中华精神科杂志
中華精神科雜誌
중화정신과잡지
CHINESE JOURNA OF PSYCHIATRY
2009年
3期
146-148
,共3页
高代林%徐佳军%毕建强%舒建民%张郭莺%杨彦春%孙学礼
高代林%徐佳軍%畢建彊%舒建民%張郭鶯%楊彥春%孫學禮
고대림%서가군%필건강%서건민%장곽앵%양언춘%손학례
抑郁症%认知疗法%行为疗法%文拉法辛
抑鬱癥%認知療法%行為療法%文拉法辛
억욱증%인지요법%행위요법%문랍법신
Depressive disorder%Cognitive therapy%Behavior therapy%Verdafaxine
目的 比较文拉法辛联合不同治疗方案对难治性抑郁症疗效.方法 采用数字随机法将69例难治性抑郁症患者分为文拉法辛(75～375 ms/d)合并碳酸锂(500～1000 mg/d)组、文拉法辛合并奥氮平(5～10 ms/d)组,文拉法辛合并认知行为治疗组,每组均为23例,观察疗程均为6周.主要疗效指标为汉密尔顿抑郁量表(17项,HAMD)减分率.HAMD减分率采用t检验进行两两比较.结果 治疗第6周末,文拉法辛合并认知行为组HAMD减分率[(61±5)%]与合并碳酸锂组[(54±7)%]的差异有统计学意义(t=8.90,P<0.05);与合并奥氮平组[(47±6)%]的差异亦有统计学意义(t=3.46,P<0.05).合并碳酸锂组HAMD减分率与合并奥氮平组的差异无统计学意义(t=0.00,P>0.05).结论 文拉法辛联合认知行为治疗难治性抑郁症的疗效优于文拉法辛联合碳酸锂或奥氮平.
目的 比較文拉法辛聯閤不同治療方案對難治性抑鬱癥療效.方法 採用數字隨機法將69例難治性抑鬱癥患者分為文拉法辛(75～375 ms/d)閤併碳痠鋰(500～1000 mg/d)組、文拉法辛閤併奧氮平(5～10 ms/d)組,文拉法辛閤併認知行為治療組,每組均為23例,觀察療程均為6週.主要療效指標為漢密爾頓抑鬱量錶(17項,HAMD)減分率.HAMD減分率採用t檢驗進行兩兩比較.結果 治療第6週末,文拉法辛閤併認知行為組HAMD減分率[(61±5)%]與閤併碳痠鋰組[(54±7)%]的差異有統計學意義(t=8.90,P<0.05);與閤併奧氮平組[(47±6)%]的差異亦有統計學意義(t=3.46,P<0.05).閤併碳痠鋰組HAMD減分率與閤併奧氮平組的差異無統計學意義(t=0.00,P>0.05).結論 文拉法辛聯閤認知行為治療難治性抑鬱癥的療效優于文拉法辛聯閤碳痠鋰或奧氮平.
목적 비교문랍법신연합불동치료방안대난치성억욱증료효.방법 채용수자수궤법장69례난치성억욱증환자분위문랍법신(75～375 ms/d)합병탄산리(500～1000 mg/d)조、문랍법신합병오담평(5～10 ms/d)조,문랍법신합병인지행위치료조,매조균위23례,관찰료정균위6주.주요료효지표위한밀이돈억욱량표(17항,HAMD)감분솔.HAMD감분솔채용t검험진행량량비교.결과 치료제6주말,문랍법신합병인지행위조HAMD감분솔[(61±5)%]여합병탄산리조[(54±7)%]적차이유통계학의의(t=8.90,P<0.05);여합병오담평조[(47±6)%]적차이역유통계학의의(t=3.46,P<0.05).합병탄산리조HAMD감분솔여합병오담평조적차이무통계학의의(t=0.00,P>0.05).결론 문랍법신연합인지행위치료난치성억욱증적료효우우문랍법신연합탄산리혹오담평.
Objective To compare the efficacy of venlafaxine combination of cognitive behavior therapy or lithium or olanzapine for treatment-resistant depression. Method A prospective stratified randomized controlled clinical trial were adopted to the patients with treatment-resistant depression. 69 cases were divided into three groups with random number table, each group including 23 cases. One group was with venlafaxine combination of cognitive behavior therapy, others with combination of lithium, or olanzapine, for 6 weeks to observe the efficacy. The major indexes for therapeutic effects was Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) reducing score rate. Results The differences were significant in HAMD reducing score rate between the group with combination of cognitive behavior therapy[(61±5) %] and the group with combination of lithium [( 54 ± 7 ) %] ( t = 8.90, P < 0. 05 ), or olanzapine [( 47 ± 6 ) %] ( t =3.46,P < 0.05 ), with no significant difference is between the group with combination of lithium and the group with combination of olanzapine. Conclusion The total efficacy of venlafaxine combination of cognitive behavior therapy is superior to venlafaxine combination of lithium or olanzapine for treatmet-resistant depression.
