4.1 Article

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of abecarnil and diazepam in the treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 12-18

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00004714-200002000-00004

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a multicenter, double-blind trial, 310 patients who had received a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder were treated for 6 weeks with either abecarnil, diazepam, or placebo at mean daily doses of 12 mg of abecarnil or 22 mg of diazepam administered three times daily. Patients who were improved at 6 weeks could volunteer to continue double-blind treatment for a total of 24 weeks. The maintenance treatment phase allowed the comparison of taper results for the three treatments at several study periods (0-6 weeks, 7-12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks). Slightly more diazepam (77%) and placebo (75%) patients completed the 6-week study than abecarnil patients (66%). At intake and baseline, after a 1-week placebo washout, the patient was required to have a Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety score of greater than or equal to 20. Major adverse events for both abecarnil and diazepam were drowsiness, dizziness, fatigue, and coordination difficulties. Clinical improvement data showed that both abecarnil and diazepam produced statistically significantly more symptom relief than did placebo after 1 week of treatment. At 6 weeks treatment (using last observation carried forward analysis), however, only diazepam still differed significantly (p < 0.01) from placebo. High placebo response (56% moderate to marked global improvement) at 6 weeks, as well as a slightly lower nonsignificant improvement rate observed with abecarnil, a partial gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonist, when compared with diazepam, a full GABA agonist, most likely contributed to our findings. Finally, taper results showed that only diazepam and not abecarnil caused the presence of temporary discontinuation symptoms, but only in patients who had been treated for at least 12 weeks.

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