您现在的位置: 首页> 研究主题> 文拉法新

文拉法新

文拉法新的相关文献在1996年到2020年内共计93篇,主要集中在神经病学与精神病学、药学、内科学 等领域,其中期刊论文86篇、会议论文2篇、专利文献99506篇;相关期刊63种,包括基层医学论坛、中国民康医学、四川精神卫生等; 相关会议2种,包括全国焦虑障碍学术会议、山东省第二次中西医结合神经内科学术研讨会等;文拉法新的相关文献由207位作者贡献,包括李代秀、陈波、兰志银等。

文拉法新—发文量

期刊论文>

论文:86 占比:0.09%

会议论文>

论文:2 占比:0.00%

专利文献>

论文:99506 占比:99.91%

总计:99594篇

文拉法新—发文趋势图

文拉法新

-研究学者

  • 李代秀
  • 陈波
  • 兰志银
  • 张集慧
  • 鲁建瑞
  • 刘宏
  • 刘德军
  • 刘汝震
  • 刘萍
  • 吴凡
  • 期刊论文
  • 会议论文
  • 专利文献

搜索

排序:

年份

    • 邓越峰
    • 摘要: 目的:探讨文拉法新缓释剂治疗抑郁症的临床效果.方法:选取我院2015年2月~2016年7月收治的71例抑郁症患者作为研究对象,均予以文拉法新缓释剂治疗,观察治疗效果以及不良反应发生情况.结果:总有效率为95.8%,不良反应发生率为22.5%;观察组治疗2个月、4个月后HAMA17、HAMD14以及各因子评分均明显低于治疗前(P<0.05);观察组治疗4个月后A-MA17、HAMD14以及各因子评分减分率均明显高于治疗2个月(P<0.05).结论:文拉法新缓释剂治疗抑郁症的临床效果突出,具有"疗效好、安全性高"等优势,值得临床推广.
    • 邹荣珍
    • 摘要: 目的:探讨文拉法新与西酞普兰对抑郁症患者痛觉阈的影响。方法选择该院精神科2014年5月至2015年7月诊治的抑郁症患者60例作为研究对象,根据其用药不同分为文拉法新组和西酞普兰组,各30例,检测其治疗前后痛觉阈、感觉阈和抑郁程度,并选取同期30例健康体检者作为对照组。结果治疗前,两组患者感觉阈、痛觉阈均高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05),但痛觉阈仍高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论抑郁症患者痛觉阈、感觉阈较高,而服用抗抑郁药物可降低其痛觉阈与感觉阈,且相对于西酞普兰,文拉法新抗抑郁作用更为显著。
    • 王云; 张瑞岭; 郭素芹; 张子梅
    • 摘要: 目的:研究解郁丸与文拉法辛缓释片治疗抑郁症的临床治疗效果和安全性。方法:对160例门诊符合CCMD-3抑郁发作诊断标准的患者,随机平分为研究组(解郁丸组)80例和对照组(文拉法辛组)80例进行治疗观察8周。采用HAMD、TESS量表评价疗效和不良反应。结果:治疗8周后,研究组和对照组治疗抑郁症有效率无显著性差异(x2=0.07,P>0.05),不良反应差异显著(x2=20.38,P0. 05), but there were significant differences in the side-effects (x2=20. 38, P<0. 01). Conclusions:Jieyu pills have good effects and tolerance and less side effects in the treatment of depression.
    • 芈志勇; 史少丽
    • 摘要: 目的:对照研究度洛西汀和文拉法新治疗老年期抑郁障碍的疗效、安全性。方法110例老年抑郁症患者随机分为研究组和对照组,各55例,研究组给予度洛西汀口服,对照组给予文拉法新口服,在治疗前、治疗1、2、4、8周末采用24-汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)进行疗效评定, TESS量表进行不良反应评定。结果在治疗1周末研究组和对照组HAMD评分均有下降,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),在治疗2、4、8周末HAMD评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。TESS量表总体评价差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),文拉法新引起血压升高较多,度洛西汀片引起恶心、呕吐较多。结论度洛西汀和文拉法新起效时间、临床疗效、总体副反应相当,度洛西汀质优价廉,值得推广。%Objective To make a control study of the curative effect and safety of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the treatment of depressive disorder in the elderly. Methods A total of 110 elder patients with depression were randomly divided into two groups, and 55 cases in each group. The research group was given duloxetine through oral administration, and the control group was given venlafaxine. Efficacies were assessed by 24-Hamilton Depress Scale(HAMD), and safety were assessed by Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale(TESS) at baseline and the end of 1st,2nd,4th, and 8th week. Results In treatment group and control group at the end of 1 st week HAMD scores were all decreased, and there was no statistical significance (P>0.05). The HAMD scores at the end of the 2nd, 4th, and 8th weeks were not statistically significant (P>0.05). TESS scale had no statistical significance in the overall valuation (P>0.05). Venlafaxine causes more cases of high blood pressure, and duloxetine causes more cases of nausea and vomiting. Conclusion Duloxetine and venlafaxine effect similarly in the working time , curative effect and safety, but duloxetine is cheaper and worth promoting.
    • 周红宇; 朱高莉; 周国华; 陈叶青; 冷明芳
    • 摘要: Objective To compare the curative effect of venlafaxine and flupentixol and melitracen tablets on anxiety and depressive disorder of the troops. Methods 67 soldiers from troop stationed in Hengyang were investigated through Hamilton anxiety scale( HAMA )and Hamilton depression scale( HAMD ). Patients were randomly divided into two groups,patients in venlafaxine group( groups A,n =35 )were given venlafaxine,patients in flupentixol and melitracen tablets group( group B, n=32 ) were given flupentixol and melitracen tablets. After 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months,the HAMA,HAMD and effective rate were recorded. Results After 2 weeks,3 months and 6 months,the HAMA and HAMD decreased in the two groups( P < 0. 05 ), and there were significant difference between the two groups at 6 months after treatment P <0. 05 ). The common adverse effect in group A was nausea,dizziness,constipation,etc, and they were disappeared after 2 weeks. No significant adverse effect was found in group B. The effective rate of group A was higher than that of group B at 6 months after treatment( P < 0. 05 ). Conclusion Venlafaxine and flupentixol and melitracen tablets are effective for anxiety and depressive disorder of the troops in early stage,long-term follow-up shows that venlafaxine is more effective than flupentixol and melitracen tablets.%目的 观察文拉法辛及黛力新治疗部队官兵焦虑抑郁障碍的效果.方法 收集2008年1月至2012年6月因消化道症状为主在我院消化科住院的部队患者,经排除器质性疾病并采用汉密尔顿焦虑抑郁量表评分,明确诊断为焦虑抑郁障碍者67例,随机分为文拉法辛组(35例)及黛力新组(32例),治疗后2周、3个月、6个月观察患者初始症状,记录焦虑抑郁量表评分.结果 治疗2周、3个月、6个月时,两组焦虑抑郁量表评分均降低(P<0.05);治疗6个月时,文拉法辛组低于黛力新组(P<0.05).文拉法辛组常见的不良反应为恶心、头昏、便秘等,2周后基本消失;黛力新组无明显不良反应.治疗6个月时文拉法辛组有效率高于黛力新组(P<0.05).结论 文拉法辛及黛力新治疗部队焦虑抑郁障碍患者均有明显效果,早期差异无统计学意义,但长期随访结果显示,文拉法辛效果更稳定,其疗效优于黛力新.
    • 孙继军; 朱春燕; 孙裕勇; 马婉; 孙剑
    • 摘要: 目的 探讨不同药理机制的新型抗抑郁药西酞普兰、文拉法新对抑郁症患者痛觉阈的影响.方法 67例抑郁症患者随机分为西酞普兰、文拉法新组,于治疗前、治疗后4周末测定感觉阈、痛觉阈及汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD17),并与35例正常对照比较.结果 治疗前两患者组感觉阈均高于对照组,痛觉阈均高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗后,三组间感觉阈差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),痛觉阈差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).文拉法新组痛觉阈平均变化率高于西酞普兰组,差异有统计学意义 [(15.76±11.19)% 比 (10.14±10.64)%,Z=-2.784,P=0.005],而两组间感觉阈平均变化率差异无统计学意义[(9.59±26.43)% 比 (6.48±22.77)%,Z=-1.367,P=0.172].结论 抑郁症患者感觉阈、痛觉阈显著增高,提示存在痛知觉加工异常;抗抑郁药能降低抑郁症患者的感觉阈、痛觉阈,文拉法新的作用较西酞普兰更显著.
    • 王道杰
    • 摘要: 目的探讨奥氮平联合文拉法新治疗甲基苯丙胺所致精神障碍的疗效及安全性,以及重复滥用情况分析。方法42例甲基苯丙胺所致精神障碍的患者随机分为研究组(奥氮平联合文拉法新治疗)对照组(奥氮平治疗组)疗程6周,六个月随访。采用BPRS量表评定严重程度,TESS评定药物不良反应。同时监测血常规,肝功能,心电图。结果治疗结束时两组疗效为研究组91.8%,对照组64.6%,两组疗效差异有统计学意义(p0.05)六个月随访重复滥用情况研究组为8.4%,对照组为24.7%。结论奥氮平联合文拉法新治疗甲基苯丙胺所致精神障碍与单用奥氮平相比疗效更好,且安全,可预防重复滥用。%Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine combined with the mental disorder induced by methamphetamine venlafaxine treatment, and repeated abuse analysis. Methods: 42 cases of methamphetamine induced mental disorder were randomly divided into study group (olanzapine combined with venlafaxine in treatment group (treatment group) and olanzapine) treatment for 6weeks, to evaluate severity by BPRS, TESS assessment of adverse drug reaction. While monitoring the blood routine, liver function, electrocardiogram. Results: after the treatment efficacy of the two groups as study group 91.8%, control group 64.6%, two groups was statistically significant difference (p0.05) six months after repeated abuse research group was 8.4%, control group 24.7%. Conclusion: olanzapine combined with venlafaxine in treatment of methamphetamine induced mental disorder and single olanzapine is better efficacy, and safe, can prevent repeated abuse.
    • 张勇; 于璇
    • 摘要: 目的 探讨齐拉西酮联合文拉法新治疗难治性抑郁症的疗效和安全性.方法 将84例难治性抑郁症患者随机分为2组,研究组应用齐拉西酮联合文拉法新,对照组单用文拉法新,观察8周.第2、4、8周末采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)评定疗效,副反应量表(TESS)评定不良反应.结果 2组在第2周末HAMD和HAMA评分较治疗前均显著下降(P 0.05).结论 齐拉西酮联合文拉法新治疗难治性抑郁症,疗效明显优于单一应用文拉法新治疗起效快,不良反应轻,安全性好.
    • 赵黎荣
    • 摘要: 目的:比较观察文拉法新与氟西汀治疗首发抑郁症的临床效果。方法:2010年12月~2012年3月期间,我院门诊或住院治疗的76例首发抑郁症患者随机分为文拉法新组和氟西汀组,每组38例,对比观察两组的临床疗效、HAMD、HAMA及不良反应。结果:文拉法新组与氟西汀组的总有效率比较,差异无统计学意义(P〉0.05)。两组治疗后HAMD评分、HAMA评分均较治疗前下降(P〈0.05)。并且,文拉法新组治疗后HAMD评分、HAMA评分均低于同期氟西汀组(P〈0.05)。两组不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P〉0.05)。结论:文拉法新与氟西汀对首发抑郁症治疗的疗效相当,不良反应少,安全性高,但文拉法新较氟西汀能够较快降低HAMD评分、HAMA评分,是治疗抑郁症较为理想的药物。
  • 查看更多

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号