Brand-Name Antidepressants Outperform Their Generic Counterparts in Preventing Hospitalization for Depression: The Real-World Evidence from Taiwan

BackgroundGeneric antidepressants are approved on the market based on evidence of bioequivalence to their brand-name versions. We aimed to assess whether generic antidepressants exert equal effectiveness as their brand-name counterparts for treating patients with depressive disorders.MethodsIn a nationwide, population-based cohort in Taiwan from 1997 through 2013, patients with a diagnosis of a depressive disorder aged between 18 and 65 years who were new users of antidepressant drugs were classified into either the brand-name group or the generic group. All patients were followed up until medication discontinuation or the end of the study period. We assessed the risk for hospitalization as a primary outcome and augmentation therapy, daily dose, medication discontinuation, or switching to another antidepressant as secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 277 651 brand-name users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.2 years) and 270 583 generic users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.0 years) were divided into 10 different antidepressant groups (fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, moclobemide, imipramine, and bupropion). We found that patients treated with the generic form of sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and bupropion demonstrated significantly higher risks of psychiatric hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.20–2.34), compared to their brand-name counterparts. The differences between brand-name antidepressants and their generic counterparts in secondary outcomes varied across different drugs.ConclusionsCompared to most generic antidepressants, brand-name drugs exhibited more protective effects on psychiatric hospitalization for depressive patients. These findings could serve as an important reference for clinicians when encountering patients with depressive disorder.     

米非司酮联合宫瘤消胶囊对子宫肌瘤治疗效果

目的分析米非司酮和宫瘤消胶囊的联合应用对子宫肌瘤的临床治疗效果。方法本研究对象为80例子宫肌瘤患者,收治时间均在2017年3月—2018年3月期间。将上述子宫肌瘤患者随机分成两组,各40例。给予对照组患者口服米非司酮进行治疗,研究组患者在上述治疗的基础上增加宫瘤消胶囊口服治疗,记录2组患者治疗效果,性激素水平及子宫体积及肿瘤体积变化。结果(1)研究组患者的总体有效率显著高于对照组;(2)研究组患者的P、E2、LH及FSH均显著低于对照组;(3)研究组患者子宫体积及肿瘤体积均显著低于对照组。结论米非司酮片和宫瘤消胶囊的联合治疗对子宫肌瘤患者的治疗效果较显著。     

鼻内窥镜下鼻腔泪囊造孔术治疗慢性泪囊炎的临床观察

目的：观察鼻腔内窥镜下行鼻腔泪囊造孔术治疗慢性泪囊炎的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2013年6月至2015年6月在我院收治的慢性泪囊炎患者39例（40只眼），采用鼻腔内窥镜下鼻腔泪囊造孔术进行手术治疗，术后随访3～6个月，观察术眼流脓、溢泪等情况。结果鼻内窥镜下鼻腔泪囊造孔术治疗39例（40只眼）患者，治愈35例（36只眼），好转3例（3只眼），无效1例（1只眼）。治愈率90％，好转率7．5％，无效率2．5％。结论经鼻内窥镜下行鼻腔泪囊造孔术治疗慢性泪囊炎，疗效确切。具有手术简单、创伤小、出血少、无需面部切口、面部不留疤痕等优点。