4.5 Article

Valproate (depakine-chrono) in the acute treatment of outpatients with generalized anxiety disorder without psychiatric comorbidity: Randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study

期刊

EUROPEAN PSYCHIATRY
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 109-114

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2007.08.001

关键词

depakine-chrono; generalized anxiety disorder; treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. - Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent in population of European countries. However, the effect of Valproate (depakine-chrono) on generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) has not been studied in a double-blind placebo-controlled design. Method. - Eighty patients (all men) were washout from the all medications. Each patient was randomized to receive either depakine-chrono (40 patients) for 6 weeks or matched placebo (40 patients) in a double-blind manner. Eligible participants, in addition to meeting the DSM-IV criteria for GAD and having a minimum score of 25 and more on the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, were required to be between 18 and 65 years. Response was defined as a 50% reduction in the Hamilton anxiety scale score. Response and side effects with depakine-chrono and placebo were compared by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests. Six patients did not return for at least one subsequent assessment, leaving 74 patients (36 taking depakine-chrono and 38 taking placebo) in the valuables study group. Results. - Twenty six of the 36 depakine-chrono-treated participants responded by 6 weeks, versus six of the 38 placebo-treated participants (p < 0.001). The most common and problematic side effect in the depakine-chrono group was dizziness and nausea. Conclusions. - The authors believe this to be the first double-blind placebo-controlled randomization study to test the efficacy of a depakine-chrono in the management of anxiety disorders. They need to be replicated in a larger study group. (C) 2007 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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