劳拉西泮和地西泮治疗焦虑性神经症的比较

应用劳拉西泮（男性１９例，女性１２例，年龄３５±ｓ１２ａ）和地西泮（男性１７例，女性１４例，年龄３７±１３ａ）治疗焦虑性神经症各３１例，并做对照试验。劳拉西泮剂量２－８ｍｇ／ｄ，地西汁为１０－２０ｍｇ／ｄ，ｐｏ，各４ｗｋ。结果２药抗焦虑疗效相仿，ＨＡＭＡ总分的减分２药间无差别，不良反应也无差别。     

奥沙西泮与地西泮治疗广泛性焦虑的对照研究

目的比较奥沙西泮与地西泮治疗广泛性焦虑的疗效和不良反应。方法 87例符合CCMD-3诊断标准的广泛性焦虑患者随机分为2组,分别给予奥沙西泮和地西泮治疗6周。采用汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）评定临床疗效,副作用量表（TESS）评定不良反应。结果治疗后2组HAMA评分差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;奥沙西泮组肝功能异常出现率小于地西泮组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论奥沙西泮和地西泮治疗广泛性焦虑的疗效相似,氮奥沙西泮对肝功能的影响小,更为安全。     

GC-ECD法检测血浆中地西泮及去甲西泮

目的用GC-ECD法分析血浆中地西泮及其主要代谢物去甲西泮。方法血浆中加入内标去烃基氟西泮,调pH至10.8,用二氯甲烷-正己烷(7∶3)提取地西泮及去甲西泮,用GC-ECD法进行分析。结果检材中分析物的回收率80%以上,检出限5μg·L-1以下。结论该方法灵敏度高,可用于口服地西泮10mg人体24h内血浆的分析。     

HPLC法同时测定毛发样本中地西泮、去甲西泮和奥沙西泮

目的:建立测定毛发样本中地西泮、去甲西泮和奥沙西泮的HPLC分析方法。方法:采用超声法结合液液萃取法作为前处理方法。采用Athena C₁₈-WP(250 mm×4.6 mm, 5μm)色谱柱;以甲醇-0.02 mol·L^-1磷酸二氢钠溶液(磷酸调pH 3.4)-乙腈(30∶43∶27)为流动相;柱温50℃;流速0.7 mL·min^-1;检测波长254 nm。内标为氯硝西泮。结果:本方法在0.1～25 ng·mg^-1范围内具良好的线性关系,定量限为0.1 ng·mg^-1,检测限为0.05 ng·mg^-1,批内准确度(n=6)在88.2%～103.9%,批间准确度(n=24)在88.5%～106.2%,精密度小于或等于9.19%,提取回收率稳定,符合方法学要求。将该方法应用于实际病人的毛发样本,测得地西泮及其代谢物去甲西泮、奥沙西泮浓度分别是(0.307±0.016)ng·mg^-1、(0.244±0.012)ng·mg^-1     

奥沙西泮与劳拉西泮治疗老年人广泛性焦虑症有效性和安全性研究

目的探讨奥沙西泮与劳拉西泮治疗老年人广泛性焦虑症的临床效果以及安全性。方法选择本院收治的焦虑综合征老年患者72例,将其随机分为奥沙西泮组和劳拉西泮组,每组36例,劳拉西泮组使用劳拉西泮片治疗,奥沙西泮组使用奥沙西泮治疗,比较两组治疗后的临床效果以及统计两组治疗期间发生的并发症。结果奥沙西泮组患者显效率为83.3%,劳拉西泮组显效率为58.3%,奥沙西泮组患者显效率高于劳拉西泮组（P〈0.05）,两组患者不良反应发生率差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论奥沙西泮治疗老年人广泛性焦虑症,临床疗效优于劳拉西泮,更加适合在老年人中应用。     

奥沙西泮与地西泮治疗酒精戒断反应的临床效果比较

目的 比较奥沙西泮与地西泮治疗酒精戒断反应的临床效果。方法 选取2019年6月—2020年12月广东省惠州市第二人民医院收治的酒精戒断反应患者150例,根据随机数字表法分为试验组和对照组,各75例。试验组予以奥沙西泮治疗,对照组予以地西泮治疗,2组均治疗2个月。比较2组治疗效果、戒断症状评分及不良反应。结果 试验组治疗总有效率为92.00%,高于对照组的77.33%(χ²=6.214,P=0.013);治疗2个月后,2组戒断症状评分均较治疗前降低,且试验组低于对照组(P均<0.01);2组不良反应总发生率比较差异无统计学意义(10.67%vs. 13.33%,χ²=0.253,P=0.615)。结论 采用奥沙西泮较地西泮治疗酒精戒断反应患者可获得更加显著的临床效果,不良反应少,安全性高,值得临床上应用。     

坦度螺酮与劳拉西泮治疗广泛性焦虑症的疗效和安全性比较

目的 比较坦度螺酮和劳拉西泮对广泛性焦虑症的短、中期疗效和安全性及服药依从性的差异. 方法 89例广泛性焦虑症患者随机分入治疗组45例和对照组44例, 治疗组给予坦度螺酮, 平均日剂量（35.6±12.5） mg, 对照组给予劳拉西泮, 平均日剂量（2.0±1.7） mg, 分别给予相应的药物治疗6周, 3个月后随访. 于治疗前、治疗后第1, 2, 4, 6周末和随访时应用汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）和不良反应量表（TESS）评定疗效和安全性, 并于治疗前、治疗6周末和随访时检测血压、心电图、血常规. 结果 对照组患者治疗第1周末HAMA总分与治疗前比较有显著下降（P<0.01）, 治疗组患者治疗第2周末HAMA总分显著下降（P<0.01）. 随访时对照组患者HAMA总分显著高于治疗组（P<0.05）. 治疗组和对照组的有效率分别为71.1%和68.2%, 差异无显著性（^P>0.05）. 治疗组不良反应发生率显著低于对照组, 对照组患者嗜睡的发生率显著高于治疗组. 随访时治疗组服药依从性好者显著高于对照组. 结论 坦度螺酮治疗广泛性焦虑症的短期疗效与劳拉西泮相当, 中期疗效和服药依从性优于劳拉西泮, 不良反应发生率低.     

帕罗西汀联合劳拉西泮治疗广泛性焦虑症的临床观察

目的探讨帕罗西汀联合劳拉西泮治疗广泛性焦虑症的临床效果及不良反应。方法选取2013年2月~2014年2月接收的90例广泛性焦虑症患者作为研究对象,将其随机分为了对照组和观察组,各45例。对照组给予帕罗西汀进行治疗,观察组在对照组基础给予劳拉西泮进行治疗,疗程为6周,采用焦虑自评量表(SAS)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)和副反应量表(TESS)对两组患者治疗前、治疗后2、4、6周的治疗效果进行评定和对比。结果观察组的治疗显效率95.56%、总有效率为100.0%,均好于对照组91.11%、95.56%,组间差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组治疗2、4、6周后的SAS、HAMA评分与治疗前的分别比较,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),组间差异不明显(P>0.05);观察组的副作用比对照组明显,对照组有12例患者出现了不同程度的不良反应,观察组有25例患者出现了不同程度的不良反应,组间差异明显(P<0.05),但是经过一段时间的治疗之后,均出现了好转。结论帕罗西汀对广泛性焦虑症具有很好的治疗效果,并且在2~4周内联合劳拉西泮药物,可以进一步提高患者治疗效果。     

丁螺环酮与地西泮治疗焦虑症双盲比较

目的：比较丁螺环酮与地西泮治疗焦虑症的疗效及不良反应。方法：采用随机双盲对照研究的方法，分为丁螺环酮组２３例（男性１１例，女性１２例；年龄３８±ｓ１３ａ），予丁螺环酮１５ｍｇ，ｐｏ，ｔｉｄ；４ｗｋ为一个疗程。地西泮组２２例（男性９例，女性１３例；年龄４１±１３ａ），予地西泮７．５ｍｇ，ｐｏ，ｔｉｄ；４ｗｋ为一个疗程。结果：丁螺环酮组有效率为８７％，地西泮组９１％，２组比较Ｒｉｄｉｔ分析Ｐ＞０．０５。药物不良反应发生率地西泮组高于丁螺环酮组，但反应轻微不影响治疗。结论：丁螺环酮与地西泮疗效相同，不良反应少。     

劳拉西泮与地西泮注射液治疗焦虑状态的随机双盲平行对照研究

目的：评价劳拉西泮注射液治疗焦虑状态的疗效和安全性。方法：采用多中心随机双盲、阳性药平行对照的方法。以地西泮为对照,受试者分别肌内注射劳拉西泮2～6 mg·d~(-1)与地西泮10～30 mg·d~(-1),疗程7 d。结果：125名受试者参加研究。劳拉西泮组63人,地西泮组62人。治疗结束时,2组HAMA总分与基线相比有非常显著差异(P＜0．01),2组减分绝对值比较无显著差异(P＞0．05)。以HAMA总分减分率(50%)判断有效率,劳拉西泮组为67%,地西泮组为71%,2组间比较无显著差异(P＞0．05)。2药常见的不良反应为胃肠道和中枢神经系统症状,多为轻度、一过性；2组不良反应发生的频率比较无显著差异(P＞0．05)。结论：劳拉西泮注射液与地西泮注射液相似,是安全有效的治疗焦虑状态的药物。     

Comparison of lorazepam and diazepam in anxiety neurosis

Summary

A double-blind therapeutic comparison of lorazepam and diazepam was made in 40 out-patients suffering from anxiety neurosis. A variable dosage was used for both drugs, the range being 2 to 6?mg. daily for lorazepam and 10 to 30?mg. daily for diazepam. The criteria of assessment were Hamilton's anxiety scale and global evaluation based on falls in score, as well as improvement in social and occupational handicaps. Both the drugs were found to be comparable in anxiolytic efficacy, but the incidence of central nervous side-effects was significantly less with lorazepam. No adverse effects on haemopoietic, renal or hepatic function were seen with either drug.     

Interaction of diazepam or lorazepam with alcohol

Summary Nine healthy volunteers in a double-blind, cross-over trial received diazepam (DZ) 10 mg, lorazepam (LZ) 2.5 mg, or placebo (P). Serum benzodiazepine (BZ) was bioassayed (radioreceptor method) and psychomotor tests were carried out on Day 1 (before and 1 h after the first dose) and on Day 4 (before and after the fifth dose). In each session alcohol 1 g/kg was administered 1.5 h after drug intake and the measurements were repeated twice. Serum BZ concentrations, expressed as DZ equivalents (µg/l), ranged from 390 to 440 and from 990 to 1240 measured 2 h 45 min after the first doses of DZ and LZ, respectively. On Day 1 BZ alone impaired psychomotor skills. LZ affected performance more in objective tests, but DZ was subjectively rated as causing more drowsiness. After the intake of alcohol, all groups showed impairment in various tests. The rank order was LZ+alcohol>DZ+alcohol>P+alcohol. Residual BZ activity on Day 4, measured 18 h after the fourth dose, averaged 290 and 450 µg/l after DZ and LZ, respectively. At the same time slight residual exophoria was found after both BZs. Tolerance to BZs on Day 4 was unambiguous only when drug effects were related to the bioassayed serum levels. The combined action of BZs and alcohol was similar on Days 1 and 4. However, a tendency to an increased drug-alcohol interaction during advanced treatment with DZ was seen in the body sway test. An attempt to clarify the very different serum BZ level after DZ and LZ was made in vitro by evaluating the displacement curves for DZ and LZ standards. The potencies of these BZs differed more in the presence than in the absence of serum. Thus, the psychomotor effects of DZ and LZ, as well as their BZ receptor occupation activity in serum, were not equipotent at doses 10 mg DZ and 2.5 mg LZ. The BZ-alcohol interaction was consistent at least over the first 5 doses.     

Alpidem and lorazepam in the treatment of patients with anxiety disorders: Comparison of efficacy and rebound

Alpidem, a novel imidazo-pyridine anxiolytic, was compared with lorazepam for efficacy and withdrawal effects in 23 (17 male) anxious psychiatric out-patients of mean age 35.3 years with a mean Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score of 26.4. Treatment was double blind for 4 weeks with doses built up to a mean of 112.5 mg alpidem and 3.5 mg lorazepam per day. Assessment were made for a further 2 weeks after abrupt withdrawal. There were no differences in scores between the groups before treatment. The HAM-A, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Sleep Rating Scale and other measures showed both drugs to be equally effective for psychic and somatic anxiety, depression and insomnia. Despite the small numbers, lorazepam produced greater improvement in the anxious mood, fear and insomnia items of the HAM-A. After stopping treatment serious rebound in mood and somatic scores was experienced by the lorazepam group in contrast to those patients on alpidem who maintained their improvement. Neither group was troubled by side effects; dropouts were few and due to inefficacy (1 alpidem) or withdrawal problems (2 lorazepam). Alpidem seemed to offer effective anxiolysis without the risk of rebound associated with lorazepam use.     

利培酮与氯丙嗪治疗精神分裂症的随机双盲比较

目的 :比较利培酮与氯丙嗪对精神分裂症的疗效。方法 :精神分裂症 6 6例 ,随机分为 2组。利培酮组男性 2 3例 ,女性 10例 ,年龄 (38±s 10 )a ,予利培酮 (4 .4± 1.1)mg·d- 1,po ,bid ;氯丙嗪组男性 2 2例 ,女性 11例 ,年龄 (38± 12 )a ,予氯丙嗪(4 56± 98)mg·d- 1,po ,bid。疗程 12wk。用阳性和阴性症状量表及副反应量表评定疗效和不良反应。结果 :利培酮组与氯丙嗪组总有效率分别为82 %和 76 %。治疗前后阴性量表分 2组间差值比较 ,差异有非常显著意义 (P <0 .0 1)。治疗期间未发现严重不良反应。结论 :利培酮与氯丙嗪对精神分裂症的疗效相当 ,但对阴性症状明显优于后者。     

茴拉西坦治疗阿耳茨海默病的双盲对照观察

目的：观察茴拉西坦治疗阿耳茨海默（Ａｌｚｈｅｉｍｅｒ）病的疗效。方法：阿耳茨海默病１１４例，男性６７例，女性４７例，年龄６７±ｓ１０ａ，双盲对照观察。治疗组５７例，用茴拉西坦２００ｍｇ，ｐｏ，ｔｉｄ，对照组５７例ｐｏ安慰剂，２组皆服药８ｗｋ．结果：治疗组的记忆商数（ＭＱ）由５８±１６增至６６±２１，Ｐ＜０．０１。对照组由５９±１４增至６２±１４，Ｐ＞０．０５。治疗组的总有效率是６８％，对照组是３７％，２组疗效差异显著，Ｐ＜０．０５。治疗过程中有便秘，能自行消失。结论：茴拉西坦治疗阿耳茨海默病有效而且安全。     

Efficacy of etifoxine compared to lorazepam monotherapy in the treatment of patients with adjustment disorders with anxiety: a double-blind controlled study in general practice

Adjustment Disorders With Anxiety (ADWA) account for almost 10% of psychologically motivated consultations in primary care. The aim of this double-blind randomised parallel group study was to compare (non-inferiority test) the efficacies of etifoxine, a non-benzodiazepine anxiolytic drug, and lorazepam, a benzodiazepine, for ADWA outpatients followed by general practitioners. 191 outpatients (mean age: 43, female: 66%) were assigned to receive etifoxine (50 mg tid) or lorazepam (0.5-0.5-1 mg /day) for 28 days. Efficacy was evaluated on days 7 and 28 of the treatment. The main efficacy assessment criterion was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety score (HAM-A) on Day 28 adjusted to Day 0. The anxiolytic effect of etifoxine was found not inferior to that of lorazepam (HAM-A score decrease: 54.6% vs 52.3%, respectively, p=0.0006). The two drugs were equivalent on Day 28. However, more etifoxine recipients responded to the treatment (HAM-A score decreased by >or=50%, p=0.03). Clinical improvement (based on Clinical Global Impression scale CGI, Social Adjustment Scale Self-Report SAS-SR, and Sheehan scores) was observed in both treatment arms, but more etifoxine patients improved markedly (p=0.03) and had a marked therapeutic effect without side effects as assessed by CGI, p=0.04. Moreover, 1 week after stopping treatment, fewer patients taking etifoxine experienced a rebound of anxiety, compared to lorazepam (1 and 8, respectively, p=0.034).     

茴拉西坦治疗血管性痴呆的双盲临床试验

血管性痴呆６０例（男性５０例，女性１０例；年龄５８±ｓ７ａ）用茴拉西坦作双盲对照观察。治疗组和对照组（安慰剂）各３０例，治疗组服茴拉西坦２００ｍｇ，ｔｉｄ，共８ＷＫ结果：临床总有效率，治疗组８３％，对照组６０％（Ｐ＜０．０５）；治疗组记忆商由６９±１５增至８４±１７（Ｐ＜０．０１），对照组由７４±１６增至８０±２０（Ｐ＞０．０５）。不良反应较轻，使用安全，可以选用。