文拉法辛缓释剂与速释剂治疗抑郁症对照研究

目的：比较文拉法辛缓释剂（XR）与速释剂（IR）治疗抑郁症的疗效及不良反应。方法：对门诊及住院抑郁症患者60例随机分为两组,分别给予文拉法辛缓释剂或速释剂治疗12周。治疗前后给予汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）评定疗效,副反应量表（TESS）评定不良反应。结果：缓释剂组显效率为86．6％,速释剂组显效率为83．3％。治疗后HAMD和HAMA评分均有显著减少。结论：与速释剂相比,缓释剂能有效的缓解抑郁、焦虑症状,且有较好的耐受性和依从性。     

文拉法辛缓释剂治疗抑郁症临床观察

文拉法辛缓释剂(商品名:怡诺思)治疗抑郁症门诊患者的疗效和不良反应,报告如下. 1 对象和方法 为2005年1至6月我院门诊患者,符合美国精神障碍诊断与统计手册第4版的重性抑郁发作的诊断标准;入组前抑郁症患者的汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD,17项)总分≥25分.     

文拉法辛缓释剂与帕罗西汀治疗抑郁症的对照研究

目的:探讨文拉法辛缓释剂和帕罗西汀治疗抑郁症(MD)的疗效和安全性。方法:将57例MD患者随机分为文拉法辛缓释剂组(28例)和帕罗西汀组(29例),并给予相应的药物治疗6周。分别于治疗前、治疗后3、7、10、14 d及6周应用汉密尔顿抑郁量表17项(HRSD)进行评定;治疗3、7、10及14 d应用治疗过程中出现的症状量表(TESS)评估药物不良反应。结果:治疗14 d分组与时间存在交互作用(F=6.608,P=0.001)。文拉法辛缓释剂组治疗第7 d起、帕罗西汀组治疗第10 d起HRSD评分较治疗前明显下降(P均0.01);治疗7及14 d文拉法辛缓释剂组HRSD评分明显低于帕罗西汀组(P均0.01);6周后两组间疗效及药物不良反应率差异无统计学意义。结论:与帕罗西汀相比,文拉法辛缓释剂治疗MD起效快,但疗效和不良反应相当。     

文拉法辛缓释剂治疗广泛性焦虑对照研究

目的：探讨文拉法辛缓释剂对广泛性焦虑的疗效及安全性。方法：对广泛性焦虑患者随机分为文拉法辛缓释剂组(48例)和多塞平组(49例)，治疗6周。以汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)和副反应量表(TESS)评定疗效和不良反应。结果：2药抗焦虑作用相近，不良反应有口干、便秘、恶心等，不影响治疗。结论：文拉法辛缓释剂治疗广泛性焦虑疗效确切，不良反应轻微，值得临床推广使用。     

文拉法辛缓释剂治疗广泛性焦虑对照观察

我们用文拉法辛缓释剂治疗广泛性焦虑症以帕罗西汀为对照,比较两药疗效,报告如下。     

文拉法辛缓释剂治疗抑郁状态疗效分析

目的：观察文拉法辛缓释剂治疗抑郁状态的疗效。方法：以文拉法辛缓释剂治疗各种抑郁状态46例,疗程8周。用Hamuilton抑郁量表和临床疗效总评量表评定疗效。结果：有效率92．3％,治愈率48．6％;不良反应轻微。结论：文拉法辛缓释剂治疗抑郁状态疗效确切,不良反应轻微。     

文拉法辛缓释剂治疗焦虑障碍2例

有研究表明，文拉法辛缓释剂治疗抑郁症可获得更高的治愈率，现报告2例如下。     

文拉法辛缓释剂与麦普替林治疗抑郁症对照研究

目的比较文拉法辛缓释剂(怡诺思)与麦普替林治疗抑郁症的疗效和副反应。方法将符合CCMD-3抑郁症诊断标准的住院及门诊病人62例随机分为两组,分别采用文拉法辛缓释剂与麦普替林治疗,疗程6周。于疗前及疗后1、2、4、6周末分别以HAMD、TESS评定疗效和副反应。结果文拉法辛缓释剂抗抑郁作用快,其疗效与麦普替林相近,副反应的发生率及严重程度低于麦普替林。结论文拉法辛缓释剂是一种安全有效的抗抑郁药。     

文拉法辛缓释剂和帕罗西汀治疗抑郁症的对照研究

目的 比较文拉法辛缓释剂与帕罗西汀治疗抑郁症的疗效及安全性。方法 96例抑郁症患者,分为文拉法辛组48例,用文拉法辛缓释剂75～150 mg/d;帕罗西汀组48例,用帕罗西汀20～40mg/d,观察期6周,疗效评定用HAMD,HAMA。不良反应评价用TESS、实验室检查及体检。结果 经过6周治疗,文拉法辛组有效率为79.17％,帕罗西汀组为75.00％,2组比较差异无显著性(P>0.05)。同时,文拉法辛缓释剂的抗抑郁作用起效较快,对焦虑症状的疗效优于帕罗西汀(P<0.01)。文拉法辛缓释剂不良反应轻,常见的有:口干、便秘、视力模糊、出汗、食欲减退等。结论 文拉法辛缓释剂是一种安全、有效、抗焦虑疗效好的抗抑郁药。     

抑郁与焦虑共病及文拉法辛缓释剂治疗

过去对精神疾病的诊断往往强调一元化的诊断原则，因为尽管某种疾病可以出现另外一种疾病的一些症状，但这些症状不占主要地位或持续时间很短，则应维持原来的诊断。例如大约近半数的精神分裂症病人可伴有抑郁症状，但这些抑郁症状多发生于分裂症状之后，持续时间较短，在临床表现中不占主要地位，因此仍然应该诊断为精神分裂症。     

Comparison of venlafaxine extended release versus paroxetine for treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder

This trial was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine extended release (XR) and paroxetine for treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Sixty patients who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD were randomly assigned to either venlafaxine XR or paroxetine for 8 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale at the baseline, week 1, week 4, and week 8. The side-effects were collected with reported adverse events and laboratory tests throughout the study period. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the HAM-A and CGI-S scores showed a significant decrease over time in both treatment groups without significant group difference or time x group interaction effect. There were no serious adverse events in both groups. This open trial demonstrated that either venlafaxine XR or paroxetine would be effective and tolerable for the treatment of patients with GAD. Double blind, placebo-controlled head-to-head comparison studies are needed to draw a definite conclusion.     

文拉法辛缓释剂与坦度螺酮治疗广泛性焦虑障碍的临床对照观察

目的 了解文拉法辛缓释剂与坦度螺酮治疗广泛性焦虑障碍的疗效和安全性.方法 将符合入组标准的70例患者随机分为研究组37例和对照组33例,研究组口服文拉法辛缓释剂,对照组口服坦度螺酮,疗程4周.临床疗效判定依据汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)减分率,不良反应采用不良反应量表(TESS)评定.结果 研究组有效率75.67%,对照组有效率为78.78%,两组有效率无统计学差异(χ2=0.10,P＞0.05).但在第2周时研究组抗焦虑效果研究组好于对照组(t=10.21,P＜0.01),不良反应两组之间无统计学差异.结论 文拉法辛缓释剂和坦度螺酮治疗广泛性焦虑症均有较好的疗效,不良反应少.在患者经济情况容许的情况下,可首先考虑选用文拉法辛缓释剂治疗.     

文拉法辛缓释剂与西酞普兰治疗抑郁症对照研究

目的比较文拉法辛缓释剂(XR)与西酞普兰治疗抑郁症的疗效与不良反应。方法对门诊及住院抑郁症患者52例随机分为XR组和对照组,分别给予文拉法辛缓释剂或西酞普兰治疗6周。治疗前后采用汉密顿抑郁量表(HAMD)评定疗效,副反应量表(TESS)评定不良反应。结果文拉法辛缓释剂组显效率92%,西酞普兰组87.5%,文拉法辛缓释剂对焦虑躯体化症状改善程度优于西酞普兰。结论文拉法辛缓释剂具有起效快、安全性好,且能显著改善抑郁症的焦虑与躯体化症状等特点,可作为抗抑郁治疗的一线用药。     

Levetiracetam extended release and levetiracetam immediate release as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures: An indirect comparison of treatment-emergent adverse events using meta-analytic techniques

The safety profiles of once-daily adjunctive levetiracetam (LEV) extended release (XR) (1000 mg/day) and adjunctive LEV immediate release (IR) (500 mg twice daily) were compared using data from three randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled phase III clinical trials in patients with partial-onset seizures. MedDRA 9.0 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were indirectly compared using meta-analytic techniques, including calculation of risk difference (RD) and mixed-effects analysis. Statistical significance was set at 10% alpha risk, the normative value for these analyses. Data from 555 patients older than 16 (204 LEV IR, 70 LEV XR, 281 PBO) were analyzed. Following adjustment for incidence of placebo TEAEs, LEV XR showed statistically significantly lower rates of TEAEs than LEV IR across nervous system disorders (RD = −18%, P = 0.03), psychiatric disorders (RD = −11%, P = 0.08), and metabolism and nutrition disorders (RD = −3%, P = 0.08). Among nervous system disorders, the RD for headache favored LEV XR (RD = −11%, P = 0.08). These results suggest that adjunctive LEV XR may be associated with a lower incidence of nervous system, psychiatric, and nutritional and metabolic TEAEs as compared with LEV IR. However, this difference was observed at a broad scale and not at a specific TEAE level except for headache.     

Venlafaxine extended release versus conventional antidepressants in the remission of depressive disorders after previous antidepressant failure: ARGOS study

Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) may be used as an alternative treatment for depressed patients who do not tolerate or respond adequately to treatment with a conventional antidepressant. This randomized, open-label, multicenter study compared the effectiveness of the SNRI venlafaxine extended release (VXR) with that of conventional antidepressants (CA) in patients who were referred to an outpatient psychiatric specialty care setting for treatment after failure to tolerate or respond to at least 4 weeks of treatment with a CA in a primary care setting. Patients with a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) score > or =17 were randomly assigned to treatment with an alternative CA or VXR. Remission was defined as a score < or =7 on the HAM-D17. Efficacy analyses were carried out on 3,097 patients from the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (1,632 VXR; 1,465 CA). The antidepressants prescribed most frequently in the CA group were paroxetine (21.3%), citalopram (20.1%), sertraline (19.1%), fluoxetine (17.0%), and mirtazapine (7.9%). After 24 weeks of treatment, the VXR group demonstrated a significantly higher remission rate than did the CA group (59.3% VXR; 51.5% CA; P<.0001; odds ratio: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.19-1.58; P<.01). Despite the limitations of the open design, the results of this study suggest that venlafaxine extended release may be more effective than the conventional antidepressants used in this study when treating depressed patients who do not tolerate or respond adequately to treatment with a conventional antidepressant.     

Comparing venlafaxine extended release and fluoxetine for preventing the recurrence of major depression: Results from the PREVENT study

This secondary analysis from the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with Venlafaxine Extended Release (ER) for Two Years (PREVENT) study compared the efficacy of venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine for the prevention of recurrence in patients with a history of recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD). Patients received double-blind treatment with venlafaxine ER (75-300 mg/d) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/d) for 10 weeks (acute phase). Responders (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D₁₇] score ≤12 and ≥50% reduction from baseline) continued on the same treatment during the 6-month continuation phase. At the start of the first and second 12-month maintenance phases, venlafaxine ER responders were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine ER or placebo, whereas patients receiving fluoxetine continued to receive fluoxetine throughout both maintenance phases. The primary outcome was time to recurrence (HAM-D₁₇ > 12, reduction in HAM-D₁₇ score ≤ 50% from acute baseline, and meeting DSM-IV criteria for a diagnosis of MDD), which was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Using the primary definition of recurrence, the estimated probability of not experiencing a recurrence was 71.9% for venlafaxine ER (n = 160) and 55.8% for fluoxetine (n = 99) across 24 months of maintenance treatment. For this primary analysis, the overall effect of venlafaxine ER treatment was not statistically significant (p = 0.399) compared with fluoxetine; however, a significant treatment-by-time interaction was observed (p = 0.034). No significant between-group differences were observed with any of the secondary efficacy variables. Venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine were similarly well tolerated across 2 years of maintenance-phase therapy.     

万拉法辛缓释剂(怡诺思)与氟西汀治疗抑郁症的对照研究

目的 验证万拉法辛缓释剂(怡诺思)治疗抑郁症的疗效及安全性。方法 按双盲、双模拟法将35例抑郁症患者分为万拉法辛缓释剂组(以下简称万拉法辛组)和氟西汀组。采用HAMD、HAMA及CGI评定疗效，采用TESS、实验室检查及体检评价安全性。结果 两组疗效相当，万拉法辛组对伴随的焦虑症状也有较好疗效。万拉法辛组不良反应轻，安全性好，常见不良反应有口干、恶心、呕吐及出汗等。结论 万拉法辛缓释剂是一种安全有效的抗抑郁药，病人对药物的耐受性及依从性好。     

文拉法辛治疗广泛性焦虑对照观察

目的:比较文拉法辛与帕罗西汀治疗广泛性焦虑的临床疗效及不良反应。方法:将60例广泛性焦虑患者随机分为文拉法辛组(30例)及帕罗西汀组(30例),疗程8周。用焦虑自评量表(SAS)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)和治疗中出现的症状量表(TESS)评定疗效和不良反应。结果:治疗第2周末文拉法辛组SAS、HAMA总分与治疗前相比下降较帕罗西汀组更明显(P均<0.05)。治疗第2、4周末,文拉法辛组有效率分别为20%和56%,帕罗西汀组分别为3%和26%,组间差异均有显著性(P均<0.05);治疗第6周末,文拉法辛组治愈率为50%,帕罗西汀组为23%,组间差异有显著性(P<0.05);而两组间有效率差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论:文拉法辛治疗广泛性焦虑安全有效,不良反应少。