4.5 Article

Amantadine as adjuvant therapy in the treatment of moderate to severe obsessive-compulsive disorder: A double-blind randomized trial with placebo control

期刊

PSYCHIATRY AND CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCES
卷 73, 期 4, 页码 169-174

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pcn.12803

关键词

amantadine; glutamate; obsessive; compulsive disorder; randomized controlled trial; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

资金

  1. Tehran University of Medical Sciences [33139]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim The role of the glutamatergic system in the pathogenesis of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has been shown by numerous studies. The aim of the present randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week trial was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of amantadine as an adjuvant to fluvoxamine in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe OCD. Methods One hundred patients diagnosed with moderate to severe OCD were randomized into two parallel groups to receive fluvoxamine (100 mg twice a day) plus placebo or fluvoxamine (100 mg twice a day) plus amantadine (100 mg daily) for 12 weeks. All patients received 100 mg/day fluvoxamine for 28 days followed by 200 mg/day for the rest of the trial, regardless of their treatment groups. Patients were evaluated for response to treatment using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) at baseline and at Weeks 4, 10, and 12. The main outcome measure was to assess the efficacy of amantadine in improving the OCD symptoms. Results Repeated-measure analysis of variance showed a significant effect for Time x Treatment interaction (Greenhouse-Geisser corrected: F = 3.84, d.f. = 1.50, P = 0.03) in the Y-BOCS total score and a significant effect for Time x Treatment interaction (Greenhouse-Geisser corrected: F = 5.67, d.f. = 1.48, P < 0.01) in the Y-BOCS Obsession subscale score between the two groups. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that amantadine may be effective as an augmentative agent in the treatment of moderate-to-severe OCD.

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

4.5
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