西酞普兰和氯丙咪嗪治疗精神分裂症后抑郁对照研究

目的比较西酞普兰与氯丙咪嗪治疗精神分裂症后抑郁的临床疗效和安全性。方法50例诊断为精神分裂症后抑郁的患者,随机分成两组,分别用西酞普兰与氯丙咪嗪治疗6周。采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)、阴性症状评定量表(SANS)及副反应量表(TESS),于治疗前和治疗2、4、6周末分别评定疗效和副反应症状。结果西酞普兰组与氯丙咪嗪组HAMD评分差异无显著性。西酞普兰组副反应症状较氯丙咪嗪组少而轻。结论西酞普兰治疗精神分裂症后抑郁的临床疗效好,安全性高,不良反应轻微。     

万拉法新与氯丙咪嗪治疗抑郁性神经症对照研究

目的比较万拉法新与氯丙咪嗪治疗抑郁性神经症的疗效及副反应。方法对符合CCMD-2-R抑郁性神经症诊断标准的病人，随机分为万拉法新组和氯丙咪嗪组，治疗12周后，用漠米尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、药物副反应量表（TESS）评定疗效和药物的不良反应。结果万拉法新与氯丙咪嗪疗效相当，起效较氯丙咪嗪早，副反应较氯丙咪嗪轻。结论万拉法新治疗抑郁性神经症疗效较好，起效快，副反应轻，患者服药依从性好。     

万拉法新与丙咪嗪治疗抑郁症对照研究

目的　评价万拉法新的抗抑郁疗效及副作用。方法　对 6 0例符合CCMD 3诊断标准的抑郁症患者 ,随机分组 ,分别用万拉法新和丙咪嗪治疗 6周 ,用汉密尔顿抑郁量表 (HAMD) ,汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA) ,评定疗效 ,用副反应量表 (TESS)评定副反应。结果　万拉法新和丙咪嗪疗效相当 (P >0 .0 5 ) ,其显效率分别为 83.33%、76 .6 7% ,万拉法新对伴随的焦虑症状也有较好疗效。万拉法新不良反应较丙咪嗪少而轻微。结论　万拉法新抗抑郁疗效肯定 ,副作用少     

万拉法新与氯丙咪嗪治疗抑郁症的对照研究

目的进一步验证万拉法新治疗抑郁症的有效性和安全性。方法将符合CCMD-2-R和DSM-Ⅳ抑郁症诊断标准的住院病人共60例随机分为A、B两组,分别给予万拉法新与氯丙咪嗪治疗6周,用HAMD量表评定药物疗效;用TESS量表评定副反应。结果万拉法新与氯丙咪嗪疗效相当,但万拉法新起效快、副反应少、依从性好、安全性高。结论万拉法新是一种有效的抗抑郁药。     

氯丙咪嗪合并氯氮平治疗精神分裂症阴性症状有效

目的探讨氯丙咪嗪合并氯氮平治疗精神分裂阴性症状的作用。方法对78例住院精神分裂症患，用氯氮平或氯氮平合并1种以上抗精神病药治疗2个月以上症状未完全缓解，采用口服氯丙咪嗪合并氯氮平连续治疗3个月。采用简明精神病量表(BPRS)、阴性症状量表(SANS)、副反应量表(TESS)，在治疗前及治疗后1个月、2个月进行评分。结果采用口服氯丙咪嗪合并氯氮平治疗后，BPRS、SANS量表总分和TESS减分与治疗前比较均有显性减低。结论氯丙咪嗪合并氯氮平治疗精神分裂症阴性症状有一定疗效。     

万拉法新与氯丙咪嗪治疗双重抑郁症对照研究

目的：比较万拉法新与氯丙咪嗪治疗双重抑郁症（DD）的疗效及不良反应。方法：对DD患者分别以万拉法新及氯丙咪嗪治疗。疗程8周。以汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）等评定疗效。结果：仅第1、2周末两组HAMD评分差异有显著性（P＜0．05）。8周时两组疗效相当（P＞0．05）。但万拉法新组不良反应少而轻。结论：万拉法新治疗DD起效快、不良反应轻微。     

帕罗西汀与氯丙咪嗪治疗强迫症对照研究

目的探讨帕罗西汀治疗强迫症的疗效和不良反应。方法应用帕罗西汀和氯丙咪嗪治疗强迫症各30例,应用Yale-Brown强迫量表(Y-BOCS)、汉密顿抑郁量表(HAMD),汉密顿焦虑量表(HAMA)及临床4级标准评定疗效,用副反应量表(TESS)评定副反应。结果帕罗西汀与氯丙咪嗪疗效相似,两组显效率及有效率差异无显著性,帕罗西汀不良反应发生率明显少于氯丙咪嗪。结论帕罗西汀治疗强迫症疗效与氯丙咪嗪相当,不良反应较轻,值得推广。     

舍曲林与氯丙咪嗪治疗少年强迫症的对照研究

目的 探讨舍曲林与氯丙咪嗪治疗少年强迫症的临床疗效及不良反应.方法 将64例少年强迫症患者随机分为舍曲林组和氯丙咪嗪组,疗程均为8周.分别于治疗前和治疗后2、4、6、8周采用Yale-Brown强迫量表(Y-BOCS)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、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 舍曲林组和氯丙咪嗪组治疗后,Y-BOCS、HAMD、HAMA分值均显著下降,差异无统计学意义.舍曲林不良反应发生率明显少于氯丙咪嗪.结论 舍曲林治疗少年强迫症与氯丙咪嗪疗效相当,不良反应较轻.     

万拉法新与舒必利辅助治疗精神分裂症阴性症状的比较研究

目的 比较万拉法新与舒必利辅助治疗精神症阴性症状的效果。方法 使用万拉法新、舒必利分别作为氯氮平的辅助用药,对84例以阴性症状为主的分裂症患者进行对照研究,以简明精神量表(BPRS)、阴性症状量表(SANS)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)和副反应量表(TESS)进行评定。结果两组有效率分别为73.79％、76.19％,无显著性差异,治疗4周后BPRS、SANS、HAMD和TESS比较有显著性差异(P<0.05),治疗8周后HAMD差异非常显著(P<0.01),BPRS有显著性差异(P<0.05),而SANS和TESS无显著性(P>0.05)。万拉法新的主要不良反应为口干、出汗、恶心及头痛等症状,一般不须处理。结论 在服氯氮平的基础上,用万拉法新作为治疗精神分裂症阴性症状的辅助药,比舒必利更安全、副反应小。     

氯丙咪嗪与舒必利辅助治疗精神分裂症阴性症状的对照研究

目的： 比较氯丙咪嗪、舒必利辅助治疗精神分裂症阴性症状的效果。　方法： 使用氯丙咪嗪、舒必利分别作为氯氮平的辅助用药与单用氯氮平对８８ 例以阴性症状为主的精神分裂症病人进行对照研究; 以简明精神病评定量表、阴性症状量表和副反应量表进行评定。　结果： 合并氯丙咪嗪组、舒必利组及单用氯氮平组对阴性症状的治疗显效率分别为６９％ 、３１％ 、１３３３％ 。　结论： 氯氮平合并氯丙咪嗪治疗能有效地改善精神分裂症的阴性症状。     

盐酸文拉法辛和草酸艾司西酞普兰治疗抑郁症的对照研究

目的 比较盐酸文拉法辛和草酸艾司西酞普兰治疗抑郁症患者的疗效和安全性.方法 69例抑郁症患者随机分为盐酸文拉法辛组和草酸艾司西酞普兰组.盐酸文拉法辛治疗剂量150～225 mg/d,草酸艾司西酞普兰治疗剂量10～20 mg/d,采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)和汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)以及副反应评定量表(TESS)评定疗效和不良反应,观察时间为期8周.结果 两组药物在治疗终末期疗效以及不良反应差异没有统计学意义(P＞0.05).在治疗第6周末草酸艾司西酞普兰组HAMD/HAMA总评分低于盐酸文拉法辛组(P＜0.05).结论 盐酸文拉法辛与草酸艾司西酞普兰对抑郁症患者均有较好的疗效,安全性一致,但是后者起效更快.     

多受体类非典型抗精神病药物在老年抑郁症治疗中的比较

目的比较抗抑郁药物联合氯氮平、奥氮平、喹硫平治疗老年抑郁症疗效、耐受性与安全性。方法64例抑郁症患者在应用抗抑郁药物的基础上分别联合奥氮平（n=21）、喹硫平（n=23）、氯氮平（n=20），治疗6周，比较HAMD、HAMA、BPRS的变化和不良反应。结果3组患者的HAMD、HAMA、BPRS均有显著性减少，但3组之间无统计学差异（P〉0．05），其中氯氮平组不良反应较明显。结论抗抑郁药物联合多受体类非典型抗精神病药物治疗老年抑郁症的效果较理想，且不良反应少。但是不同药物之间的不良反应存在不同。     

度洛西汀与文拉法辛对首发抑郁症疗效的对照研究

目的观察固定剂量度洛西汀与文拉法辛对首发抑郁症患者的疗效和安全性。方法73例首发抑郁症患者随机分为度洛西汀组（36例）和文拉法辛组（37例），治疗剂量分别为60mg／d和150mg／d，观察8周。用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD17）和蒙哥马利抑郁量表（MADRS）评定疗效，不良反应量表（TESS）评定不良反应和安全性。结果度洛西汀组31例和文拉法辛组30例完成8周的观察。至第8周末两组的有效率和临床痊愈率分别为77．4％（24／31）、83．3％（25／30）和48．4％（15／31）、53．3％（16／30），差异无统计学意义。治疗第1周末，文拉法辛组起效率（80．0％）高于度洛西汀组（41．9％）。度洛西汀组主要不良反应为食欲减退、恶心、心动过速、头痛、震颤、口干和便秘，与文拉法辛组相似。结论度洛西汀对首发抑郁症患者安全有效，与文拉法辛相似。     

文拉法辛和氯米帕明治疗老年抑郁症对照研究

目的:比较文拉法辛和氯米帕明对老年抑郁症的疗效和不良反应。方法:70例老年抑郁症患者随机分为两组,分别用文拉法辛和氯米帕明治疗,疗程6周。采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、临床疗效总评量表(CGI)和副反应量表(TESS)评定疗效和不良反应。结果:文拉法辛和氯米帕明治疗老年抑郁症疗效相似,但文拉法辛比氯米帕明见效快,不良反应轻,疗效指数好于氯米帕明(P<0.05)。结论:文拉法辛是一种安全有效、见效快、不良反应轻的治疗老年抑郁症的药物。     

Extended-release venlafaxine in relapse prevention for patients with major depressive disorder

Many studies have demonstrated that venlafaxine is an efficacious and safe treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). This double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of venlafaxine extended-release (XR) (75-225 mg/day) in the prevention of relapse of depression. Patients with MDD who responded to an 8-week course of venlafaxine XR treatment, i.e., had a score < or = 3 on the Clinical Global Impressions scale-Severity of Illness item (CGI-S) and a 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(21)) score < or = 10, were randomly assigned to receive continuation treatment (up to 6 months) with venlafaxine XR (n=161) or placebo (n=157). The main efficacy outcome measure was the number of patients who experienced a relapse of depression. Relapse was defined by either a combination of a patient meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria for MDD and a CGI-S score > or = 4, two consecutive CGI-S scores > or = 4, or a final CGI-S score > or = 4 for a patient who withdrew from the study. The cumulative probability of relapse was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method of survival analysis. During the 6-month evaluation period, significantly more patients in the placebo group had a relapse of MDD than did patients who continued treatment with venlafaxine XR. Cumulative relapse rates at 3 and 6 months were 19 and 28%, respectively, for venlafaxine XR, and 44 and 52%, respectively, for placebo. This study demonstrates that venlafaxine XR is an effective and safe continuation therapy.     

曲唑酮与文拉法辛治疗抑郁症的对照研究

目的　评价曲唑酮治疗抑郁症的临床疗效和副反应。方法　对 72例抑郁症患者随机分为曲唑酮组 (36例 )与文拉法辛组 (36例 )进行对照性研究 ,疗程 8周 ,采用汉密顿抑郁量表 (HAMD) ,汉密顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、临床总体印象量表 (CGI)及副反应量表 (TESS)评定疗效及副反应。结果　曲唑酮与文拉法辛的临床疗效相似 ,两组的显效率和有效率分别为 6 1%、78%与 6 1%、81% ,差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 ) ,副反应两组间差异也无显著性 (P >0 0 5 )。结论　曲唑酮与文拉法辛相比 ,在治疗抑郁症方面 ,有相似的疗效和安全性     

哌泊噻嗪、氟哌啶醇癸酸酯与氟奋乃静癸酸酯治疗精神分裂症的对照研究

建桐翁正【摘要】目的验证和比较哌泊噻嗪、氟哌啶醇癸酸酯、氟奋乃静癸酸酯三种长效抗精神病制剂对精神分裂症的疗效及副反应。方法采用多中心、开放随机对照研究，以简明精神病评定量表（ＢＰＲＳ）、阳性症状评定量表（ＳＡＰＳ）、阴性症状评定量表（ＳＡＮＳ）、临床疗效总评量表（ＣＧＩ）和副反应量表（ＴＥＳＳ）、锥体外系副反应量表（ＲＳＥＳＥ）综合评定。结果治疗后哌泊噻嗪组患者的ＣＧＩＳＩ与ＣＧＩＧＩ分值和ＳＡＮＳ量表总分均低于其它两组，差异均有显著性（Ｐ＜０．０５），而ＢＰＲＳ和ＳＡＰＳ量表总分治疗结束时三组间差异无显著性（Ｐ＞０．０５）。ＴＥＳＳ总分和ＲＳＥＳＥ总分在整个治疗过程中均以氟奋乃静癸酸酯组最高，哌泊噻嗪组最低。结论三组中以哌泊噻嗪对精神分裂症的疗效较好，对阴性症状的改善优于氟哌啶醇癸酸酯组和氟奋乃静癸酸酯组，对阳性症状的疗效近似。哌泊噻嗪组副反应较少，安全度较好     

The relationship of clozapine and haloperidol treatment response to prefrontal,hippocampal, and caudate brain volumes

OBJECTIVE: The study was designed to assess the predictive relationship between brain structure volume and positive and negative symptom response to clozapine and haloperidol. METHOD: Partially responsive outpatients with schizophrenia who participated in a 10-week, parallel-group, double-blind comparison of clozapine and haloperidol and who had an available magnetic resonance imaging scan were included in the current study. Prefrontal gray and white matter, hippocampal, and caudate volumes were manually measured. The Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) were used to assess symptom changes. The Simpson-Angus Rating Scale was used to assess extrapyramidal symptoms. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients randomly assigned to clozapine and 23 patients assigned to haloperidol met study entry criteria. There were significant interactions between treatment and right prefrontal gray matter volume for BPRS total score and SANS total score. There were no significant treatment-by-brain structure interactions for BPRS positive symptom items. Right prefrontal gray matter volume was also related to differential treatment effects for the BPRS subscales of anxiety/depression and hostility and the Simpson-Angus Rating Scale akathisia item. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there is a differential interaction among clozapine and haloperidol, brain structure, and treatment response. Partially responsive patients with larger brain volumes may be more likely to experience the benefits of clozapine treatment, but they may be more vulnerable to side effects and experience a subsequent worsening of their symptoms when treated with haloperidol.     

Suicide and undetermined death by drowning

INTRODUCTION : To compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and haloperidol in partial-responder paranoid schizophrenic patients. METHOD : In this multi-centre, double-blind study, 28 patients with DSM-IV paranoid schizophrenia were randomized to receive 14 weeks treatment with either olanzapine or haloperidol at flexible doses. The pre- and post-treatment assessment included the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), the CGI, the Simpson-Angus Rating Scale, and the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale. RESULTS : The two treatment groups showed similar improvement on the BPRS positive symptoms subscale, while the improvement of BPRS negative symptoms subscale was significant only in the olanzapine group (ANOVA with repeated measures, group effect: F=5.89, P =0.023). Only the olanzapine-treated patients experienced a significant improvement of negative symptoms as rated by the SANS (ANOVA with repeated measures, group effect: F=6.81, P =0.016). No significant differences were found between the two groups on the Simpson and Angus Rating Scale scores, but a significant difference was found in the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale scores: no patient in the olanzapine-treated group experienced akathisia, while a few patients in the haloperidol-treated group showed this side-effect, thus resulting in a significant group effect detected by the ANOVA (F=4.23, P =0.05). CONCLUSIONS : These preliminary results suggest that olanzapine is superior to haloperidol in the treatment of partial-responder paranoid schizophrenic patients, and also shows a better tolerability profile. Further investigations, including different diagnostic subgroups, are still needed to further clarify the clinical profile of olanzapine. (Int J Psych Clin Pract 2002; 6: 107-111)