4.1 Article

St. John's wort versus placebo in social phobia - Results from a placebo-controlled pilot study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 51-58

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.jcp.0000150227.61501.00

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCCIH NIH HHS [1R21AT00502-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recognition of social anxiety disorder (social phobia) as a common and disabling condition has led to new advances in its pharmacotherapy. Limitations with selective seroton reuptake inhibitors (side effects) and behavior therapy (scarcity of trained therapists), coupled with the tendency for patients with the disorder to self-medicate with alternative treatments, have led to the interest in Saint John's wort (SJW) (Hypericum perforatum) for this disorder. Although the literature is mixed, SJW has demonstrated efficacy in several double-blind depression trials, and some open-label studies with anxiety disorders. There is pharmacokinetic evidence for the serotonergic, domaminergic, and GABAminergie activity of hypericum, all of which are implicated in social anxiety disorder. This study was designed to generate pilot data to examine the potential efficacy of SJW in generalized social anxiety disorder. Forty subjects were randomized to 12 weeks of treatment with a flexible dose (600-1800 mg) of SJW (n = 20) or placebo (n = 20). Subjects with comorbid depression (clinician HAMD > 16) were excluded. Results found no significant difference between mean change on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale with SJW (11.4) and placebo (13.2), P = 0.27, effect size = -0.09. Post-hoc analyses found larger effects sizes associated with increased baseline severity, omitting patients with variable scores (+/-30%) during the first week, and use of self-report HAMD scores for exclusion. Results of the study fail to provide evidence for the efficacy of SJW in social phobia. The impact of methodologic improvements on signal detection, while suggestive of improvement, remains to be established.

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