中华行为医学与脑科学杂志
中華行為醫學與腦科學雜誌
중화행위의학여뇌과학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE AND BRAIN SCIENCE
2012年
5期
424-426
,共3页
度洛西汀%心理干预%躯体形式障碍
度洛西汀%心理榦預%軀體形式障礙
도락서정%심리간예%구체형식장애
Duloxetine%Psychological intervention%Somatoform disorders
目的 探讨度洛西汀联合心理干预治疗躯体形式障碍的临床疗效.方法 将67例躯体形式障碍患者采用随机数字表法随机分为研究组(度洛西汀合并心理干预)34例和对照组(单用度洛西汀)33例.应用症状自评量表(SCL-90)、汉密顿焦虑量表(HAMA)及大体评定量表(GAS)进行评定.结果 治疗8周后研究组SCL-90躯体化、强迫、抑郁、焦虑、恐怖因子分分别为(1.39±0.45)分,(1.66±0.52)分,(1.83±0.69)分,(1.73±0.66)分,(1.30±0.48)分,较对照组[分别为(1.78±0.61)分,(1.69±0.47)分,(2.39±0.54)分,(2.11±0.49)分,(1.49±0.78)分]低,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01)；治疗第2周末、第4周末,研究组SCL-90躯体化、抑郁、焦虑、恐怖因子分较对照组低,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)；治疗后,研究组HAMA评分(10.20±3.70)分较对照组(13.07±3.20)分明显下降,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)；两组显效率分别为85.29％、60.60％,两组痊愈率差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.08,P＜0.05).结论 度洛西汀合并心理干预治疗躯体化障碍较单一用药疗效更为显著,值得推广应用.
目的 探討度洛西汀聯閤心理榦預治療軀體形式障礙的臨床療效.方法 將67例軀體形式障礙患者採用隨機數字錶法隨機分為研究組(度洛西汀閤併心理榦預)34例和對照組(單用度洛西汀)33例.應用癥狀自評量錶(SCL-90)、漢密頓焦慮量錶(HAMA)及大體評定量錶(GAS)進行評定.結果 治療8週後研究組SCL-90軀體化、彊迫、抑鬱、焦慮、恐怖因子分分彆為(1.39±0.45)分,(1.66±0.52)分,(1.83±0.69)分,(1.73±0.66)分,(1.30±0.48)分,較對照組[分彆為(1.78±0.61)分,(1.69±0.47)分,(2.39±0.54)分,(2.11±0.49)分,(1.49±0.78)分]低,差異有統計學意義(P＜0.01)；治療第2週末、第4週末,研究組SCL-90軀體化、抑鬱、焦慮、恐怖因子分較對照組低,差異有統計學意義(P＜0.05)；治療後,研究組HAMA評分(10.20±3.70)分較對照組(13.07±3.20)分明顯下降,差異有統計學意義(P＜0.05)；兩組顯效率分彆為85.29％、60.60％,兩組痊愈率差異有統計學意義(χ2=4.08,P＜0.05).結論 度洛西汀閤併心理榦預治療軀體化障礙較單一用藥療效更為顯著,值得推廣應用.
목적 탐토도락서정연합심리간예치료구체형식장애적림상료효.방법 장67례구체형식장애환자채용수궤수자표법수궤분위연구조(도락서정합병심리간예)34례화대조조(단용도락서정)33례.응용증상자평량표(SCL-90)、한밀돈초필량표(HAMA)급대체평정량표(GAS)진행평정.결과 치료8주후연구조SCL-90구체화、강박、억욱、초필、공포인자분분별위(1.39±0.45)분,(1.66±0.52)분,(1.83±0.69)분,(1.73±0.66)분,(1.30±0.48)분,교대조조[분별위(1.78±0.61)분,(1.69±0.47)분,(2.39±0.54)분,(2.11±0.49)분,(1.49±0.78)분]저,차이유통계학의의(P＜0.01)；치료제2주말、제4주말,연구조SCL-90구체화、억욱、초필、공포인자분교대조조저,차이유통계학의의(P＜0.05)；치료후,연구조HAMA평분(10.20±3.70)분교대조조(13.07±3.20)분명현하강,차이유통계학의의(P＜0.05)；량조현효솔분별위85.29％、60.60％,량조전유솔차이유통계학의의(χ2=4.08,P＜0.05).결론 도락서정합병심리간예치료구체화장애교단일용약료효경위현저,치득추엄응용.
Objective To observe the clinical efficacy of duloxetine combined with psychological intervention in patients with somatoform disorder.Methods 67 patients with somatoform disorder were randomly divided into two groups:study group (34 cases) treated with duloxetine and psychological intervention and control group (33 cases) treated with duloxetine only.And all the 67 patients in the study were assessed by symptom checklisth-90-R (SCL-90),hamilton anxiety scale(HAMA) and global assessment scale(GAS).Results After 8 weeks treatment,the results of SCL-90 showed that the scores of somatization,obsessive-compulsive,depression,anxiety and phobia factors in the study group ( 1.39 ± 0.45 ; 1.66 ± 0.52 ; 1.83 ± 0.69 ; 1.73 ± 0.66 ; 1.30 ± 0.48 )were notably lower than that in the control group ( 1.78 ± 0.61 ; 1.69 ± 0.47 ;2.39 ± 0.54 ; 2.1 1 ± 0.49 ; 1.49 ±0.78 ).And there were significant statistical differences (P＜ 0.01 ).At the end of the 2nd and 4th week the,scores of SCL-90 somatization,depression,anxiety and phobia factors were lower in the study group than the control group with statistical significance (P＜0.05).At the end of 8th week,the HAMA score in the study group( 10.20 ±3.70) was significantly decreased than the control group (13.07 ± 3.20 ),and with statistical significant (P ＜0.05 ).The response rate was 85.29％ in study group and 60.60％ in control group.And there was a statistically singnificant difference in complete remission ( χ2 =4. 08,P ＜ 0.05 ) between the two groups.Conclusion The study indicates that the combination of duloxetine and psychological intervention is more effective in treating somatoform disorder than using duloxetine only.So this combination treatment is worth generalizing and applying.
