@entity906 versus XXXX in the treatment of @entity3119 : a preliminary single-blind, 12-week, controlled study.

@entity1 @entity906 @entity3119 @entity8991
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate, in a single-blind manner over a period of 12 weeks, the efficacy and tolerability of @entity906 versus @entity8991 in the treatment of @entity3119 ( @entity3119 ). METHOD: @entity1 with a DSM-IV diagnosis of @entity3119 and a Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) score >/= 16 were randomly assigned to receive @entity906 , 225 to 350 mg/day (26 @entity1 ), or @entity8991 , 150 to 225 mg/day (47 @entity1 ), for 12 weeks, with dosage adjustments according to tolerability and response to treatment. All @entity1 were medication-free from at least 2 months prior to study enrollment. Efficacy measures were the YBOCS and the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI), which were completed at baseline and every 4 weeks. We defined responders as @entity1 who had an improvement from baseline in YBOCS score of >/= 35% and a CGI score </= 2. An investigator who was blinded to @entity1 ' current medication administered rating scales independently. Moreover, @entity1 were instructed not to reveal their current treatment to this investigator. RESULTS: Twenty-five @entity1 in the @entity906 group and 40 in the @entity8991 group completed the 12-week trial. Responder rates at the end of the 12 weeks were 36% for @entity906 (9/25) versus 50% for @entity8991 (20/40) according to the visitwise analysis and 34.6% (9/26) for @entity906 versus 42.6% (20/47) for @entity8991 according to the last-observation-carried-forward analysis, with no statistically significant difference between the 2 drugs. Adverse experiences were reported by 61.5% of @entity1 receiving @entity906 (16/26) and by 91.5% of those receiving @entity8991 (43/47). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that @entity906 might be as efficacious as @entity8991 in the acute treatment of @entity3119 , with fewer side effects.
