中国医药
中國醫藥
중국의약
China Medicine
2015年
9期
1368-1372
,共5页
广泛性焦虑障碍%联合用药%效果
廣汎性焦慮障礙%聯閤用藥%效果
엄범성초필장애%연합용약%효과
Generalized anxiety disorder%Combination therapy%Effect
目的 观察联合用药在广泛性焦虑障碍治疗中的应用效果及对患者生活质量的影响.方法 选取2011年11月至2013年4月于广西玉林市第一人民医院就诊的140例广泛性焦虑障碍患者,参考随机数字表法按照1:1比例将140例患者分为观察组和对照组,各70例.观察组给予联合用药(阿普唑仑、枸橼酸坦度螺酮、氯硝西泮、盐酸帕罗西汀),对照组给予阿普唑仑,4周为1个疗程,治疗2个疗程.对2组患者临床用药效果、不同时间段汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、焦虑自评量表(SAS)、抑郁自评量表(SDS)评分,生活质量评分以及用药不良反应量表(TESS)评分进行观察与对比.结果 观察组用药后临床受益率、总有效率均高于对照组,差异有统计学意义[80.0％(56/70)比54.3％ (38/70)、91.4％(64/70)比70.0％ (49/70),P＜0.05].用药1个疗程时和用药结束时观察组HAMA评分、SAS评分、SDS评分改善情况优于对照组[用药1个疗程时:(16.0±3.0)分比(23.0±2.5)分,(46.0±4.0)分比(50.8±2.0)分,(49.2±3.2)分比(52.3±3.6)分;用药结束时:(7.4±0.4)分比(18.2±1.6)分,(25.0±3.0)分比(41.0±3.5)分,(45.2±3.3)分比(49.3±3.2)分](P＜0.05),用药结束时,观察组生活质量评分高于对照组,差异有统计学意义[生理领域:(23.00±0.50)分比(20.00±1.45)分、心理领域:(18.65±1.28)分比(16.75±1.00)分、社会领域:(11.00±0.50)分比(9.50±0.63)分、环境领域:(29.45±3.06)分比(25.00 ±2.76)分、健康状况总主观感受:(3.02±0.40)分比(2.54±0.40)分、生活质量总主观感受:(3.40±0.15)分比(2.71±0.60)分,P＜0.05];用药第1个疗程时,观察组TESS评分明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义[(7.1±1.5)分比(6.0±1.2)分,P＜0.05];用药结束时观察组TESS评分与对照组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 联合用药(阿普唑仑、枸橼酸坦度螺酮、氯硝西泮、盐酸帕罗西汀)在广泛性焦虑障碍中应用效果明显且安全可靠.
目的 觀察聯閤用藥在廣汎性焦慮障礙治療中的應用效果及對患者生活質量的影響.方法 選取2011年11月至2013年4月于廣西玉林市第一人民醫院就診的140例廣汎性焦慮障礙患者,參攷隨機數字錶法按照1:1比例將140例患者分為觀察組和對照組,各70例.觀察組給予聯閤用藥(阿普唑崙、枸櫞痠坦度螺酮、氯硝西泮、鹽痠帕囉西汀),對照組給予阿普唑崙,4週為1箇療程,治療2箇療程.對2組患者臨床用藥效果、不同時間段漢密爾頓焦慮量錶(HAMA)、焦慮自評量錶(SAS)、抑鬱自評量錶(SDS)評分,生活質量評分以及用藥不良反應量錶(TESS)評分進行觀察與對比.結果 觀察組用藥後臨床受益率、總有效率均高于對照組,差異有統計學意義[80.0％(56/70)比54.3％ (38/70)、91.4％(64/70)比70.0％ (49/70),P＜0.05].用藥1箇療程時和用藥結束時觀察組HAMA評分、SAS評分、SDS評分改善情況優于對照組[用藥1箇療程時:(16.0±3.0)分比(23.0±2.5)分,(46.0±4.0)分比(50.8±2.0)分,(49.2±3.2)分比(52.3±3.6)分;用藥結束時:(7.4±0.4)分比(18.2±1.6)分,(25.0±3.0)分比(41.0±3.5)分,(45.2±3.3)分比(49.3±3.2)分](P＜0.05),用藥結束時,觀察組生活質量評分高于對照組,差異有統計學意義[生理領域:(23.00±0.50)分比(20.00±1.45)分、心理領域:(18.65±1.28)分比(16.75±1.00)分、社會領域:(11.00±0.50)分比(9.50±0.63)分、環境領域:(29.45±3.06)分比(25.00 ±2.76)分、健康狀況總主觀感受:(3.02±0.40)分比(2.54±0.40)分、生活質量總主觀感受:(3.40±0.15)分比(2.71±0.60)分,P＜0.05];用藥第1箇療程時,觀察組TESS評分明顯高于對照組,差異有統計學意義[(7.1±1.5)分比(6.0±1.2)分,P＜0.05];用藥結束時觀察組TESS評分與對照組比較差異無統計學意義(P＞0.05).結論 聯閤用藥(阿普唑崙、枸櫞痠坦度螺酮、氯硝西泮、鹽痠帕囉西汀)在廣汎性焦慮障礙中應用效果明顯且安全可靠.
목적 관찰연합용약재엄범성초필장애치료중적응용효과급대환자생활질량적영향.방법 선취2011년11월지2013년4월우엄서옥림시제일인민의원취진적140례엄범성초필장애환자,삼고수궤수자표법안조1:1비례장140례환자분위관찰조화대조조,각70례.관찰조급여연합용약(아보서륜、구연산탄도라동、록초서반、염산파라서정),대조조급여아보서륜,4주위1개료정,치료2개료정.대2조환자림상용약효과、불동시간단한밀이돈초필량표(HAMA)、초필자평량표(SAS)、억욱자평량표(SDS)평분,생활질량평분이급용약불량반응량표(TESS)평분진행관찰여대비.결과 관찰조용약후림상수익솔、총유효솔균고우대조조,차이유통계학의의[80.0％(56/70)비54.3％ (38/70)、91.4％(64/70)비70.0％ (49/70),P＜0.05].용약1개료정시화용약결속시관찰조HAMA평분、SAS평분、SDS평분개선정황우우대조조[용약1개료정시:(16.0±3.0)분비(23.0±2.5)분,(46.0±4.0)분비(50.8±2.0)분,(49.2±3.2)분비(52.3±3.6)분;용약결속시:(7.4±0.4)분비(18.2±1.6)분,(25.0±3.0)분비(41.0±3.5)분,(45.2±3.3)분비(49.3±3.2)분](P＜0.05),용약결속시,관찰조생활질량평분고우대조조,차이유통계학의의[생리영역:(23.00±0.50)분비(20.00±1.45)분、심리영역:(18.65±1.28)분비(16.75±1.00)분、사회영역:(11.00±0.50)분비(9.50±0.63)분、배경영역:(29.45±3.06)분비(25.00 ±2.76)분、건강상황총주관감수:(3.02±0.40)분비(2.54±0.40)분、생활질량총주관감수:(3.40±0.15)분비(2.71±0.60)분,P＜0.05];용약제1개료정시,관찰조TESS평분명현고우대조조,차이유통계학의의[(7.1±1.5)분비(6.0±1.2)분,P＜0.05];용약결속시관찰조TESS평분여대조조비교차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).결론 연합용약(아보서륜、구연산탄도라동、록초서반、염산파라서정)재엄범성초필장애중응용효과명현차안전가고.
Objective To observe the effect of combination therapy on generalized anxiety disorder and life quality.Methods Totally 140 patients with generalized anxiety disorder from September 2011 to April 2013 were enrolled and randomly divided into observation group and control group (17 cases in each group).The patients in observation group received combination therapy (alprazolam,tandospirone citrate,clonazepam diazepam,paroxetine hydrochloride) and the patients in control group was only given alprazolam.One course was 4 weeks and the treatment had 2 courses.After treatment,the clinical effect was observed; the Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA),self rating anxiety scale (SAS),self-rating depression scale (SDS),life quality score and adverse drug reactions symptom scale (TESS) before treatment,1 and 2 courses after treatment were observed and compared between the two groups.Results The clinical benefit rate and total effective rate in observation group were significantly higher than those in control group [80.0％ (56/70) vs 54.3％ (38/70),91.4％ (64/70) vs 70.0％ (49/70),P＜0.05].After 1 and 2 courses of treatment,the HAMA score,SAS score,SDS score and life quality score in observation group were all significantly better than those in control group [after 1 course of treatment:(16.0 ± 3.0) scores vs (23.0 ± 2.5) scores,(46.0±4.0) scores vs (50.8 ±2.0) scores,(49.2 ±3.2) scores vs (52.3 ±3.6) scores; after 2 courses of treatment:(7.4 ± 0.4) scores vs (18.2 ± 1.6) scores,(25.0 ± 3.0) scores vs (41.0 ± 3.5) scores,(45.2 ±3.3) scores vs (49.3 ±3.2) scores] (P ＜0.05).After 2 courses of treatment,the life quality scores in observation group were significantly higher than those in control group [physiological domain:(23.00 ± 0.50) scores vs (20.00 ± 1.45) scores,psychical domain:(18.65 ± 1.28) scores vs (16.75 ± 1.00) scores,social domain:(11.00 0.50) scores vs (9.50 ± 0.63) scores,environmental domain:(29.45 ± 3.06) scores vs (25.00 ± 2.76) scores,subjective feeling of health:(3.02 ± 0.40) scores vs (2.54 ± 0.40) scores,subjective feeling of life quality:(3.40 ±0.15) scores vs (2.71 ±0.60) scores].After 1 course of treatment,the TESS scores in observation group was significantly higher than that in control group [(7.1 ± 1.5) scores vs (6.0 ± 1.2) scores] (P ＜ 0.05) ; there was no significant difference at the end of the treatment [(5.6 ± 1.5) scores vs (5.0 ± 1.7) scores] (P ＞0.05).Conclusion Combination therapy (alprazolam,tandospirone citrate,clonazepam diazepam,paroxetine hydrochloride) treating generalized anxiety disorder is safe and effective.
