4.2 Article

Treatment with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Mirtapazine Results in Differential Brain Activation by Visual Erotic Stimuli in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

期刊

PSYCHIATRY INVESTIGATION
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 85-95

出版社

KOREAN NEUROPSYCHIATRIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.4306/pi.2009.6.2.85

关键词

Functional MRI; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor; Mirtazapine; Sexual dysfunction

资金

  1. Organon (currently Schering-Plough) [GL 105]
  2. Ministry of Health and Welfare [A060273]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology [M10644000013-06 N4400-01310]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The objective of this study was to identify patterns of brain activation elicited by erotic visual stimuli in patients treated with either Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) or mirtazipine. Methods Nine middle-aged men with major depressive disorder treated with an SSRI and ten middle-aged men with major depressive disorder treated with mirtazapine completed the trial. Ten subjects with no psychiatric illness were included as a control group. We conducted functional brain magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while a film alternatively played erotic and non-erotic contents for 14 minutes and 9 seconds. Results The control group showed activation in the occipitotemporal area, anterior cingulate gyrus, insula, orbitofrontal cortex, and caudate nucleus. For Subjects treated with SSRIs, the intensity of activity in these regions was much lower compared to the control group. Intensity of activation in the group treated with mirtazapine was less than the control group but greater than those treated with SSRIs. Using subtraction analysis, the SSRI group showed significantly lower activation than the mirtazapine group in the anterior cingulate gyrus and the caudate nucleus. Conclusion Our study suggests that the different rates of sexual side effects between the patients in the SSRI-treated group and the mirtazapine-treated group may be due to different effects on brain activation.

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

4.2
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