司西酞普兰与文拉法辛治疗难治性抑郁症的对照研究

Secretary of Citalopram and Venlafaxine in the Treatment of Refractory Depression Study

目的:比较司西酞普兰与文拉法辛治疗难治性抑郁症疗效及安全性。方法:120例确诊为难治性抑郁症患者随机分为A、B两组,每组60例,每例给予相同的常规治疗,A组在常规治疗的基础上使用司西酞普兰,B组在常规治疗的基础上使用文拉法辛,疗程为8周。用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD),临床总体印象改善表(CGI-I),临床总体印象—严重程度量表(CGI-S)和患者总体印象改善量表(PGI)在治疗前及治疗2、4、8周评定疗效;用副反应量表(TESS)评定不良反应。结果:经8周治疗,司西酞普兰组(A)痊愈12例,显著进步16例,进步14例,无效18例;文拉法辛组(B)痊愈18例,显著进步22例,进步12例,无效8例。治疗6周后两组HAMD总分均有显著下降,其中A组下降4分,B组下降6分。两组比较,差别有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:常规治疗基础上加文拉法辛对难治性抑郁患者的治疗效果较在常规治疗基础上加司西酞普兰更好,有一定的临床推广应用价值。

Objective： To compare the Secretary, of citalopram and venlafaxlne in the treatment of refractory depression treatment effectiveness and safety. Methods： 120 patients diagnosed with treatment-reslstant depression were randomly divided into A, B two groups of 60 patients was treated with the same routine for each treatment, A group was treated on the basis of the Secretary to use citalopram, B group based on the use of conventional treatment of venlafaxine. Course of 8 weeks. With the Hamilton Depression Scale （HAMD）, Clinical Global Impression improvement form （CGI-I）, Clinical Global Impression - Severity Scale （CGI-S） and patient global impression improvement scale （PGI） in the treatment before and 2.4.8 Evaluation of efficacy of treatment weeks： use of side-Scale （TESS） Assessment of adverse reactions. Results： After 8 weeks of treatment, the Secretary of citalopram group （A） group 12 cases were cured, 16 cases of significant progress, progress in 14 cases, 18 cases of ineffective; venlafaxine group （B） recovery of 18 groups, 22 groups of significant progress, progress 12 group, while 8 group. The two groups after 6 weeks of treatment were significantly lower HAMD total score, which fell 4 A group, B group fell 6 points. Between the two groups, the difference was statistically significant （P〈0.05）. Conclusion： The conventional treatment plus venlafaxine for refractory depression treatment in patients than in conventional therapy plus citalopram Division better have some clinical value.