度洛西汀与帕罗西汀治疗慢性疲劳综合征对照研究

目的探讨度洛西汀与帕罗西汀治疗慢性疲劳综合征的临床疗效和安全性。方法将58例慢性疲劳综合征患者随机分为两组，每组29例，分别口服度洛西汀和帕罗西汀治疗，观察8周。采用疲劳量表-14、抑郁自评量表、焦虑自评量表和副反应量表评定临床疗效和不良反应。结果治疗后两组疲劳量表-14、抑郁自评量表、焦虑自评量表评分均较治疗前显著下降（P〈0．01），度洛西汀组较帕罗西汀组下降更显著（P〈0．05或0．01）；治疗8周末度洛西汀组显效率（82．8％）显著高于帕罗西汀组（58．6％）（Х^2=4．08，P〈0．05）；两组不良反应均轻微，发生率比较差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。结论度洛西汀与帕罗西汀治疗慢性疲劳综合征疗效均显著，安全性高，但度洛西汀起效更快，疗效更好，优于帕罗西汀治疗。

A control study of duloxetine vs .paroxetine in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome

Objective To explore the efficacy and safety of duloxetine vs. paroxetine in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome （CFS）. Methods Fifty-eight CFS patients were randomly divided into two groups of 29 ones each taking orally duloxetine and paroxetine respectively for 8 weeks. Efficacies were assessed with the Fatigue Scale-14 （FS-14）, Self-rating Depression Scale （SDS） and Self-rating Anxiety Scale （NAN）, and adverse reactions with the Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale （TESS）. Results The FS-14, SDS and SAS scores of both groups lowered more significantly after treatment compared with pretreatment （P〈0.01）, so did in duloxetine than paroxetine group （P〈0.05 or 0.01） ; at the end of the 8th week obvious effective rate was significantly higher in in duloxetine than paroxetine group （82.8% vs. 58.6%, Х^2= 4.08, P〈0.05）; adverse reactions of both groups were mild and their incidences had no significant group differences （P）0.05）. Conclusion Both duloxetine and paroxetine have an evident effect and higher safety in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome, but the former takes effect more rapidly and has a more evident effect.