Shrivastava R K, Cohn C, Crowder J, Davidson J, Dunner D, Feighner J, Kiev A, Patrick R
Eastside Comprehensive Medical Center, New York, New York.
J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1994 Oct;14(5):322-9.
The antidepressant efficacy and safety of venlafaxine was shown previously in 6-week, placebo-controlled trials. We evaluated the long-term safety and clinical acceptability of venlafaxine and imipramine in a double-blind, parallel-group, comparative study. Two hundred ninety depressed outpatients were treated with venlafaxine, and an additional 91 received imipramine for as long as clinically necessary, up to 1 year. The total daily dose of each drug could vary from 75 to 225 mg. The Clinical Global Impressions Scale and a therapeutic response rate that was based on Clinical Global Impressions Scale-Improvement and incorporated discontinuation information were used to evaluate efficacy. Safety determinations and patient subjective ratings were used to evaluate safety and clinical acceptability. During the study, the adverse events were generally mild to moderate and most subsided with continued treatment; the most frequent were nausea for venlafaxine and dry mouth for imipramine. The anticholinergic side effect burden was significantly higher in the imipramine group than in the venlafaxine group. Venlafaxine was judged significantly more acceptable than imipramine, on the basis of the subjective ratings by patients. Fewer venlafaxine-treated patients than imipramine-treated patients withdrew because of adverse events and unsatisfactory response. There was a consistent trend in the therapeutic response rates in favor of venlafaxine that reached statistical significance at months 2, 6, and 12. In this long-term study, patient acceptability was greater for venlafaxine than for imipramine, suggesting therapeutic advantages for venlafaxine in the long-term treatment of depression. Additional studies with other active comparators are underway to confirm and extend these encouraging results.
文拉法辛的抗抑郁疗效及安全性已在之前为期6周的安慰剂对照试验中得到证实。我们在一项双盲、平行组对比研究中评估了文拉法辛和丙咪嗪的长期安全性及临床可接受性。290名门诊抑郁症患者接受文拉法辛治疗,另有91名患者接受丙咪嗪治疗,治疗时间根据临床需要而定,最长可达1年。每种药物的每日总剂量可在75至225毫克之间变化。使用临床总体印象量表以及基于临床总体印象量表改善情况并纳入停药信息的治疗有效率来评估疗效。通过安全性测定和患者主观评分来评估安全性及临床可接受性。在研究期间,不良事件一般为轻至中度,大多数在持续治疗后消退;最常见的是文拉法辛组的恶心和丙咪嗪组的口干。丙咪嗪组的抗胆碱能副作用负担明显高于文拉法辛组。根据患者的主观评分,文拉法辛被判定比丙咪嗪更具可接受性。因不良事件和反应不满意而退出治疗的文拉法辛治疗患者比丙咪嗪治疗患者少。治疗有效率一直呈有利于文拉法辛的趋势,在第2、6和12个月达到统计学显著性。在这项长期研究中,文拉法辛的患者可接受性高于丙咪嗪,这表明文拉法辛在抑郁症长期治疗中具有治疗优势。正在进行其他活性对照药物的进一步研究以证实并扩展这些令人鼓舞的结果。