4.1 Article

Double-blind study of cyamemazine and diazepam in the alcohol withdrawal syndrome

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hup.718

关键词

cyamemazine; alcohol; neuroleptics; diazepam

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Cyamemazine is an original phenothiazine derivative which showed similar efficacy and tolerability to lorazepam during ethanol withdrawal in mice. This study investigated cyamemazine for its efficacy and tolerability in alcohol-dependent patients electing an alcohol withdrawal procedure, in comparison with diazepam. Method A multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in 89 alcohol-dependent patients (CIWA-Ar score between 10 and 30), electing an alcohol withdrawal procedure, was used to find effective doses of cyamemazine and to compare it with diazepam for efficacy and tolerability. On day 1 (D-1), cyamemazine or diazepam (50 mg and 10 mg capsule, respectively) were administered at hourly intervals to reduce CIWA-Ar = 5, up to a maximum of eight administrations. Starting from D-2, the compounds were given twice a day in progressively decreasing doses during a maximum period of 13 days (D-end) Results At h(8) (8h after the first treatment of D-1), therapeutic success (CIWA-Ar score <= 5) was achieved in 32 out of 43 ITT patients treated with cyamemazine (74.4%), a value very similar to that of diazepam (32/44; 72.7%). Most such patients (29/32) were controlled with 2-6 capsules of cyamemazine (100-300 mg). In the PP population, cyamemazine (n = 28) was significantly non-inferior to diazepam (n = 33), with a threshold of 10% for non-inferiority bound and 2.5% for one-sided type I error rate. Such therapeutic similarity was confirmed by the analysis of other efficacy criteria. Safety analysis did not show substantial differences between the two treatments. Conclusions Cyamemazine showed similar efficacy and tolerability to diazepam for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal symptoms at therapeutic doses in the range 100-300 mg. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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