Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T21:56:17.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Clinical comparison of anxiolytic drug therapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

Malcolm H. Lader
Affiliation:
Instituts of Psychiatry, University of London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London
Alyson J. Bond
Affiliation:
Instituts of Psychiatry, University of London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London
D. Colin James
Affiliation:
Instituts of Psychiatry, University of London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London

Sysnopsis

Twenty outpatients suffering from chronic anxiety states completed a trial of anxiolytic drug therapy. They each received five treatments: amylobarbitone sodium, chlordiazepoxide, diazepam, medazepam, and a placebo in flexible dosage in a fully balanced design, using doubleblind procedures. They were assessed on the Hamilton rating scale for anxiety after a period of two to four weeks on each of the treatments and they completed self-ratings every three days. The selfratings were composed of at least three prime symptoms chosen by the patient himself and phrased in his own words as well as ‘loss of appetite’ and ‘insomnia’. Neither placebo nor amylobarbitone produced any substantial improvement from pre-drug levels of anxiety but all three benzodiazepines produced significant and very similar decreases in both Hamilton ratings and self-ratings. These two measures also correlated highly. The majority of the patients continued with medazepam at the end of the formal trial.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bond, A. J., James, D. C., and Lader, M. H. (1974a). Physiological and psychological measures in anxious patients. Psychological Medicine (In press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, A. J., James, D. C., and Lader, M. H. (1974b). Sedative effects on physiological and psychological measures in anxious patients. Psychological Medicine, 4, 374380CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daneman, E. A. (1969). A comparative trial of medazepam (Nobrium) in anxiety-depressive states. Psychosomatics, 10, 366369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, M. (1959). The assessment of anxiety states by rating. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 32, 5055.Google Scholar
Kerry, R. J., and McDermott, C. M. (1971). Medazepam compared with amylobarbitone in treatment of anxiety. British Medical Journal, 1, 151152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lader, M. H., and Wing, L. (1966). Physiological Measures, Sedative Drugs and Morbid Anxiety. Maudsley Monographs No. 14. Oxford University Press: London.Google Scholar
Pasini, E. (1970). Studio in doppio-cieco sull'impiego del Nobrium in terapia ambulatoriale. Rivista Sperimentale di Freniatria e Medicina Legale delle Alienazioni Mentali, 94, 726754.Google Scholar
Perez Lopez, M. (1970). Estudio de un doble “test” ciego con ‘Nobrium’. Ciencias Neurologicas, 4, 2938.Google Scholar
Silverstone, J. T., Carne, H. J., Cooper, R. M., Dell, A. J., and Salkind, M. R. (1971). The controlled evaluation of a new tranquillizing drug medazepam in the treatment of anxiety. British Journal of Clinical Practice 25, 172174.Google ScholarPubMed
Williams, E. J. (1949). Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Series A, 2, 149168.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. McGraw-Hill: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar