• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

一项关于米氮平或氟西汀治疗中国抑郁症患者6周的耐受性和疗效的双盲、随机、组间对照研究。

A double-blind, randomized, group-comparative study of the tolerability and efficacy of 6 weeks' treatment with mirtazapine or fluoxetine in depressed Chinese patients.

作者信息

Hong Chen-Jee, Hu Wei-Herng, Chen Chwen-Cheng, Hsiao Cheng-Cheng, Tsai Shih-Jen, Ruwe Frank J L

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, Veterans General Hospital-Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.

出版信息

J Clin Psychiatry. 2003 Aug;64(8):921-6. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v64n0810.

DOI:10.4088/jcp.v64n0810
PMID:12927007
Abstract

AIM

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and fluoxetine treatment in a sample population consisting of Chinese patients suffering moderate-to-severe depression.

METHOD

133 patients with a diagnosis of major depressive episode (DSM-IV) and scoring 15 or more on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) were randomly assigned to receive 6 weeks of treatment with either mirtazapine (15-45 mg/day) or fluoxetine (20-40 mg/day). Efficacy was assessed using the HAM-D and Clinical Global Impressions scale, with analyses performed on the intent-to-treat sample using the last-observation-carried-forward method. Safety analysis was based on the all-subjects-treated group.

RESULTS

Mean daily doses were 34.1 mg for mirtazapine (N = 66) and 30.7 mg for fluoxetine (N = 66). Thirty patients in the mirtazapine group and 22 in the fluoxetine group dropped out. Both drugs proved equally effective for reduction of the overall symptoms of depression throughout the treatment period. At day 42, the mean reductions in HAM-D total score (compared with baseline) were 11.8 and 10.6 for the mirtazapine and fluoxetine groups, respectively; however, the changes were not statistically significant. Both treatments were well tolerated, with more nausea and influenza-like symptoms observed for the fluoxetine group, and greater weight increase and somnolence for the mirtazapine analog.

CONCLUSION

Both mirtazapine and fluoxetine were indistinguishable in effectiveness for treatment of depressive symptoms, and both were well tolerated by our population of depressed Chinese patients. In line with analogous Western reports, the safety of mirtazapine and fluoxetine was comparable for our depressed Chinese patients; however, slightly different side effect profiles were noted for the 2 drugs in our study.

摘要

目的

比较米氮平和氟西汀对一组中度至重度抑郁症中国患者的疗效和耐受性。

方法

133例被诊断为重度抑郁发作(DSM-IV)且17项汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAM-D)评分达15分及以上的患者被随机分配接受为期6周的米氮平(15 - 45毫克/天)或氟西汀(20 - 40毫克/天)治疗。使用HAM-D和临床总体印象量表评估疗效,采用末次观察结转法对意向性治疗样本进行分析。安全性分析基于所有接受治疗的患者组。

结果

米氮平组(N = 66)平均日剂量为34.1毫克,氟西汀组(N = 66)为30.7毫克。米氮平组30例患者和氟西汀组22例患者退出研究。在整个治疗期间,两种药物在减轻抑郁总体症状方面疗效相当。在第42天,米氮平组和氟西汀组HAM-D总分较基线的平均降低值分别为11.8和10.6;然而,差异无统计学意义。两种治疗耐受性均良好,氟西汀组观察到更多恶心和流感样症状,米氮平组体重增加和嗜睡更明显。

结论

米氮平和氟西汀在治疗抑郁症状方面疗效无差异,且我们的中国抑郁症患者群体对二者耐受性均良好。与西方类似报道一致,米氮平和氟西汀对我们的中国抑郁症患者安全性相当;然而,在我们的研究中,两种药物的副作用谱略有不同。

相似文献

1
A double-blind, randomized, group-comparative study of the tolerability and efficacy of 6 weeks' treatment with mirtazapine or fluoxetine in depressed Chinese patients.一项关于米氮平或氟西汀治疗中国抑郁症患者6周的耐受性和疗效的双盲、随机、组间对照研究。
J Clin Psychiatry. 2003 Aug;64(8):921-6. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v64n0810.
2
Mirtazapine: efficacy and tolerability in comparison with fluoxetine in patients with moderate to severe major depressive disorder. Mirtazapine-Fluoxetine Study Group.米氮平:与氟西汀治疗中重度重度抑郁症患者的疗效及耐受性比较。米氮平-氟西汀研究组
J Clin Psychiatry. 1998 Jun;59(6):306-12.
3
Mirtazapine compared with paroxetine in major depression.米氮平与帕罗西汀治疗重度抑郁症的比较。
J Clin Psychiatry. 2000 Sep;61(9):656-63. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v61n0911.
4
Comparison of the effects of mirtazapine and fluoxetine in severely depressed patients.米氮平与氟西汀对重度抑郁症患者疗效的比较。
CNS Drugs. 2005;19(2):137-46. doi: 10.2165/00023210-200519020-00004.
5
Mirtazapine versus venlafaxine in hospitalized severely depressed patients with melancholic features.米氮平与文拉法辛治疗伴有抑郁特征的住院重度抑郁症患者的疗效比较
J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2001 Aug;21(4):425-31. doi: 10.1097/00004714-200108000-00010.
6
Efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine versus citalopram: a double-blind, randomized study in patients with major depressive disorder. Nordic Antidepressant Study Group.米氮平与西酞普兰的疗效及耐受性:一项针对重度抑郁症患者的双盲、随机研究。北欧抗抑郁药研究小组
Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1999 Nov;14(6):329-37. doi: 10.1097/00004850-199911000-00002.
7
Mirtazapine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.米氮平与选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂的比较
J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60 Suppl 17:18-22; discussion 46-8.
8
Efficacy and safety of mirtazapine in major depressive disorder patients after SSRI treatment failure: an open-label trial.米氮平治疗5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂治疗失败的重度抑郁症患者的疗效和安全性:一项开放标签试验。
J Clin Psychiatry. 2001 Jun;62(6):413-20. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v62n0603.
9
Care of depressed patients with anxiety symptoms.伴有焦虑症状的抑郁症患者的护理。
J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60 Suppl 17:23-7; discussion 46-8.
10
Comparison of mirtazapine and fluoxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a double-blind, randomized trial.米氮平与氟西汀治疗重度抑郁症的比较:一项双盲随机试验
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2005 Apr;30(2):133-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2004.00585.x.

引用本文的文献

1
Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New Generation Antidepressants.新一代抗抑郁药的网状Meta分析与成本效益分析
CNS Drugs. 2015 Aug;29(8):695-712. doi: 10.1007/s40263-015-0267-6.
2
Efficacy and Tolerability of Generic Mirtazapine (Mirtax) for Major Depressive Disorder: Multicenter, Open-label, Uncontrolled, Prospective Study.通用型米氮平(米他扎平)治疗重度抑郁症的疗效与耐受性:多中心、开放标签、非对照、前瞻性研究
Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2015 Aug 31;13(2):144-9. doi: 10.9758/cpn.2015.13.2.144.
3
Comparative efficacy and risk of harms of immediate- versus extended-release second-generation antidepressants: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.
第二代速释与缓释抗抑郁药的疗效比较及危害风险:一项网状Meta分析的系统评价
CNS Drugs. 2014 Aug;28(8):699-712. doi: 10.1007/s40263-014-0169-z.
4
Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression.氟西汀与其他类型的抑郁症药物治疗对比。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 17;2013(7):CD004185. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004185.pub3.
5
Less is more in antidepressant clinical trials: a meta-analysis of the effect of visit frequency on treatment response and dropout.在抗抑郁药临床试验中,少即是多:对就诊频率对治疗反应和脱落影响的荟萃分析。
J Clin Psychiatry. 2013 Jul;74(7):703-15. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12r08267.
6
How should primary care doctors select which antidepressants to administer?基层医生应该如何选择要使用的抗抑郁药?
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012 Aug;14(4):360-9. doi: 10.1007/s11920-012-0283-x.
7
Dense cranial electroacupuncture stimulation for major depressive disorder--a single-blind, randomized, controlled study.密集型颅部电针刺激治疗重度抑郁症的单盲随机对照研究。
PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e29651. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029651. Epub 2012 Jan 6.
8
Mirtazapine versus other antidepressive agents for depression.米氮平与其他抗抑郁药治疗抑郁症的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 7(12):CD006528. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006528.pub2.
9
Safety reporting and adverse-event profile of mirtazapine described in randomized controlled trials in comparison with other classes of antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of adults with depression: systematic review and meta-analysis.在成人抑郁症急性期治疗中,与其他抗抑郁药类别相比,随机对照试验中描述的米氮平的安全性报告和不良事件概况:系统评价和荟萃分析。
CNS Drugs. 2010 Jan;24(1):35-53. doi: 10.2165/11319480-000000000-00000.
10
Mirtazapine: a review of its use in major depression and other psychiatric disorders.米氮平:对其在重度抑郁症及其他精神障碍中的应用综述
CNS Drugs. 2009;23(5):427-52. doi: 10.2165/00023210-200923050-00006.