Cording-Tömmel C, von Zerssen D
Pharmacopsychiatria. 1982 Nov;15(6):197-204. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1019538.
Present methodological problems in assessing the clinical efficacy of putative antidepressants require testing of various new strategies. The approach presented by the authors allows "natural" clinical treatments to be evaluated scientifically; double-blind conditions are replaced by other measures of bias control. In this paper, the clinical effectiveness of mianserin in homogenous groups of inpatients with severe endogenous depression is compared with that of maprotiline and amitriptyline. The frequency of change of the respective antidepressant by the physicians in charge as well as patients' self-evaluations based on v. Zerssen's Mood Scale served as outcome criteria. No difference in efficacy was found between maprotiline and amitriptyline, whereas mianserin was significantly less effective. The number of patients complaining of side effects from the two tetracyclic compounds was no less than in the case of amitriptyline. There were, however, qualitative differences; with maprotiline, myoclonic jerks were observed in some cases. The hypothesis that mianserin may possess sedative-anxiolytic rather than antidepressive properties is discussed in conjunction with methodological and theoretical implications.
目前在评估假定抗抑郁药临床疗效方面存在的方法学问题需要对各种新策略进行测试。作者提出的方法允许对“自然”临床治疗进行科学评估;双盲条件被其他偏差控制措施所取代。在本文中,将米安色林在重度内源性抑郁症住院患者同质组中的临床疗效与马普替林和阿米替林进行了比较。负责医生更换各自抗抑郁药的频率以及患者基于费尔森情绪量表的自我评估作为疗效标准。未发现马普替林和阿米替林在疗效上有差异,而米安色林的疗效明显较差。抱怨这两种四环化合物副作用的患者数量不少于服用阿米替林的情况。然而,存在质的差异;使用马普替林时,在某些情况下观察到肌阵挛性抽搐。结合方法学和理论意义,讨论了米安色林可能具有镇静抗焦虑而非抗抑郁特性的假设。