4.1 Article

Quetiapine addition to serotonin reuptake inhibitors in patients with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 550-554

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e318185e735

关键词

-

资金

  1. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Although many patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) benefit from treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs), it is estimated that 40% to 60% of them do not respond. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of quetiapine added to baseline treatment with SRIs for the treatment of OCD in severely ill adult subjects. Method: Forty patients (21 men, 19 women) with primary OCD according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria participated in a 12-week, double-blind. placebo-controlled trial. They were randomly assigned to dosages of quetiapine titrated LIP to 400 mg/d (n = 20) or to placebo (n = 20) 111 addition to their SRI treatment. During the Continuation phase (weeks 6-12). subjects received different dosages between 400 and 600 mg/d depending on clinical response. At entry, all patients were unresponsive to at least I course of at least 12 weeks of treatment with SRIs at defined doses. The total Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale score was the primary efficacy Parameter. Results: Intention-to-treat, last-observation-carried-forward analysis demonstrated a mean +/- SD decrease in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale score of 5.2 +/- 5.4 in the quetiapine group and 3.9 +/- 4.9 in the placebo group. The analysis of treatment effects between the 2 groups showed no significant difference. There were no significant group differences in any of the other self-rating scales or clinician-administered rating scales. Conclusions: In this study, augmentation of SRI treatment with quetiapine in severe OCD had no additional effect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据