L'Encephale · 1993
[Randomized double-blind comparative study of the efficacy and tolerance of medifoxamine and imipramine in depressed patients].
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Olié J P, Galinowski A, Lehert P, Lemonnier F, Lôo H
Аннотация
Medifoxamine (Clédial TM), a non tricyclic non MAOI antidepressant drug with a dopaminergic and serotoninergic mechanism of action, was compared to imipramine in a multicenter double blind trial. Patients suffering from DSM III-R major depression (without psychotic features), with a minimum inclusion score of 25 at the MADRS after an initial 7-day wash-out period, were randomly assigned to a 4-week treatment by either imipramine or medifoxamine, with flexible doses of at least 100 mg after 2 weeks of treatment. No associated treatment was permitted except for lorazepam 2 to 5 mg per day. Ninety eight patients were recruited by 20 centers throughout France. Eighty four terminated the 4-week protocol. Early terminations were due to serious adverse events (3), death on imipramine (1), protocol violation (1), refusal to continue (1), loss to follow up (1). The 2 groups of patients were comparable on inclusion. In the medifoxamine group (receiving a daily dose of 194 mg at day 28) the percentage of improvement in MADRS scores, the number of patients with a MADRS improvement of a least 50% and a final MADRS score inferior to 8, were not significantly different from the imipramine group (daily dose: 161 mg at day 28). No more difference appeared when several clinical variables were analyzed, in particular the DSM III-R melancholic, the Newcastle endogenous subtypes and the in or out patient status. The two treatment groups were also comparable on other scales (HDRS, HARS assessing anxiety, CGI).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)