您的位置:山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报(医学版)》

山东大学学报(医学版) ›› 2012, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (9): 113-117.

• 医学心理学 • 上一篇    下一篇

焦虑症状对抑郁症治疗效果的影响

魏倩倩1, 焦志安2,高进2,赵国庆2   

  1. 山东大学 1.医学院, 济南 250012; 2.附属省立医院临床心理科, 济南 250021
  • 收稿日期:2012-03-12 出版日期:2012-09-10 发布日期:2012-09-10
  • 通讯作者: 焦志安(1964- ),男,副教授,主任医师,主要从事心境障碍研究。E-mail: jiaozhian@126.com
  • 作者简介:魏倩倩(1986- ),女,硕士研究生,主要从事心境障碍研究

Effects of anxiety symptoms on the treatment of depression

WEI Qian-qian1, JIAO Zhi-an2, GAO Jin2, ZHAO Guo-qing2   

  1. 1.School of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China;
     2.Department of Clinical Psychology, Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan 250021, China
  • Received:2012-03-12 Online:2012-09-10 Published:2012-09-10

摘要:

目的   观察伴或不伴焦虑症状的抑郁症患者临床特征及对抗抑郁治疗临床疗效的影响。方法   抑郁症患者319例,根据汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)评分结果分为抑郁症不伴焦虑症状组(HAMA<14分;A组,n=134)和抑郁症伴焦虑症状组(HAMA≥14分;B组,n=185),两组患者随机进入不同药物治疗组进行开放性治疗,疗程为8周,在治疗前以及第1、2、4、8周末进行汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD17)、HAMA及不良反应量表(TESS)评定。结果   A组与B组患者自杀风险差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。A、B两组基线HAMD评分比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),治疗8周后,两组HAMD和HAMA评分较基线相比均有统计学差异(P<0.01),A、B两组有效率分别为65.3%和47.5%(P<0.01)。治疗第2周末A、B两组起效率分别为75.2%和 50.0%(P<0.01)。治疗每个时间点HAMD和HAMA评分两组比较有统计学差异(P<0.01);A1(抑郁症不伴焦虑症状使用艾司西酞普兰)与A2(抑郁症不伴焦虑症状使用文拉法辛)组间的第2周起效率、第8周有效率及临床痊愈率未见明显差异(P>0.05),B1(抑郁症伴焦虑症状使用艾司西酞普兰)与B2(抑郁症伴焦虑症状使用文拉法辛)组间的第2周起效率和第8周有效率,无统计学差异(P>0.05),临床痊愈率分别为3.7%和12.8%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论   伴有焦虑症状的抑郁症患者自杀风险高,病情更严重,抗抑郁治疗起效更慢,临床疗效相对于不伴焦虑症状者差,文拉法辛对伴焦虑症状的抑郁症疗效更优。

关键词: 抑郁症;焦虑症状;艾司西酞普兰;文拉法辛;焦虑性抑郁

Abstract:

Objective   To investigate the clinical features and curative effects in the treatment of depression patients with or without anxiety symptoms. Methods   319 depression disorder patients were divided into 2 groups according to the the Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA):the patients in the group A suffered from depression without anxiety(HAMA<14,n=134)and the patients in the group B suffered from  depression with anxiety(HAMA≥14, n=185). All the patients received the open anti-depression treatment for 8 weeks. The Hamilton depressive scale (HAMD17), HAMA and the treatment emergent symptom scale(TESS) were used to evaluate the efficacy and side effects before the treatment and at the end of the 1st, 2nd,4th and 8th week. Results   There was significant difference between group A and group B in the suicide risk(P<0.01). The baseline mean scores of HAMD had significant difference between the two groups (P<0.01). After 8 weeks of treatment, the HAMD and HAMA scores in both groups decreased significantly compared with those before the treatment (P<0.01). The effective rates were 65.3% and 47.5% in group A and group B respectively (P<0.01). At the end of 2nd week, the onset rates of the two groups were 75.2% and 50.0%(P<0.01) . There were significant differences in the mean scores of HAMD and HAMA between the two groups at every time point during treatments (P<0.01) . There were no significant differences between groups A1(depression without anxiety symptoms and treatment with Escitalopram) and A2 (depression without anxiety symptoms and treatment with Venlafaxine) in the onset rate at 2nd week, the efficient rate and the clinical cure rate at 8th week (P>0.05). There were no significant differences between groups B1(depression with anxiety symptoms and treat with Escitalopram )and B2(depression with anxiety symptoms and treat with Venlafaxine) in the onset rate at 2nd week and the efficient rate at the 8th week (P>0.05), but there was significant difference in the clinical cure rate at 8th week between group B1 and group B2(P<0.05), and the rates were 3.7% and 12.8%.  Conclusion   The patients suffered from depression with anxiety have worse pathogenetic conditions, higher risk of suicide, poorer response to antidepressants, as well as poorer prognosis contrast with those without anxiety. Venlafaxine has better prognosis than Escitalopram in the treatment of the depression patients with anxiety symptoms.

Key words: Major depression; Comorbid anxiety symptoms; Escitalopram; Venlafaxine; Anxious depression

中图分类号: 

  • R749.053
No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!