【摘要】 目的　评价米氮平治疗抑郁症的临床疗效和安全性。方法　对符合CCMD 3抑郁症诊断标准的 5 3例抑郁症患者进行米氮平和丙咪嗪的对照研究 ,其中米氮平组 30例 (15～ 4 5mg/d) ,丙咪嗪组 2 3例 (10 0～ 2 0 0mg/d) ,共治疗 6周。采用汉密顿抑郁量表HAMD ,汉密顿焦虑量表HAMA ,临床总体评定量表CGI评定临床疗效 ,副反应量表TESS评定不良反应。结果　经 6w治疗后 ,米氮平组治疗总有效率为 87% ,显效率为 6 9% ,丙咪嗪组分别为 86 %和 6 7% ,两组相比较 ,差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 )。米氮平组治疗第 1周就起效。两组的HAMD ,AHMA评分治疗前后相比较差异有高度显著性(P <0 0 1) ;两组之间比较差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 )。米氮平组的不良反应相对于丙咪嗪组少而轻 ,常见的有头昏、口干、胃肠不适等。结论　米氮平治疗抑郁症疗效好 ,起效快 ,不良反应少而轻 ,适合临床应用。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine to the depressive patients. Method: A controlled study was carried out between 53 patients who met the CCMD 3 criteria of major depression and depressed episode. The 30 of total patients were treated with mirtazapine (15～45 mg/d) and to others were treated with imipramine (100～200 mg/d) for 6 weeks. The efficacy were assessed by Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) and the safety was assessed by Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS). Results: After six weeks treatment, the improvement rate and significant improvement rate of mirtazapine group and imipramine group were 87% and 69%; 86% and 67%, respectively( P >0 05). The efficacy started after 7 days treatment in mirtazapine group. The scores of HAMD and HAMA in two groups were statistical difference before and after treatment ( P >0 01); there was no difference between two groups ( P >0 05). The main adverse events of mirtazapine group were dizziness, mouth dry and gastricinternal discomfort. However, there were lower side effects in mirtazapine group than that in imipramine group. Conclusion: Mirtazapine is an effective antidepressants, with less side effects, better safety and rapid response compared with imipramine, suiting for clinical use.更多还原