帕罗西汀与氟西汀对脑卒中后抑郁总体康复影响的对照研究

目的：比较帕罗西汀与氟西汀（百忧解）对脑卒中后抑郁总体康复的影响。方法：将符合入组标准的脑卒中后抑郁患者随机分为帕罗西汀组,氟西汀组,用汉密顿抑郁量表（HAMD）,汉密顿焦虑量表（HAMD）,副反应量表（TESS）和改良爱丁堡与斯堪的维亚评分（SSS）进行评估。结果：帕罗西汀组与氟西汀组治疗前与治疗后第4,8周SSS评分均有显著差异,帕罗西汀组与氟西汀组之间无差异。治疗后第2周帕罗西汀组与氟西汀组HAMA评分有显著差异。结论：帕罗西汀与氟西汀均能有效地治疗脑卒中后抑郁,加快病人总体康复,帕罗西汀具有较好的治疗依从性。     

万拉法新、氟西汀治疗重度抑郁的疗效观察

目的　观察万拉法新、氟西汀配合舒心安神 1号中药合剂对抑郁症的疗效。方法　按照 DSM- -R标准确诊为重度抑郁、抑郁症 ,进行中医辨证分型确诊的初始患者 64例。分为两组 :万拉法新组 (观察组 ) 3 2例 ,氟西汀组 (对照组 ) 3 2例。万拉法新每次 2 5 mg,po、(od～tid) ,氟西汀 2 0 mg、po、od,两组加用舒心安神合剂 2 0 0 ml,bid。疗程 6W。结果　万拉法新和氟西汀组总显效率 87.5 %和 81 .2 5 % ,2组治疗前后自身对照 SDS量表评分均有显著差异 (P<0 .0 1 )。万拉法新组减分率 89.92± 7.5 2 ,氟西汀组 85 .0 4± 8.91 ,2组间治疗前后减分率差异不显著 (P>0 .0 5 )。结论　 2组配合舒心安神合剂均有对抑郁症的良好效果     

长春西汀辅助治疗抑郁症疗效观察

目的观察长春西汀辅助治疗抑郁症患者的疗效。方法将68例抑郁症患者随机分为实验组和对照组,分别使用盐酸氟西汀（百忧解）并长春西汀联合治疗和单独使用盐酸氟西汀治疗8周,采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、Zung氏抑郁自评量表（SDS）评价疗效。结果实验组和对照组皆疗效显著（P均〈0．01）,且实验组对躯体化、睡眠障碍因子的改善较对照组更明显,有显著性统计学差异（P均〈0．05）。结论长春西汀对抑郁症有辅助治疗作用。     

帕罗西汀与氟西汀治疗冠心病并发抑郁症的临床观察

目的 现察帕罗西汀与氟西汀治疗冠心病伴抑郁的疗效及安全性.方法 82例冠心痛后抑郁患者,随机分为两组,分别采用帕罗西汀与氟西汀治疗8周,采用汉密顿抑郁量表(HAMD),及副反应量表(TESS)评定疗效及不良反应.结果 帕罗西汀与氟西汀疗效相近,但帕罗西汀起效快,不良反应少.结论 帕罗西汀与氟西汀治疗冠心病后抑郁一样安全有效.     

万拉法新、帕罗西汀、黛力新治疗躯体形式障碍疗效的对比研究

目的比较黛力新、万拉法新、帕罗西汀治疗躯体形式障碍患者的疗效。方法51例躯体形式障碍患者分别给予黛力新、万拉法新、帕罗西汀治疗，分别完成22例、15例、14例。在治疗前、治疗2周、4周分别进行HAMD、HAMA评定。结果黛力新、万拉法新、帕罗西汀于治疗2周、4周HAMD、HAMA的减分均较治疗前有明显减低，有非常显著性差异（P〈0．01或P〈0．001），3种药物之间HAMD、HAMA分数于治疗前、治疗2周、4周均无显著性差异（P〉0．05），3种药物的疗效相当。结论黛力新、万拉法新、帕罗西汀治疗躯体形式障碍安全、有效。     

度洛西汀合并利培酮治疗伴有精神病性症状的抑郁症疗效分析

目的比较盐酸度洛西汀合并利培酮治疗伴有精神病性症状的抑郁症的疗效及安全性。方法将60例抑郁症患者随机分为盐酸度洛西汀合并利培酮组(以下简称度洛西汀组)与盐酸帕罗西汀合并利培酮组(以下简称帕罗西汀组),疗程8w,采用简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)/汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)评定临床疗效,副反应量表(TESS)评定不良反应。结果度洛西汀组与帕罗西汀组对伴有精神病性症状的抑郁症均有效,两组差异无显著性,度洛西汀起效较快,两组不良反应相仿。结论盐酸度洛西汀与盐酸帕罗西汀合并利培酮都是治疗伴有精神病性症状的抑郁症较理想的药物,与帕罗西汀组相比,盐酸度洛西汀治疗伴有躯体症状的抑郁症患者疗效更好。     

米氮平与帕罗西汀治疗伴有焦虑症状抑郁症的对照研究

目的：比较米氮平与帕罗西汀治疗伴有焦虑症状抑郁症的疗效。方法：将符合CCMD-3抑郁症诊断标准的60例患者随机进入米氮平或帕罗西汀组接受治疗，分别在治疗0、1、2,4、6周末评定HAMD总分及HAMD焦虑／躯体化因子分。结果：米氮平与帕罗西汀疗效相当，米氮平起效较快，早期即具明显的抗焦虑作用。结论：米氮平对伴有焦虑症状的抑郁症有良好的疗效。     

奥氮平合用氟西汀治疗抑郁症的临床疗效观察

目的比较奥氮平合用氟西汀与单用氟西汀治疗难治性抑郁症的疗效和安全性。方法 72例难治性抑郁患者随机分为两组,研究组给予奥氮平合用氟西汀治疗,对照组给予氟西汀,疗程8周。采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)和治疗中出现的副反应量表(TESS)评定疗效及不良反应。结果治疗8周末两组HAMD评分均显著下降(t=6.712,7.491,P<0.01),研究组显效率高于对照组(t=5.007,P<0.05),两组不良反应均较轻微。结论奥氮平与氟西汀合用比单用氟西汀治疗难治性抑郁症疗效好,不良反应轻微。     

氟西汀合并奎硫平治疗躯体形式障碍的疗效

目的探讨氟西汀合并奎硫平治疗躯体形式障碍的疗效及安全性。方法70例躯体形式障碍患者随机分为两组．研究组以氟西汀合并奎硫平进行治疗，对照组单用氟西汀治疗，疗程均为8周。治疗前与治疗第2、8周采用症状自评量表（SCL-90）．汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）评定临床疗效，副反应量表（TESS）评定不良反应。结果治疗后两组SCL-90，HAMD评分较治疗前减少，差异有显著性（P〈0．01）。8周末研究组有效率88．2％，对照组有效率54．5％，两组差异有显著性（P〈0．05）。并且在治疗2周末研究组较对照组见效快，差异有显著性（P〈0．05）。两组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。结论氟西汀合并奎硫平治疗躯体形式障碍较单用氟西汀疗效好，起效快，且不增加副作用。     

文拉法辛与氟西汀治疗伴躯体化症状的门诊抑郁症患者对照研究

目的比较文拉法辛与氟西汀的抗抑郁效果及不良反应。方法随机将60例符合CCMD-3情感性精神障碍(抑郁发作)诊断标准的患者分为文拉法辛组(30例)和氟西汀组(30例)。疗程6周,在0、1、2、4、6周应用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)并评定疗效,记录出现的不良反应。结果文拉法辛从疗后第1周HAMD评分开始显著下降,而氟西汀从疗后第2周HAMD评分才显著下降;但治疗6周后,文拉法辛的临床治愈率显著高于氟西汀(分别为66.7%和36.7%)。2组患者的不良反应相似,差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论文拉法辛起效快,临床治愈率高,不良反应少。     

帕罗西汀治疗咽异感症患者抑郁、焦虑症状的临床观察

目的 探讨帕罗西汀对咽异感症的疗效及安全性.方法 选自门诊咽异感症病人共66例,随机分为帕罗西汀组(33例)和丁螺环酮组(33例),疗程6周.采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)评定临床疗效,副反应量表(TESS)评定副反应.结果 帕罗西汀组治疗前后的HAMD及HAMA评分比较有显著性差异(P＜0.01),两组问从治疗第2周末起,各时点HAMD评分有显著性差异(P＜0.05);两组问HAMA评分在治疗第2周末有显著性差异(P＜0.05);在第4、6周末无显著性差异(P＞0.05);两组间备时点TESS评分显著性差异(P＞0.05).结论 帕罗西汀在显著改善咽异感症患者抑郁症状的同时,其改善焦虑症状的疗效与抗焦虑药物丁螺环酮相当,疗效较好,副作用小.     

文拉法辛与氟西汀治疗迟滞性抑郁症对照研究

目的 通过与氟西汀治疗对比,探讨文拉法辛治疗迟滞性抑郁症的疗效及安全性.方法 将70例迟滞性抑郁症患者随机分成两组,每组35例.文拉法辛组剂量从75mg/d起始,7～10d加至150～225mg/d;氟西汀组剂量从20mg/d起始,7～10d内加至60 mg/d,治疗总疗程两组均为8周.在治疗前、治疗后1,2,4,8周...     

Fluoxetine versus sertraline and paroxetine in major depression: tolerability and efficacy in anxious depression

BACKGROUND: Major depression with high levels of anxiety (anxious depression) is a common subtype of depression associated with greater psychosocial impairment and poorer response to antidepressant treatment. It is unclear whether in this population there are differences in efficacy or tolerability across selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. For this reason, using head-to-head acute treatment comparison, we compared efficacy and tolerability of fluoxetine, sertraline, and paroxetine among depressed patients with high levels of anxiety. METHODS: Patients (N = 108) with DSM-IV major depression and high levels of anxiety (a HAM-D-Anxiety/Somatization Factor score > or =7) were randomized to fluoxetine, sertraline, or paroxetine treatment in a double-blind fashion. Changes in overall depression and anxiety were assessed. RESULTS: Patients demonstrated similar baseline-to-endpoint improvement in HAM-D-17 and HAM-D-Anxiety/Somatization Factor scores. Patients also demonstrated similar change-over-time improvement in HAM-D-17 and HAM-D-Anxiety/Somatization Factor scores, except at week one where fluoxetine- and sertraline-treated patients had statistically significantly greater improvement than paroxetine-treated patients in the HAM-D-Anxiety/Somatization Factor score. There were no significant differences across treatments in percentages of patients with substantial emergence, any worsening, or improvement at endpoint in individual HAM-D Items 9 (agitation), 10 (psychic anxiety), and 11 (somatic anxiety). Overall, all treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: These data showed no significant differences in efficacy and tolerability of fluoxetine, sertraline, and paroxetine in patients with high levels of baseline anxiety symptoms during the acute treatment of major depression. Each treatment was similarly effective in improving depression in this subtype of patients with anxious depression.     

艾司西酞普兰与文拉法辛治疗躯体形式障碍的对照研究

目的:对比艾司西酞普兰与文拉法辛治疗躯体形式障碍的疗效。方法:选择80例躯体形式障碍患者为研究对象,采用随机数字表法分为艾司西酞普兰组和文拉法辛组各40例,治疗6周后,比较两组的临床疗效及安全性。结果:艾司西酞普兰治疗第6周末的汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)评分分别低于文拉法辛组,差异有统计学意义(t=-2.325,P0.05);两组间症状自评量表(SCL-90)躯体化因子分比较自始至终无显著性差异。治疗6周后,两组间的疗效和总体有效率无差异。结论:艾司西酞普兰治疗躯体形式障碍的疗效与文拉法辛相似且有效,但较文拉法辛更能改善患者的抑郁症状。     

西酞普兰与文拉法辛治疗抑郁症的对照观察

目的 比较西酞普兰与文拉法辛治疗抑郁症的临床效果.方法 应用CCMD-3关于抑郁症的诊断标准,分别对接受西酞普兰(30例)及文拉法辛(31例)治疗的抑郁症患者进行为期8周的观察.并应用HAMD、HAMA、CGI-S量表评估和比较两者的疗效及安全性.结果 经8周治疗,西酞普兰有效率及显效率分别为96.7%、63%,与文拉法辛组(93.5%、78.1%)比较差异无显著性(P＞0.05).二者TESS总分亦无显著性差异(P＞0.05).结论 西酞普兰与文拉法辛均为安全而起效快的抗抑郁药物,但后者有明显消化系统疾患及高血压患者慎用.     

帕罗西汀治疗功能性低热疗效观察

目的:观察帕罗西汀对功能性低热的疗效.方法:采用随机分组和安慰剂对照法, 对54例功能性低热患者随机分为两组:治疗组28例,口服帕罗西汀每次1片(20mg/片),每天一次,共服8周;对照组26例,口服安慰剂每次1片.每天一次,共服8周;应用功能性低热评定标准及汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD;17项)于治疗前及治疗后第4、8周末进行疗效评定.结果:帕罗西汀治疗功能性低热和抑郁症状的有效率随时间延长而增加,在第8周末,治疗组的28例患者中,有效者分别为22例(78.6%)和23例(82.1%);而对照组26例中,分别为7例(26.9%)和8例(30.8%),两组差异均有显著性(χ2=13.35,χ2=14.46,P<0.01). 结论:帕罗西汀是治疗功能性低热的有效药物之一.     

A Canadian multicenter, double-blind study of paroxetine and fluoxetine in major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested clinical differences among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. In a 12-week randomized, multicenter, double-blind trial, the antidepressant and anxiolytic efficacy of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors paroxetine and fluoxetine was compared in patients with moderate to severe depression. METHODS: A total of 203 patients were randomized to fixed doses (20 mg/day) of paroxetine or fluoxetine for the first six weeks of therapy. From week 7-12, dosing could be adjusted biweekly, as required (paroxetine 20-50 mg/day, and fluoxetine 20-80 mg/day). The mean prescribed doses were paroxetine 25.5 mg/day (range 20.0-40.2 mg/day), and fluoxetine 27.5 mg/day (range 20.0-59.5 mg/day). Emergence of motor nervousness or restlessness was assessed using the ESRS scale for akathisia. RESULTS: Both active treatments demonstrated comparable antidepressant efficacy (HAM-D, CGI). Anxiolytic activity of the two drugs (COVI, STAI, HAM-D) was also comparable. However, paroxetine was found to be superior to fluoxetine on two subscore measures at week 1 of therapy (HAM-D Agitation item, p < 0.05; Psychic Anxiety item, p < 0.05), with no differences detected after week 2. The overall incidence of adverse effects was comparable in the two treatment groups. Constipation, dyspepsia, tremor, sweating and abnormal ejaculation were more common in paroxetine-treated subjects, whereas nausea and nervousness were more frequent in fluoxetine-treated patients. Weight loss was more common in the fluoxetine versus paroxetine group (11.88% versus 2.94%, respectively). ESRS scores for akathisia were low throughout the study and showed little change. LIMITATIONS: Differences observed between the two drugs in antianxiety effects were limited to two measures of anxiety among several others. DISCUSSION: The data indicate that paroxetine and fluoxetine have comparable antidepressant and anxiolytic efficacy. Paroxetine appears to produce an earlier improvement in agitation and psychic anxiety symptoms compared with fluoxetine.     

米氮平与曲唑酮治疗抑郁症的对照研究

目的比较米氮平与曲唑酮治疗抑郁症的疗效和不良反应。方法将50例抑郁症患者随机分成两组,疗程6周,采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)和副反应量表(TESS)评定疗效和不良反应。结果米氮平组和曲唑酮组显效率分别78.57%为和72.73%,两组疗效差异无显著性(P>0.05),两组不良反应差异有显著性(P<0.05),米氮平的不良反应少于曲唑酮。结论米氮平是一种安全、有效的抗抑郁药。