Dierick M, Cattiez P, Franck G, Burton P, Defleur J, Hermans W, Roelandts A, Wolfrum C, Berger M, Hellstern K
Neuropsychiatrische Klinik St. Camilius, G. St. Denijs-Westrem, Belgium.
Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 1990;360:50-1. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1990.tb05328.x.
Moclobemide and clomipramine were compared for efficacy, tolerance and safety in 63 mixed endogenous and nonendogenous depressed patients. Treatment was given for at least 4 weeks in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group design. The mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score decreased gradually during treatment with no differences between groups. Two patients on clomipramine and none on moclobemide were withdrawn for lack of efficacy, and poor tolerance caused 3 patients on moclobemide and 7 on clomipramine to stop treatment prematurely. Patients with endogenous depression responded better to clomipramine, whereas nonendogenous disorders did better on moclobemide. Adverse events were more frequent in the clomipramine group and more of these were severe or very severe than for moclobemide. Thus, although no significant difference in efficacy was seen, moclobemide appeared to be tolerated better than clomipramine. The numbers were small, however, and many patients received concomitant medication, and the results are therefore difficult to interpret.
对63例内源性和非内源性混合性抑郁症患者比较了吗氯贝胺和氯米帕明的疗效、耐受性及安全性。采用双盲、随机、平行组设计进行至少4周的治疗。治疗期间汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表平均评分逐渐下降,组间无差异。2例服用氯米帕明的患者因疗效不佳退出研究,服用吗氯贝胺的患者无此情况;耐受性差导致3例服用吗氯贝胺的患者和7例服用氯米帕明的患者提前停药。内源性抑郁症患者对氯米帕明反应更好,而非内源性疾病患者服用吗氯贝胺效果更佳。氯米帕明组不良事件更频繁,且严重或非常严重的不良事件比吗氯贝胺组更多。因此,尽管未观察到疗效有显著差异,但吗氯贝胺的耐受性似乎优于氯米帕明。然而,样本量较小,许多患者同时服用其他药物,因此结果难以解释。