲对照治疗50例抑郁症，以汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)分值为依据，作疗效评定。以不良反应症状量表(TESS)评定副反应。结果研究组显效时间平均为(12.31±4.65)天，2周末、3周末时减分率与对照组相比有显著差异。两组不同时间TESS总分无显著差异。结论氟西汀合用氯硝西泮治疗抑郁症，起效早，减少自杀率及某些副反应。     

奥氮平合用氯硝西泮治疗精神分裂症急性精神运动性兴奋的研究

目的：观察奥氮平合并氯硝西泮治疗精神分裂症急性精神运动性兴奋的疗效与不良反应。方法：65例精神分裂症急性期兴奋患者,随机分为口服奥氮平合并肌内注射氯硝西泮组（奥氮平组）34例和肌内注射氟哌啶醇组（氟哌啶醇组）31例治疗,疗程7 d。以阳性与阴性症状量表兴奋激越项目（PANSS-EC）和治疗中出现的症状量表（TESS）评定疗效和不良反应。结果：奥氮平组与氟哌啶醇组疗效相当,差异无显著性（P〉0.05）。两组急性兴奋症状均获明显改善,氟哌啶醇组不良反应发生率高于奥氮平组（P〈0.05）。结论：奥氮平合并氯硝西泮可有效治疗精神分裂症患者急性期精神运动性兴奋,疗效与氟哌啶醇相当,不良反应明显少于氟哌啶醇。     

Treatment of alcohol withdrawal symptoms in hospitalized patients. A randomized, double-blind comparison of carbamazepine (Tegretol) and barbital (Diemal)

Seventy-two hospitalized patients with alcohol withdrawal symptoms were treated with either carbamazepine (Tegretol) or barbital ( Diemal ) in a randomized, double-blind trial. The dose of trial medication as well as the duration of treatment was individual, corresponding to the conventional treatment schedule. During the trial period daily records were kept of target withdrawal symptoms, global evaluation, the patient's subjective feeling and unwanted effects. Sixty patients completed the treatment successfully. The two treatment groups were homogeneous as regards patient characteristics, pre-treatment disease severity and drop-out rate. No statistically significant differences were found in efficacy between the two treatments, and both drugs were well tolerated. It is concluded that carbamazepine is a valuable alternative drug in the treatment of mild and moderate alcohol withdrawal symptoms.     

奎硫平合用氯硝西泮治疗精神分裂症急性兴奋临床观察

目的:观察奎硫平合用氯硝西泮治疗精神分裂症急性兴奋的疗效及不良反应,以氯丙嗪和氯氮平为对照。方法:182例精神分裂症急性中度兴奋患者,随机分为奎硫平合用氯硝西泮(62例,简称合用组),氯丙嗪(60例,氯丙嗪组)和氯氮平(60例,氯氮平组)治疗,疗程1周。治疗前及治疗1周末评估阳性与阴性症状量表兴奋因子(PANSSEC)和治疗中需处理的不良反应。结果:合用组的疗效与氯丙嗪组、氯氮平组比较,均获得明显改善,差异均无显著性(P均>0.05)。氯丙嗪组锥体外系反应发生率高于合用组和氯氮平组(P<0.01)。氯氮平组嗜睡、便秘、流涎和心动过速的发生率高于合用组和氯丙嗪组(P<0.05)。结论:奎硫平合用氯硝西泮可有效治疗精神分裂症急性中度兴奋患者,与氯丙嗪和氯氮平的疗效相当,不良反应轻微。     

氯硝西泮对偏执型精神分裂症的辅助治疗作用

目的 :评价利培酮配合氯硝西泮注射液治疗偏执型精神分裂症的疗效。　方法 :对病程 <3年的 80例首次住院 ,选用利培酮治疗的偏执型精神分裂症患者 ,随机分为合用氯硝西泮 (合用组 )和未合用氯硝西泮 (对照组 )各 4 0例 ,进行 8周治疗。采用阳性症状与阴性症状量表 (PANSS)评定疗效 ,副反应量表 (TESS)评定不良反应。　结果 :合用组治疗 2周后PANSS量表总分、阳性症状分、精神病理因子分及症状群中激活性、偏执、攻击性分值均显著下降 ;治疗 4周末时利培酮剂量合用组显著低于对照组。　结论 :利培酮配合氯硝西泮注射液治疗偏执型精神分裂症可缩短疗程 ,改善其阳性症状及攻击行为     

Pilot study of interpersonal psychotherapy versus supportive psychotherapy for dysthymic patients with secondary alcohol abuse or dependence

Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) has demonstrated efficacy for depression but yielded negative results for substance disorders. Alcohol abuse frequently complicates mood disorders. This pilot study compared IPT with brief supportive psychotherapy (BSP) for dysthymic disorder and alcohol abuse. We hypothesized that effect sizes would suggest greater IPT efficacy for both diagnoses, despite limited statistical power. Subjects with primary DSM-IV dysthymic disorder and secondary alcohol abuse/dependence were randomly assigned 16 weeks of IPT (N = 14) or BSP (N = 12). Patients in both treatments reported improved depressive symptoms and alcohol abstinence. IPT had a large and BSP a moderate effect size in depression, whereas BSP had a moderate and IPT a small effect size in percentage of days abstinent. This pilot study offers initial data on IPT and BSP for comorbid chronic depression and alcohol abuse/dependence. Results suggest IPT may have specific antidepressant benefits for dysthymic alcoholic patients but not in treating alcoholism.     

奎硫平对酒依赖患者稽延性戒断症状及睡眠的影响

目的:评估奎硫平对酒依赖患者稽延性戒断症状的治疗效果及睡眠质量和睡眠结构的影响。方法:选取80例酒依赖患者急性期戒酒治疗后随机分为奎硫平治疗组(研究组)和维生素治疗组(对照组),研究组给予200~400 mg/d奎硫平治疗,对照组给予维生素治疗。采用宾西法尼亚酒精渴求量表(PACS)、视觉模拟渴求量表(VAS)及汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)分别于入组时和治疗4周对两组患者进行评定,同时接受多导睡眠图(PSG)检测。结果:治疗前两组PACS、VAS和HAMD、HAMA评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05),治疗后研究组PACS、VAS和HAMD、HAMA总分较治疗前均显著降低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。治疗前两组PSG各指标差异无统计学意义(P0.05),治疗后研究组觉醒次数(AN)减少[(5.93±1.53)vs(6.91±1.60),t=2.559,P=0.000],睡眠效率(SE)升高[(68.3±4.17)vs(60.8±4.20),t=7.316,P=0.000],总睡眠时间(TST)增加[(292.5±25.9)vs(271.7±23.3),t=3.451,P=0.018],差异有统计学意义。睡眠潜伏期(SL)、快眼动睡眠(REM)百分比及REM睡眠潜伏期(RL)等指标两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。对照组治疗前后各指标差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:奎硫平可改善酒依赖患者急性戒断后的心理渴求、焦虑、抑郁等稽延性戒断症状,提高部分睡眠质量。     

利培酮合并氯硝安定肌注和氟哌啶醇肌注治疗精神分裂症急性期兴奋、激越的对照研究

目的　比较利培酮合并氯硝安定肌注和氟哌啶醇肌注对治疗精神分裂症急性期兴奋、激越的疗效和副反应。方法　将符合CCMD 2 R诊断标准的精神分裂症及分裂样精神病患者 ,随机分别进入利培酮合并氯硝安定组和氟哌啶醇组 ,观察 8周。以PANSS和TESS量表评定药物的疗效和不良反应。结果　治疗 1周后 :利培酮合并氯硝安定组和氟哌啶醇组的PANSS量表总分、兴奋因子分均显著下降 ,但二组之间比较未达到统计学上的差异 (P >0 .0 5 ) ,在后续阶段 (8周时 )利培酮合并氯硝安定组的PANSS量表总分减分率较氟哌啶醇组明显 (P <0 .0 5 ) ;TESS量表的评分两组间则有非常显著性差异 (P <0 .0 1)。结论　利培酮合并氯硝安定及氟哌啶醇均获得较好的镇静效果 ,利培酮合并氯硝安定在后续阶段治疗效果较氟哌啶醇好且相对较安全。     

A double-blind comparison of carbamazepine and clomethiazole in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome

The efficacy and tolerability of carbamazepine and clomethiazole in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal symptoms were compared in a double-blind study with 68 hospitalized patients. Target withdrawal symptoms, the patient's subjective feeling and unwanted effects were recorded daily during the 1 week-treatment period. No significant differences between the two treatments could be demonstrated in the parameters studied. It appears that carbamazepine, which is widely used as an antiepileptic drug, well tolerated and not likely to produce any addiction as such, might offer a valuable alternative treatment for the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal.     

A Clinical Study of the Developmental Conditions of Alcoholic Physical Dependence

In 54 inpatients with alcohol dependence, an assessment was made at different mental institutions of some clinical conditions that were thought to be implicated in the development of physical alcohol dependence. These patients were divided into three groups according to the presence or absence and severity of withdrawal symptoms, in order to make a comparison between them as to the frequency with which each of these conditions was satisfied. (1) Of the conditions examined, a severe degree of drunkenness with coma and/or incontinence of urine appeared to be the most implicative. This condition was satisfied significantly more frequently in the group presenting withdrawal syndrome than the others (P<0.01). Indeed, the more severe the syndrome, the higher the frequency with which the condition was satisfied. (2) It was also found that some withdrawal symptom or other was manifested significantly more frequently (P<0.011 when two or more of the remaining four conditions were satisfied: poor sleep or sleep for less than four hours a day; alcohol intake as massive as 145 ml or more of pure alcohol a day; regular intake of beverages containing alcohol in high concentrations; and a drunken state persisting throughout the waking hours. In cases where three or more of these conditions were satisfied, more serious psychotic withdrawal symptoms such as delirium tremens or convulsions were of significantly higher incidence (P < 0.001). (3) It was thus concluded that some of these conditions, which, when taken individually, do not appear related to physical dependence, do show such a relationship when combined together. (4) None of such factors as predisposition, age, length of drinking history or dietary intake appeared to be of primary importance in the development of physical dependence. (5) A comparative assessment was also made of the results obtained in the present study with previously documented data from animal experiments.     

Types of alcoholics, II. Application of an empirically derived typology to treatment matching.

Data from 79 male alcoholics who were randomly assigned to either coping skills training or interactional group psychotherapy were used to replicate a multidimensional, empirically derived typology and to evaluate the typology's usefulness in matching patients to treatment. Consistent with previous cluster analysis research, indicators of risk for alcoholism, alcohol dependence, drinking history, and psychopathological impairment distinguished alcoholics along two broad dimensions of vulnerability and severity, with one subtype (type B alcoholics) manifesting an earlier onset of problem drinking, more familial alcoholism, greater dependence on alcohol, and more symptoms of antisocial personality than the other subtype (type A alcoholics). Analyses of outcome indicated that type A alcoholics fared better in interactional treatment and more poorly with coping skills training. Conversely, type B alcoholics had better outcomes with the coping skills treatment and worse outcomes with interactional therapy. Differences in treatment response were maintained for 2 years from the beginning of aftercare treatment.