Weissman M M, Lieb J, Prusoff B, Bothwell S
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1975 Oct;52(4):225-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1975.tb00038.x.
The results of a double-blind trial of a tetracyclic antidepressant, maprotiline (Ludiomil) and a conventional tricyclic, amitriptyline (Elavil), in 67 ambulatory depressives are reported. Hamilton's Rating Scale for Depression was the main outcome criterion. No statistically significant differences were found between the drugs in onset of action, efficacy, side effects or predictors of response. Patients on either drug showed a significant reduction in symptoms after 1 week of treatment and at the end of the trial. Both drugs were tolerated well. A review of double-blind comparisons of maprotiline and tricyclic antidepressants, spanning 13 countries, and including over 900 patients, both ambulatory and inpatient, shows essentially similar results. The main outcome criterion in all these studies was manifest psychopathology assessed on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression by the treating physician. The absence of additional types of outcome criteria or assessment techniques, which may have detected differences in motor activity or drive as originally postulated, may have obscured results which were expected to be subtle.
本文报告了一项双盲试验的结果,该试验对67名门诊抑郁症患者使用四环类抗抑郁药麦普替林(路滴美)和传统三环类药物阿米替林(依拉维)进行治疗。汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表是主要的疗效判定标准。在起效时间、疗效、副作用或反应预测因素方面,两种药物之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。接受任何一种药物治疗的患者在治疗1周后和试验结束时症状均有显著减轻。两种药物耐受性均良好。一项对麦普替林与三环类抗抑郁药的双盲对比研究综述涵盖了13个国家,纳入了900多名患者,包括门诊和住院患者,结果基本相似。所有这些研究的主要疗效判定标准都是由治疗医生根据汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表评估的明显精神病理学症状。缺乏其他类型的疗效判定标准或评估技术,而这些标准或技术可能原本能够检测到如最初假设的运动活动或驱力方面的差异,这可能掩盖了预期较为细微的结果。