Treatment of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder in combat veterans with citalopram: an open trial

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a serious mental illness which exhibits significant impairment of psychosocial and occupational function. At present, serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) show therapeutic promise for the treatment of PTSD. However, results in the veteran population have been less robust or often negative. In this study, a relatively new and the most selective SRI, citalopram, was evaluated for the treatment of PTSD. Veterans with chronic PTSD (N = 18) were enrolled in an 8-week open trial of citalopram after providing written informed consent. The primary outcome measures were the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI). Seventeen patients completed at least 4 weeks of the 8-week trial. During treatment, there was a moderate response with 42% of patients demonstrating a > or =30% reduction in total CAPS score at week 8. Comparable results were demonstrated in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), HAM-A, Global Assessment of Function (GAF), and CGI rating scales. In a follow-up analysis, a treatment effect was shown for CAPS B at week 4, but was not sustained at week 8. Overall, citalopram was generally well tolerated with reported adverse events being benign in nature. These pilot results demonstrate a moderate effect of citalopram in the treatment of combat-induced PTSD. However, the sample size was small and patient population is limited to veterans with combat-induced PTSD. Further study in a larger and more diverse patient sample is warranted prior to final conclusions on efficacy of citalopram for the treatment of PTSD.     

St John's wort extract (LI 160) in somatoform disorders: results of a placebo-controlled trial

Abstract Rationale and objective. Preliminary data have shown that St John's wort might possess some specific efficacy in patients with somatoform complaints. Therefore, the efficacy of the Hypericum extract LI 160 in patients with somatoform disorders should be studied in a double-blind placebo-controlled fashion. Methods. This was a multicentre, randomised, placebo controlled, 6-week trial comparing the efficacy of LI 160 (600 mg/day) and placebo in 151 out-patients suffering from somatization disorder (ICD-10: F45.0), undifferentiated somatoform disorder (F45.1), or somatoform autonomic dysfunctions (F45.3). The primary outcome measure was the decrease of the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, subfactor somatic anxiety (HAMA-SOM), during the trial period. Results. LI 160 was superior effective concerning the primary outcome criterion HAMA-SOM [decrease from 15.39 (SD 2.68) to 6.64 (4.32) in the Hypericum group and from 15.55 (2.94) to 11.97 (5.58) in the placebo group (statistically significant difference, P=0.001)]. This was corroborated by the result of a statistically significant superior efficacy in the outcome criteria additionally used such as Clinical Global Impression, HAMA-total score, HAMA, subscore psychic anxiety, Hamilton Depression Scale, Self-Report Symptom Inventory 90 items – revised (SCL-90-R), and SCL-90-R, subscore somatic anxiety. The efficacy of LI 160 was preserved after splitting the population in those with mild and those with severe depressive symptoms. Tolerability of LI 160 was excellent. Conclusion. The data from this trial show excellent efficacy and tolerability for LI 160 in somatoform disorders. The efficacy is independent of an existing depressive mood. This is the first study showing the efficacy of a drug in patients with somatisation disorder independent of depressive symptomatology. Electronic Publication     

Treatment of generalized anxiety disorder with citalopram

Serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), such as venalafaxine and paroxetine, are used in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Patients with GAD frequently have comorbid psychiatric disorders, such as depression. SSRIs are effective in the treatment of a variety of anxiety disorders and depression. Citalopram, a newer SSRI used in the treatment of depression, has not been studied for GAD. This is the first report of the use of citalopram, the most selective SSRI, for the treatment of GAD in a retrospective case observation study. Thirteen patients diagnosed with GAD were treated with citalopram at an academic outpatient clinic. The main outcome measures were the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (CGI-S; at baseline) and Improvement (CGI-I). The mean age of the patients was 38 years. The mean dose of citalopram at endpoint was 33 mg/day (range 10-60 mg/day). After 12 weeks of treatment with citalopram, all 13 patients experienced full or partial improvement in GAD and depressive symptoms leading to meaningful improvement in social and occupational functioning. Mean baseline HAM-A scores (mean+/-SEM) decreased from 22.2+/-1.3 to 6.2+/-0.9 after citalopram treatment. The mean CGI-I score was 1.8+/-0.2 with 11 of the 13 patients responding (CGI-I of 1 or 2). These data suggest that citalopram may be an effective treatment for GAD. Several patients who had failed previous treatment with other SSRIs responded to citalopram, suggesting that a second SSRI, such as citalopram, may be beneficial in this population. A larger placebo-controlled study of citalopram is warranted in GAD.     

西酞普兰治疗脑卒中后抑郁的疗效观察

目的观察西酞普兰治疗脑卒中后抑郁(PSD)患者的疗效和不良反应。方法随机将80例脑卒中后抑郁患者分为西酞普兰组40例和对照组40例,于治疗前及治疗后第4周末,对两组患者进行Hamilton抑郁量表(HAMD))评定。结果治疗后,西酞普兰组患者的HAMD评分较治疗前差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),西酞普兰组的不良反应少且轻与对照组相比差异无统计学意义。结论西酞普兰治疗脑卒中后抑郁安全、有效。     

Efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine versus citalopram: a double-blind, randomized study in patients with major depressive disorder. Nordic Antidepressant Study Group

We aimed to compare the antidepressant and anxiolytic effects, tolerability and effects on quality of life of mirtazapine and citalopram in a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, 8-week study. Patients with a Major Depressive Episode (DSM-IV) and a baseline score of > or = 22 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were randomized to 8 weeks treatment with either mirtazapine (n = 137, 15-60 mg/day) or citalopram (n = 133, 20-60 mg/day). Efficacy was evaluated by the MADRS, Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), Clinical Global Impression scales (CGI), the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ) and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (QLESQ). The efficacy analyses were performed on the Intent-To-Treat Group using the Last Observation Carried Forward method. Vital signs and laboratory variables are measured and adverse events recorded at each weekly visit. The magnitude of reduction from baseline in group mean MADRS scores was large in both groups, reaching after 8 weeks of treatment mean scores of 9.1 in the mirtazapine group and 8.9 in the citalopram group. Both treatments also resulted in a substantial improvement in anxiety symptoms, sleep disturbances and quality of life, and high percentage of responders. However, at day 14, statistically significantly larger magnitudes of change favouring mirtazapine were present in the group mean MADRS, HAM-A and CGI-Severity of illness and Quality of life scores. A difference of 2.3 points on MADRS favouring mirtazapine is considered indicative for a clinically relevant superiority between two proven antidepressants. Mirtazapine treatment was also related to faster improvement of sleep, quality of sleep and improved alertness following awakening, as shown by statistically significant differences on the self-rating LSEQ at various time points. There were no differences between two treatment groups on self-rating QLSEQ. Both drugs were well tolerated, with a low number of patients in either group prematurely terminating the study due to adverse events (mirtazapine: 3.6%, citalopram, 3.0%). Sweating and nausea were statistically significantly more frequent in the citalopram group and increased appetite and complaints of weight increase in the mirtazapine group. There were no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters and vital sign variables with either treatment, except for clinically relevant increase in body weight, occurring more frequently in mirtazapine patients. In this study, mirtazapine and citalopram were equally effective in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety, and well tolerated. However, mirtazapine was significantly more effective than citalopram after 2 weeks of treatment on the MADRS, HAM-A and CGI Severity of illness and Quality of life scales. This finding, consistently present at all major efficacy variables, suggests potentially faster onset of efficacy of mirtazapine over citalopram.     

Short-term intravenous citalopram augmentation in partial/nonresponders with major depression: a randomized placebo-controlled study

Approximately 30-45% of patients with major depressive episode (MDE) do not fully respond to standard recommended treatments and further strategies of intervention, including pharmacological augmentation, have been proposed for these patients. This study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of short-term, low-dose (10 mg/day) intravenous (i.v.) citalopram augmentation versus placebo in a sample of patients with MDE and partial or no response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Thirty-six patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision criteria MDE and partial or no response to oral SSRIs were selected and randomly assigned to citalopram (n=18) or to placebo (n=18) i.v. augmentation. The augmentation regimen lasted 5 consecutive days during which the patients were maintained on their current treatment with oral SSRIs. Analyses of variance with repeated measures on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total scores, administered daily with blind-raters conditions, were done. With regard to the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores, a significant time effect (F=42.02, P<0.0001) and timextreatment effect (F=21.17, P<0.0001) were found in favor of citalopram. Similar results were obtained from the analysis on Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total scores: time effect (F=50.07, P<0.0001), timextreatment effect (F=19.91, P<0.0001), and treatment effect (F=4.07, P=0.05). Even though referred to a small sample, the present findings seem to suggest that short-term, low-dose, i.v. citalopram augmentation may be effective in depressed patients with partial or no response to oral SSRIs. Further controlled studies performed with double-blind conditions are warranted to confirm the present results.     

西酞普兰治疗2型糖尿病合并抑郁症的疗效

目的探讨西酞普兰治疗2型糖尿病合并抑郁症的疗效。方法选取70例2型糖尿病合并抑郁症患者，随即分为西肽普兰组（实验组）35例、对照组35例，治疗12周，采用糖化血红蛋白（HBA，C）、空腹血糖变异系数（CV-FPG）评价血糖控制情况，汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、糖尿病生活质量量表（DQOL）评定药物疗效波动。结果治疗12周后，实验组HBA1C下降明显（7．2±0．6VS8．0±1．1，P〈0．05）、CV—FPG较对照组小（10．7±2．3VS15．9±2．9，P〈0．05），生活质量改善优于实验组（HAMD8．124-2．68vs14．66±3．73，DQOL89±8vs98±10，P〈0．05）。结论西肽普兰能促进2型糖尿病合并抑郁症患者血糖平稳下降，改善患者抑郁症状，提高生活质量。     

艾司西酞普兰与西酞普兰治疗抑郁症的对照研究

目的评价艾司西酞普兰治疗抑郁症的有效性和安全性。方法选择126例抑郁症患者,试验组63例,口服艾司西酞普兰:1-2周口服10 mg,3-6周剂量可调10-20 mg;对照组63例,口服西酞普兰:1-2周口服20 mg,3-6周剂量可调20-40 mg。疗程6周,以十七项汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD-17)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)和临床总体印象量表(CGI)进行疗效评价;以不良事件、实验室检查和心电图检查等评价安全性。结果共106例患者完成研究,试验组52例,对照组54例。试验组与对照组6周末有效率(82.7%vs 88.9%,P=0.484)、痊愈率(36.5%vs.27.8%,P=0.360),2组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。HAMA和CGI的评分在各时间点2组相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。试验组与对照组不良反应发生率(17.5%vs 30.2%,P=0.07)差异无统计学意义。结论艾司西酞普兰治疗抑郁症安全有效,与西酞普兰相当,不良反应较轻。     

Olanzapine augmentation in treatment-resistant panic disorder: a 12-week, fixed-dose, open-label trial

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of low-dose olanzapine augmentation in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)-resistant panic disorder (PD) with or without agoraphobia. In this 12-week, open-label study, 31 adult outpatients with treatment-resistant PD who had previously failed to respond to SSRI treatment were treated with fixed dose of olanzapine (5 mg/d) in addition to SSRI. Efficacy was assessed using the Panic Attack and Anticipatory Anxiety Scale (PAAAS), the Agoraphobic Cognitions Questionnaire (ACQ), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF), and the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I). Twenty-six patients completed the trial period with a dropout rate of 16.1%. At week 12, 21 patients were responders (81.8%), and an overall improvement on all rating scales was observed in all patients both with or without agoraphobia. Fifteen patients (57.7%) achieved remission. Olanzapine was well tolerated and the most frequent adverse effects were mild-to-moderate weight gain and drowsiness. No extrapyramidal symptoms were reported. Olanzapine appears to be effective as augmentation strategy in the treatment of SSRI-resistant PD, but study limitations must be considered and placebo-controlled studies are needed.     

Prediction of the response to citalopram and reboxetine in post-stroke depressed patients

Rationale and objective Depression is a significant complication of stroke. The effectiveness of antidepressant drugs in the management of post-stroke depression (PSD) has been widely investigated. However, the choice of antidepressant drug is critically influenced by its safety and tolerability and by its effect on concurrent pathologies. Here we investigate the efficacy and safety of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), citalopram, and a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (NARI), reboxetine, in post-stroke patients affected by anxious depression or retarded depression.Methods This was a randomized double-blind study. Seventy-four post-stroke depressed patients were diagnosed as affected by anxious or retarded depression by using a synoptic table. Randomisation was planned so that 50% of the patients in each subgroup were assigned for 16 weeks to treatment with citalopram and the remaining 50% were assigned to treatment with reboxetine. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and a synoptic table were used to score depressive symptoms.Results Both citalopram and reboxetine showed good safety and tolerability. Citalopram exhibited greater efficacy in anxious depressed patients, while reboxetine was more effective in retarded depressed patients.Conclusions Citalopram or other SSRIs and reboxetine may be of first choice treatment in PSD because of their good efficacy and lack of severe side effects. In addition, PSD patients should be classified according to their clinical profile (similarly to patients affected by primary depression) for the selection of SSRIs or reboxetine as drugs of choice in particular subgroups of patients.     

舒肝解郁胶囊与西酞普兰治疗老年缺血性脑卒中后抑郁的疗效比较

摘要目的观察舒肝解郁胶囊治疗老年轻中度缺血性脑卒中后抑郁的临床疗效和对神经功能缺损的影响。方法老年轻中度缺血性脑卒中后抑郁患者84例,随机分为治疗组和对照组各42例。治疗组口服舒肝解郁胶囊0.72 g,bid;对照组口服西酞普兰片 20 mg,qd。疗程均为6周。于基线及治疗第2,4,6周末分别采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）、临床总体印象量表（CGI）、治疗时出现的不良反应症状量表（TESS）评定疗效和不良反应,采用中国脑卒中患者临床神经功能缺损评分标准（CSS）评定对神经功能缺损的影响。结果至研究终点,治疗组和对照组有效率分别为69.0%,64.3%（P＞0.05）;两组HAMD、HAMA评分均显著低于基线（P＜0.05）,两组间比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。治疗6周末,治疗组的TESS评分显著低于对照组（P＜0.01）,疗效指数显著高于对照组（P＜0.01）。治疗6周末两组CSS评分均显著低于基线,治疗组的CSS评分显著低于对照组（P＜0.05）。结论舒肝解郁胶囊治疗轻中度缺血性抑郁症疗效与西酞普兰相当,不良反应明显少于西酞普兰,并能促进神经功能康复。     

Changes in sleep polygraphic variables and clinical state in depressed patients during treatment with citalopram

Drug-induced improvement of depression may be mediated by changes in sleep physiology. The aim of this study was to relate changes in sleep polygraphic variables to clinical state during treatment with citalopram, a highly specific serotonin uptake inhibitor. Sixteen patients took part. The study was single-blind and uncontrolled. A 1-week wash-out period was followed by 1 week of placebo administration, a medication period of 5 weeks, and a 1-week placebo period. For the entire group a significant decrease of rapid eye movement sleep (REMS) and a significant lengthening of REMS latency were observed initially as well as at the end of treatment. No changes in sleep continuity were found, but non-REMS stage 2 (percentage) was significantly increased. On the basis of clinical change, as expressed by the scores of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, at the end of the citalopram treatment the patient group was split in two halves: eight less and eight more improved patients. The groups did not differ with respect to any sleep polygraphic varible.     

An open-label study of citalopram for major depression following traumatic brain injury

Major depression is associated with substantial psychosocial dysfunction and post-concussive symptomatology following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Studies to date of anti-depressant treatment for major depression post-TBI have been limited by small sample size. The goal of the present study is to examine the rates of response and remission associated with citalopram treatment for major depression following traumatic brain injury. Subjects with major depression following mild-to moderate TBI were treated with open-label citalopram with a starting dose of 20 mg/day to a maximum of 50 mg/day for either 6 weeks (n = 54) or 10 weeks (n = 26). The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) was used to assess depression severity. Response was defined by a 50% reduction in HAMD score, and remission was defined by a HAMD score of < or =7. The mean HAMD at baseline and 6 weeks were 23.66 (SD 6.8) and 16.30 (SD 9.3), respectively (t[53] = 7.157, p < 0.0001). The mean HAMD at 10 weeks was 12.96 (SD 7.9) (t[25] = 7.323, p < 0.0001). At 6 weeks, 54 subjects were assessed and 27.7% responded with 24.1% in remission. At 10 weeks, 26 subjects were assessed and 46.2% responded with 26.9% in remission. The response rate in the present sample was substantially lower than previously reported for patients with TBI, but comparable to the results of the largest effectiveness trial of citalopram for general out-patients with major depression in the absence of TBI.     

西酞普兰并奥氮平对更年期抑郁症疗效观察

目的探讨西酞普兰合并奥氮平对更年期抑郁症的疗效。方法回顾性将2008年8月～2011年5月本院收治的更年期抑郁症患者64例,随机分为实验组和对照组,实验组用西酞普兰合并奥氮平治疗,对照组单用西酞普兰治疗,共治疗6周,采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、改良的更年期症状评分表Kupperman（KMI）及副反应量表（Treat-ment Emergent Symptom Scale,TESS）评定疗效。结果治疗后,两组总治疗效果（显效＋有效）差异有统计学意义（X230．64,P〈0．05）;两组HAMD和KMI评分较治疗前均有显著性降低（P〈0．05）;6周后研究组的HAMD评分低于实验组,且差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两组不良反应均较少。结论西酞普兰合并奥氮平能更加有效地控制患者症状。值得推广。     

度洛西汀和阿米替林对抑郁症患者生命质量的影响

目的:研究度洛西汀和阿米替林对抑郁症患者生命质量的影响,以及生命质量和疗效及药物副作用的相关性。方法:将57例抑郁症患者随机分为度洛西汀组(研究组,30例)和阿米替林组(对照组,27例),疗程6周。在基线和1、2、4、6周后,给予评定健康状况问卷(SF-36)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)(24项版)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、治疗过程出现症状量表(TESS)。结果:治疗6周后,研究组和对照组有效率相近,分别为86.67%(26/30)、85.19%(23/27),P>0.05;痊愈率相近,分别为46.67%(14/30)、44.44%(12/27),P>0.05;对照组不良反应发生率高于研究组(77.78%vs36.67%,P<0.05);治疗6周后,研究组SF-36各因子分均高于对照组(P<0.05)。SF-36多项因子分的提高和HAMD减分率、HAMA减分率成正相关,和TESS总分成负相关(P<0.05)。结论:度洛西汀对抑郁症患者生命质量的改善优于阿米替林;抑郁症患者生命质量和焦虑、抑郁情绪的改善及药物治疗的副作用密切相关。     

西酞普兰合并尼莫地平治疗血管性抑郁症68例的疗效

目的：探讨西酞普兰合并尼莫地平治疗血管性抑郁的疗效和安全性。方法：135例血管性抑郁病人随机分为西酞普兰合并尼莫地平组68例[男性35例,女性33例；年龄(68±s4)a]：用西酞普兰20 mg,po,qd,尼莫地平30 mg,po,tid,西酞普兰组67例[男性38例,女性29例；年龄(68±5)a]：用西酞普兰20 mg,po,qd,疗程均为8 wk。根据汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、临床疗效总评量表(CGI)、神经功能缺损评分(NDS)和简易精神状态量表(MMSE)评定疗效。结果：治疗8 wk后,西酞普兰合并尼莫地平组的有效率为84%,西酞普兰组有效率为42%,2组间比较有非常显著差异(P＜0．01)。2组间HAMD,CGI,NDS和MMSE总分比较有非常显著差异(P＜0．01)。西酞普兰合并尼莫地平组不良反应的发生率为48%,西酞普兰组为37%,2组间无显著差异(P＞0．05)。结论：西酞普兰合并尼莫地平治疗血管性抑郁症的疗效优于单用西酞普兰,安全性好。     

帕罗西汀与氟哌噻吨美利曲辛治疗躯体形式障碍对照研究

目的:探讨帕罗西汀与氟哌噻吨美利曲辛治疗躯体形式障碍的疗效及安全性。方法:将56例躯体形式障碍患者随机分为两组,A组以帕罗西汀治疗,B组以氟哌噻吨美利曲辛治疗,疗程均为8周。治疗前与治疗第1,2,4,8周采用症状自评量表(SCL-90)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)评定临床疗效,不良反应量表(TESS)评定不良反应。结果:两组治疗2,4,8周末SCL-90、HAMD、HAMA评分均较治疗前减少(P<0.05或P<0.01);氟哌噻吨美利曲辛较帕罗西汀能更快改善患者的抑郁和焦虑症状(P<0.05)。治疗第8周末A组有效率为82.6%,B组有效率为73.0%(P<0.05)。两组不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义,大多出现在治疗早期,经对症治疗逐渐缓解。结论:帕罗西汀与氟哌噻吨美利曲辛治疗躯体形式障碍均有较显著的疗效,且安全性较高,临床可根据患者自身情况适当选用。     

Venlafaxine extended release versus citalopram in patients with depression unresponsive to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor

Findings from the National Institute of Mental Health's Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial indicate that approximately 50% of patients with major depressive disorder do not experience a treatment response after adequate first-line treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). This study was designed to test the hypothesis that, after treatment failure with an SSRI, switching to venlafaxine extended release (ER) would offer advantages over switching to another SSRI, citalopram. The objectives of this trial were to compare the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine ER and citalopram in the treatment of moderate-to-severe depression in patients who did not experience a treatment response to an SSRI other than citalopram and to investigate the effects of severity of depression by categorizing treatment groups according to baseline severity. This was a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study. Participants were adult outpatients who, following 8 weeks of monotherapy with an adequate dosing regimen of an SSRI other than citalopram and had not responded, met the diagnostic criteria for depression as described in the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, and had a score > or =20 on the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D21). After a 7-day screening period, patients were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine ER 75 mg/day or citalopram 20 mg/day for the first 2 weeks. Doses could be increased every 2 weeks through week 6. Treatment lasted 12 weeks and was followed by a 1-week tapering period. Maximum dosages were venlafaxine ER 300 mg/day or citalopram 60 mg/day. The primary end point was the final on-therapy total HAM-D21 score. To investigate the treatment effects of the severity of depression on efficacy, a subgroup analysis was performed for baseline HAM-D21 total score < or =31 and >31. The analyses for HAM-D21, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions - Severity (CGI-S), and Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement scores were based on intent-to-treat (ITT) population, for both the primary analysis and subgroup analysis according to baseline HAM-D21 total scores < or =31 or >31. Safety assessments included the recording of adverse events (AEs). A total of 406 patients (200 venlafaxine ER, 206 citalopram) were randomly assigned and 396 patients were included in the ITT population (194 venlafaxine ER, 202 citalopram). Treatment groups were similar in terms of demographics and baseline psychiatric assessments. Two hundred and eighty-four patients (137 venlafaxine ER, 147 citalopram) were present in the ITT population with a baseline HAM-D21 total score < or =31 and 112 patients (57 venlafaxine ER, 55 citalopram) in the >31 group. In the primary analysis, there was no statistical difference between groups. The group with a baseline HAM-D21 total score of 20-31 did not differ significantly in any efficacy parameters. In the group with a baseline HAM-D21 total score >31, the venlafaxine ER group differed significantly from the citalopram group on the primary end point HAM-D21 total score (P=0.0121). The secondary end point CGI-S score was statistically significant (P=0.0359), although the MADRS total score (P=0.0930) was not. AEs were reported by 57.8 and 63.4% of venlafaxine ER and citalopram patients, respectively. Overall discontinuation rates were 24.5% for venlafaxine ER and 20.9% for citalopram. Discontinuation rates owing to an AE as a primary or secondary reason were 5.5% for venlafaxine ER and 5.3% for citalopram. Overall, venlafaxine ER and citalopram showed similar efficacy in patients who had an inadequate response to an SSRI. In the subset of more severely depressed patients, venlafaxine ER was significantly more effective on a number of efficacy measures. Patients who remain severely depressed following treatment with an SSRI may gain more benefit from the dual-action drug venlafaxine, rather than switching to another SSRI.     

New possibilities of treatment for panic attacks in elderly patients: escitalopram versus citalopram

PURPOSE: Panic attacks may represent additional therapeutic problems in the elderly. The utility of citalopram in panic attacks has been widely investigated. Here, we compare the efficacy and safety of citalopram, with its S-enantiomer escitalopram at half dosage as to citalopram, in elderly patients who have panic attacks. METHODS: This was an open community-based study. Forty patients who have panic attacks, according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria, were enrolled. Fifty percent of the patients were assigned for 8 weeks' treatment with escitalopram, and the remaining 50% were assigned to treatment with citalopram. The primary outcome measure was the weekly rate of panic attacks. The secondary outcome measures were the Hamilton scale for anxiety and depression and the Cooper Disability Scale. Analysis of variance by repeated measures was applied to calculate differences between groups. RESULTS: A similar decrease in weekly rate of panic attacks, in the scores of Hamilton Scale for anxiety and depression and in the Cooper Disability Scale scores, was observed in both groups after 8 weeks, but a significant variation of outcome measures from baseline was observed already after 2 weeks in the escitalopram group (P < 0.001) and only after 4 weeks in the citalopram group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Escitalopram could be considered among the drugs of first choice in elderly patients with panic attacks because of its good efficacy and safety and for the advantage of reducing the total dose and of a more rapid onset of action as compared with citalopram, although further studies are needed to confirm these results.     

认知行为心理护理对躯体形式障碍患者疗效的影响

目的：探讨认知行为心理护理对躯体形式障碍患者疗效的影响。方法将84例躯体形式障碍患者分为两组,对照组采用单纯药物治疗加常规护理,研究组在对照组治疗基础上联合认知行为心理护理;以 HAMD、HAMA量表为评定工具分别在患者入院时及治疗后第1、2、4、8周末进行评估,判断治疗效果。结果自治疗第2周末HAMD、HAMA评分研究组较对照组即有明显下降（P＜0.05）;治疗8周末评定研究组显效率为78.95%、对照组为58.70%,两组相比差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论认知行为心理护理能提高躯体形式障碍的治疗效果,值得推广。