• 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

Buspirone vs amitriptyline in the treatment of chronic tension-type headache.

作者信息

Mitsikostas D D, Gatzonis S, Thomas A, Ilias A

机构信息

Athens Naval and Veterans Hospital, Greece.

出版信息

Acta Neurol Scand. 1997 Oct;96(4):247-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.1997.tb00277.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0404.1997.tb00277.x
PMID:9325477
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy of buspirone (BSR), in comparison with amitriptyline (AML) in the prophylactic treatment of chronic tension-type headache (CTH), in an open and randomized clinical trial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-six CTH patients (10 men and 16 women) were treated with BSR (30 mg daily) for 12 weeks. A parallel group of 32 CTH patients (12 men and 20 women) was treated with AML (50 mg daily). The major clinical parameters evaluated were the headache index (days with headache per month), the frequency of drug use for the acute management of headaches, the patients' opinion for the treatment and the Hamilton anxiety and depression rating scales.

RESULTS

During the study 9 patients dropped out (4 from the BSR group and 5 from the AML group). Twelve (54.4%) patients from the BSR group responded to treatment (> 50% reduction in the headache index), compared to 17 (60.7%) from the AML group. In the BSR group, 14 (53.8%) patients reported various mild side effects (nausea most frequently), vs 21 (65.5%) of the AML group (mouth dryness more frequently). Patients treated with AML had better opinion and used less drugs for the acute treatment of headaches than the BSR treated patients.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that BSR may be effective in the prophylactic treatment of CTH, and that further investigation in a placebo controlled study is needed.

摘要

相似文献

1
Buspirone vs amitriptyline in the treatment of chronic tension-type headache.
Acta Neurol Scand. 1997 Oct;96(4):247-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.1997.tb00277.x.
2
Variables Associated With the Use of Prophylactic Amitriptyline Treatment in Patients With Tension-type Headache.紧张型头痛患者预防性使用阿米替林治疗的相关变量。
Clin J Pain. 2019 Apr;35(4):315-320. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000685.
3
Treating chronic tension-type headache not responding to amitriptyline hydrochloride with paroxetine hydrochloride: a pilot evaluation.用盐酸帕罗西汀治疗对盐酸阿米替林无反应的慢性紧张型头痛:一项初步评估。
Headache. 2003 Oct;43(9):999-1004. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2003.03193.x.
4
Efficacy of the 5-HT1A agonist, buspirone hydrochloride, in migraineurs with anxiety: a randomized, prospective, parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.5-羟色胺1A受体激动剂盐酸丁螺环酮对伴有焦虑的偏头痛患者的疗效:一项随机、前瞻性、平行组、双盲、安慰剂对照研究。
Headache. 2005 Sep;45(8):1004-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05181.x.
5
A non-selective (amitriptyline), but not a selective (citalopram), serotonin reuptake inhibitor is effective in the prophylactic treatment of chronic tension-type headache.一种非选择性(阿米替林)而非选择性(西酞普兰)5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂对慢性紧张型头痛的预防性治疗有效。
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 Sep;61(3):285-90. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.61.3.285.
6
Amitriptyline in the prophylactic treatment of migraine and chronic daily headache.阿米替林预防偏头痛和慢性每日头痛。
Headache. 2011 Jan;51(1):33-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2010.01800.x. Epub 2010 Nov 10.
7
Management of chronic tension-type headache with tricyclic antidepressant medication, stress management therapy, and their combination: a randomized controlled trial.使用三环类抗抑郁药物、压力管理疗法及其联合治疗慢性紧张型头痛:一项随机对照试验
JAMA. 2001 May 2;285(17):2208-15. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.17.2208.
8
[Efficacy and withdrawal of clobazam, lorazepam and buspirone in the treatment of anxiety disorders].[氯巴占、劳拉西泮和丁螺环酮治疗焦虑症的疗效及撤药情况]
Encephale. 1996 Nov-Dec;22(6):461-7.
9
A meta-analysis of eight randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials of mirtazapine for the treatment of patients with major depression and symptoms of anxiety.一项关于米氮平治疗重度抑郁症及焦虑症状患者的八项随机、双盲、对照临床试验的荟萃分析。
J Clin Psychiatry. 1998 Mar;59(3):123-7.
10
Spinal manipulation vs. amitriptyline for the treatment of chronic tension-type headaches: a randomized clinical trial.脊柱推拿与阿米替林治疗慢性紧张型头痛的随机临床试验
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995 Mar-Apr;18(3):148-54.

引用本文的文献

1
Hallmarks of primary headache: part 2- Tension-type headache.原发性头痛的特征:第2部分——紧张型头痛。
J Headache Pain. 2025 Jul 17;26(1):164. doi: 10.1186/s10194-025-02098-w.
2
Acupuncture versus tricyclic antidepressants in the prophylactic treatment of tension-type headaches: an indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis.针刺与三环类抗抑郁药预防紧张型头痛的比较:间接治疗比较荟萃分析。
J Headache Pain. 2024 Apr 29;25(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01776-5.
3
Tricyclic and Tetracyclic Antidepressants for the Prevention of Frequent Episodic or Chronic Tension-Type Headache in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
三环类和四环类抗抑郁药预防成人频发发作性或慢性紧张型头痛:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Dec;32(12):1351-1358. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4121-z. Epub 2017 Jul 18.
4
[Psychopharmacological treatment in patients with somatoform disorders and functional body syndromes].[躯体形式障碍和功能性躯体综合征患者的心理药物治疗]
Nervenarzt. 2012 Sep;83(9):1128-41. doi: 10.1007/s00115-011-3446-9.
5
Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version.意大利原发性头痛指南:2012 年修订版。
J Headache Pain. 2012 May;13 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S31-70. doi: 10.1007/s10194-012-0437-6.
6
Tricyclic antidepressants and headaches: systematic review and meta-analysis.三环类抗抑郁药与头痛:系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMJ. 2010 Oct 20;341:c5222. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5222.
7
Pharmacoprophylaxis of tension-type headache.紧张型头痛的药物预防
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2005 Dec;9(6):442-7. doi: 10.1007/s11916-005-0025-4.
8
Current and potential future drug therapies for tension-type headache.
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2003 Dec;7(6):466-74. doi: 10.1007/s11916-003-0063-8.
9
Tension-type Headache.
Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2001 Mar;3(2):169-180. doi: 10.1007/s11940-001-0052-3.