米氮平与帕罗西汀治疗抑郁症对照研究

目的 探讨米氮平与帕罗西汀治疗抑郁症的临床疗效和安全性.方法 将60例抑郁症患者随机分为米氮平组和帕罗西汀组,每组30例,分别口服米氮平和帕罗西汀治疗,观察6周.于治疗前及治疗1周、2周、4周、6周末采用汉密顿抑郁量表评定临床疗效,副反应量表评定不良反应.结果 治疗后两组汉密顿抑郁量表评分均较治疗前有显著下降(P＜0.01);米氮平组治疗1周末汉密顿抑郁量表评分较帕罗西汀组下降更显著(P＜0.01),其他时段评分两组差异均无显著性(P＞0.05);治疗6周末,米氮平组显效率80.0%,总有效率96.7%;帕罗西汀组分别为76.7%、93.3%,两组显效率、总有效率差异无显著性(P＞0.05).两组不良反应均轻微,治疗各时段副反应量表评分及不良反应发生率差异均无显著性(P＞0.05).结论 米氮平治疗抑郁症疗效显著,且与帕罗西汀相当,安全性高,依从性好,但米氮平起效更快,值得在临床推广应用.

A control study of mirtazapine vs.paroxetine in the treatment of depression

Objective To explore the clinical efficacy and safety of mirtazapine vs. paroxetine in the treatment of depression. Methods Sixty depression patients were randomly assigned to mirtazapine and paroxetine group （n： 30）, took orally mirtazapine or paroxetine for 6 weeks. Clinical efficacies were assessed with the Hamilton Depression Scale （HAMD） and adverse reactions with the Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale （TESS） before treatment and at the end of the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th and 6^th week. Results After treatment the HAMD scores of both groups lowered more significantly compared pretreatment （P〈0.01）; at the end of the 1^st week, the HAMD score lowered more significantly in the mirtazapine than in the paroxe- line group （P〈0.01）, and there were no significant differences in other peroids （P〈0.05） ; at the end of the 6^th week, obvious and total effective rate were 80.0% and 96.7% in the mirtazapine and 76.7% and 93.3% in the paroxetine group respectively, which showed no significant differences （P〈0. 05） ; adverse reactions of both groups were mild, there were no significant differences in the TESS scores and incidences of adverse reactions between mirtazapine and paroxetine group （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Mirtazapine has a significant curative effect equivalent to paroxetine on depression, higher safety and better compliance, but mirtazapine takes effect more rapidly and deserves clinical generalization and application.