躯体形式障碍患者的述情障碍

目的：探讨躯体形式障碍患者的心理健康状况,以及与述情障碍的关系.方法：采用症状自评量表（SCL-90）及多伦多述情障碍量表（TAS）对60例躯体形式障碍患者（患者组）和60名健康自愿者（对照组）进行测评,并对躯体形式障碍患者的心理健康状况与述情障碍作相关分析.结果：患者组SCL-90总分及躯体化、人际关系敏感、抑郁、焦虑、偏执、精神病性6个因子评分均显著高于对照组（P＜0.05或P＜0.01）;其TAS总分及因子Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅳ评分亦均显著高于对照组（P＜0.05或P＜0.01）,而因子Ⅲ评分两组间比较,差别则无统计学意义.躯体形式障碍患者的SCL-90总分与TAS总分及因子Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅳ评分均呈显著性正相关;而与因子Ⅲ评分则无显著性相关.结论：躯体形式障碍患者的心理健康状况较差,并与述情障碍有关.     

军人失眠症患者的述情障碍与心理健康状况的相关研究

目的探讨军人失眠症患者的述情障碍与心理健康状况及两者的关系。方法采用多伦多述情障碍量表(TAS-20)和症状自评量表(SCL-90)对48例军人失眠症患者进行评估,并随机抽取某部50名官兵作为对照组。结果①与对照组和军人常模比较,军人失眠症患者存有明显的述情障碍和多心理症状(P<0.05或0.01);②军人失眠症患者多伦多述情障碍量表总分、因子Ⅰ、Ⅱ与SCL-90各因子分呈正相关,因子Ⅲ与SCL-90各因子评分呈负相关(P<0.05或0.01)。结论军人失眠症患者的心理健康状况明显低于对照组官兵,述情障碍是影响军人失眠症患者心理健康水平的重要因素。     

躯体化障碍与以躯体症状为主诉的抑郁症个性、躯体主诉、生活质量比较

目的探讨躯体化障碍与以躯体症状为主诉的抑郁症患者个性、躯体主诉、生活质量差异。方法对30例躯体化障碍和30例以躯体症状为主诉的抑郁症患者分别采用自编躯体症状主诉频数表,艾森克人格问卷（EPQ）、汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）、健康状况调查问卷（SF-36）等进行评定,对影响生活质量的某些因素进行多元回归分析。结果两组躯体主诉无显著性差异（P〉0．0．5）;躯体化障碍组E分显著低于抑郁症组,N分显著高于抑郁症组（P〈0．05）;两组HAMD总分无差异（P〉0．05）,躯体化障碍组焦虑／躯体化及认知障碍因子分显著高于抑郁症（P〈0．05）,躯体化障碍的HAMA总分及躯体性焦虑分显著高于抑郁症组（P〈0．05）;躯体化障碍组生理机能、生理职能、躯体疼痛分量表评分均显著低于抑郁症组（P〈0．05）;多元回归分析结果,影响两组患者生活质量的主要因素依次为HAMD总分、HAMA总分、EPQ精神质因子、病程。结论躯体化障碍与以躯体症状为主诉的抑郁症患者在个性、HAMA总分、躯体焦虑因子分、生活质量方面有差异,两者的个性、疾病严重程度、病程为影响生活质量的重要因素。     

度洛西汀联合喹硫平治疗躯体化障碍的临床研究

目的探讨度洛西汀联合喹硫平治疗躯体化障碍的疗效及安全性。方法 100例躯体化障碍患者随机分为研究组(度洛西汀联合喹硫平组)和对照组(度洛西汀组),疗程8周。用症状自评量表(SCL-90)、汉密尔顿抑郁、焦虑量表(HAMD、HAMA)评定严重程度,用副反应量表(TESS)评定不良反应;用SCL-90躯体化因子分和HAMD量表减分率评定疗效。结果1治疗8周后,两组SCL-90各因子分、HAMD及HAMA分均呈下降趋势;研究组HAMD、HAMA、SCL-90躯体化、强迫、抑郁、焦虑及偏执因子分均较对照组下降显著(P0.05或0.01)。研究组和对照组有效率分别为81.6%和64.0%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。2研究组和对照组不良反应发生率分别为42%和36%(P0.05),TESS评分为[(5.21±3.60)vs.(4.80±3.80),P0.05]。结论度洛西汀联合喹硫平治疗躯体化障碍疗效优于单用度洛西汀,且安全性好。     

帕利哌酮对文拉法辛治疗躯体形式障碍的增效作用研究

目的探讨小剂量帕利哌酮对文拉法辛治疗躯体形式障碍的增效作用及安全性。方法将年龄在23～56岁之间符合CCMD-3躯体形式障碍诊断标准的患者58例随机分为对照组(文拉法辛组)及研究组(文拉法辛合并帕利哌酮组)各29例,治疗8周。于治疗前、治疗2、4、8周末分别应用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)及症状自评量表(SCL-90)评价疗效,应用副反应量表(TESS)评定不良反应,将两组结果加以分析、比较。结果治疗第2周末开始研究组HAMD及SCL-90抑郁因子分明显低于对照组(P<0.05);第4周末开始研究组HAMA及SCL-90躯体化、焦虑因子分明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。两组各时期TESS评分无显著差异(P>0.05)。治疗8周末研究组有效率为82.8%,对照组有效率为65.5%,两组间差异有显著性意义(P<0.05)。结论小剂量帕利哌酮对文拉法辛治疗躯体形式障碍的增效作用明显且安全,控制抑郁症状更加迅速。     

以头晕为主诉的无症状脑梗死患者躯体化障碍的临床分析

目的 探讨以头晕为主诉的无症状脑梗死(SBI)患者的心理状态,并观察明确为躯体化障碍的患者帕罗西汀治疗后的临床疗效。方法 采用躯体化症状自评量表(SSS)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)和汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)对157例以头晕为主诉的SBI患者进行心理状态评定,并根据ICD-10的诊断标准明确诊断为躯体化障碍患者给予帕罗西汀治疗8周,以临床症状缓解程度及治疗前后HAMA、HAMD、SSS及躯体化症状自评量表的躯体化因子(SSS-S)评分来评定疗效。结果 ①通过SSS评定,61.7%的患者存在心理障碍; ②经ICD-10诊断标准明确诊断为躯体化障碍患者32例,给予帕罗西汀治疗后头晕基本消失,临床症状缓解, HAMA、HAMD、SSS、SSS-S及SSS-S中单因子评分均明显降低(P<0.05)。结论 以头晕为主诉的SBI患者存在较多的心理障碍,明确为躯体化障碍的患者给予帕罗西汀治疗后头晕消失。     

氨磺必利合并度洛西汀治疗以躯体症状为主的抑郁症对照研究

目的探讨氨磺必利合并度洛西汀对以躯体症状为主的抑郁症的疗效及安全性。方法采用随机开放对照研究,将符合《国际疾病分类(第10版)》(ICD-10)抑郁症伴躯体症状诊断标准的60例患者按随机数字表法分为氨磺必利合并度洛西汀治疗组(研究组)和单纯度洛西汀治疗组(对照组)各30例,均治疗8周。在治疗前和治疗后2、4、6、8周末采用汉密顿抑郁量表17项版(HRSD-17)、症状自评量表(SCL-90)躯体化因子、副反应量表(TESS)进行疗效及副作用测评。结果治疗后两组HRSD-17评分和SCL-90躯体化因子分值较治疗前差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。在治疗后第2周末起,两组HRSD-17评分和SCL-90因子分值同期比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05或0.01),两组不良反应症状均较轻,患者均能耐受,未做特殊处理。结论氨磺必利合并度洛西汀对躯体症状为主的抑郁症的疗效和安全性可能优于单一使用度洛西汀治疗。     

抑郁症初发年龄、病程与症状的相关分析

目的探讨抑郁症患者初发年龄、病程与症状的相关性。方法对40例抑郁症患者进行HAMD、HAMA、MADRS,SCL-90评定,将量表评定结果与初发的年龄、病程进行相关分析。结果抑郁症初发年龄与HAMD总分、焦虑/躯体化因子、睡眠障碍因子、与HAMA总分、躯体性焦虑、精神性焦虑、与MADRS、与SCL-90躯体化因子、焦虑因子均呈正相关（r=0.4829、0.4075、0.3791、0.5604、0.4551、0.4937、0.3197、0.3304,P〈0.01、0.05）,病程与HAMD总分、体重减轻呈负相关（r=-0.3077、-0.4891、P〈0.05、0.01）。结论抑郁症患者抑郁焦虑症状随初发年龄的增大而更趋严重,临床上对不同年龄段的初发抑郁症患者治疗上应区别对待。     

躯体形式障碍患者躯体症状自评量表与SCL-90躯体化因子的相关性

目的探讨躯体症状自评量表(SSS)与症状自评量表(SCL-90)躯体化因子是否存在相关性。方法收集符合《精神障碍诊断与统计手册(第4版)》(DSM-IV)诊断标准的躯体化障碍和未分化型躯体形式障碍患者25例,采用自制一般情况调查表、SSS和SCL-90躯体化因子进行记录和评定,将受试者SCL-90躯体化因子评分与中国常模进行比较,分析SCL-90躯体化因子和SSS的相关性。结果受试者SCL-90躯体化因子评分高于中国常模水平[(12.28±7.63)分vs.(1.37±0.48)分,t=7.15,P0.01];躯体化严重程度指数(SSI)和症状数分别为(154.04±38.97)分和(18.0±13.0),SCL-90躯体化因子评分与SSS中的SSI和症状数均呈正相关(r=0.750,0.730,P均0.01)。结论 SSS可作为评估SFD的工具,是SCL-90躯体化因子的补充。     

恶劣心境患者述情障碍与自主神经功能的相关研究

目的:探讨恶劣心境患者的人格特质、述情障碍与自主神经功能心理生理反应的相关机制。方法:采用多伦多述情障碍量表中文版(TAS-20-C)及心理健康测查表(PHI)对42例恶劣心境患者组(DD组)、33例重性抑郁症患者组(MD组)及30例健康对照组(NC组)进行述情障碍和心理健康水平和人格特质测定,并分析短时(5min)心率变异性(HRV),评定自主神经功能。结果:DD组TAS-20-C各因子得分及总分显著高于NC组(P<0.01),因子Ⅰ、因子Ⅱ及总分均明显高于MD组(P<0.01或P<0.05);DD组PHI量表躯体化、焦虑、病态人格及疑心因子分明显高于MD组(P<0.01或P<0.05);DD组HRV频谱指标中SDNN、PNN50及HF较MD及NC组均显著下降(P<0.01或P<0.05),LF∕HF较MD及NC组均明显升高(P<0.05);TAS-20-C总分及因子Ⅰ与躯体化、焦虑、病态人格、疑心均相关(︱r︱=0.25～0.38,0.40～0.44,0.47～0.59,0.43～0.42,P<0.01或P<0.05),因子Ⅱ与焦虑及变态人格相关(︱r︱=0.31,0.31,P<0.05);躯体化及焦虑与SDNN、VLF及LF均相关(︱r︱=0.26～0.27,0.39～0.27;︱r︱=0.36～0.28,P<0.05或P<0.01)。结论:恶劣心境患者存在明显的述情障碍,其人格特质可能导致患者焦虑程度更高,伴自主神经功能紊乱。     

The relationship between alexithymia and salivary cortisol levels in somatoform disorders

The purpose of this study was to investigate cortisol levels as a function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) in relation to alexithymia in patients with somatoform disorders (SFD). Diurnal salivary cortisol was sampled in 32 patients with SFD who also underwent a psychiatric examination and filled in questionnaires (Toronto Alexithymia Scale, TAS scale; Screening for Somatoform Symptoms, SOMS scale; Hamilton Depression Scale, HAMD). The mean TAS total score in the sample was 55.6+/-9.6, 32% of patients being classified as alexithymic on the basis of their TAS scores. Depression scores were moderate (HAMD=13.2, Beck Depression Inventory, BDI=16.5). The patients' alexithymia scores (TAS scale "Difficulty identifying feelings") correlated significantly positively with their somatization scale scores (Symptom Checklist-90 Revised, SCL-90-R); r=0.3438 (P<0.05) and their scores on the Global Severity Index (GSI) on the SCL-90-R; r=0.781 (P<0.01). Regression analysis was performed with cortisol variables as the dependent variables. Cortisol levels [measured by the area under the curve-ground (AUC-G), area under the curve-increase (AUC-I) and morning cortisol (MCS)] were best predicted in a multiple linear regression model by lower depressive scores (HAMD) and more psychopathological symptoms (SCL-90-R). No significant correlations were found between the patients' alexithymia scores (TAS) and cortisol levels. The healthy control group (n=25) demonstrated significantly higher cortisol levels than did the patients with SFD; in both tests P<0.001 for AUC-G and AUC-I. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of their mean morning cortisol levels (P>0.05). The results suggest that pre-existing hypocortisolism might possibly be associated with SFD.     

The relationship between alexithymia and salivary cortisol levels in somatoform disorders

The purpose of this study was to investigate cortisol levels as a function of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis (HPA) in relation to alexithymia in patients with somatoform disorders (SFD). Diurnal salivary cortisol was sampled in 32 patients with SFD who also underwent a psychiatric examination and filled in questionnaires (Toronto Alexithymia Scale, TAS scale; Screening for Somatoform Symptoms, SOMS scale; Hamilton Depression Scale, HAMD). The mean TAS total score in the sample was 55.6±9.6, 32% of patients being classified as alexithymic on the basis of their TAS scores. Depression scores were moderate (HAMD=13.2, Beck Depression Inventory, BDI=16.5). The patients’ alexithymia scores (TAS scale “Difficulty identifying feelings”) correlated significantly positively with their somatization scale scores (Symptom Checklist-90 Revised, SCL-90-R); r=0.3438 (P<0.05) and their scores on the Global Severity Index (GSI) on the SCL-90-R; r=0.781 (P<0.01). Regression analysis was performed with cortisol variables as the dependent variables. Cortisol levels [measured by the area under the curve–ground (AUC-G), area under the curve–increase (AUC-I) and morning cortisol (MCS)] were best predicted in a multiple linear regression model by lower depressive scores (HAMD) and more psychopathological symptoms (SCL-90-R). No significant correlations were found between the patients’ alexithymia scores (TAS) and cortisol levels. The healthy control group (n=25) demonstrated significantly higher cortisol levels than did the patients with SFD; in both tests P<0.001 for AUC-G and AUC-I. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of their mean morning cortisol levels (P>0.05). The results suggest that pre-existing hypocortisolism might possibly be associated with SFD.     

躯体形式障碍患者述情障碍的相关因素分析

目的 探讨躯体形式障碍（SD）患者述情障碍的影响因素.方法 采用自编的躯体症状报告单、贝克抑郁问卷（BDI）、认知情绪调节问卷（CERQ-C）、多伦多述情量表（TASk0）、儿童期受虐经历问卷（CTQ-SF）对115例SD患者（研究组）进行评定,使用TASk0量表对101名健康志愿者（对照组）进行评定.结果 纳入研究的109例研究组患者TAS-20总分及各因子分均高于对照组（P＜0.01）.躯体症状报告单、CERQ-C、CTQ-SF及BDI多个因素中与TAS-20总分及TAS-20因子Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ有相关性（P＜0.05,P＜0.01）.躯体症状报告单总分、躯体忽视、呼吸系统症状和睡眠障碍依次进入TAS-20总分的回归方程;BDI总分、泌尿生殖系统症状、积极重新关注依次进入TAS-20因子Ⅰ的回归方程;躯体症状报告单总分与情感虐待依次进入TAS-20因子Ⅱ的回归方程.结论 SD有明显的述情障碍.SD述情障碍的不同纬度影响因素不同,躯体化症状、抑郁情绪等为SD患者述情障碍的重要影响因素.     

The Relationship between Alexithymia and General Symptoms of Patients with Depressive Disorders

Objective

Depression has been associated with alexithymic features. However, few studies have investigated the differences in the general symptoms of patients with depressive disorders according to the presence of alexithymia. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between alexithymia and symptoms experienced by patients with clinically diagnosed depressive disorders.

Methods

A chart review of patients who were evaluated using the Korean version of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90-R) at the same time between the years 2003 and 2007 was conducted. A total of 104 patients with depressive disorders were included and divided into two groups: alexithymia (n=52) and non-alexithymia (n=52). A direct comparison between the two groups was carried out. Regression analysis was also carried out for the TAS-20 total and subset scores in order to model the relationship between alexithymia and symptoms.

Results

The presence of alexithymia was confirmed in 50% of the patients with depressive disorders, and the symptoms of depressive patients with alexithymia were more severe than those of their non-alexithymic counterparts on all 9 symptom domains of the SCL-90-R. Furthermore, regression analysis revealed that the presence of alexithymia was positively associated with depression, phobic anxiety, and psychoticism but inversely associated with anxiety.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the clinical features of depression are partially dependent on the presence of alexithymia. Alexithymic patients with depressive disorders are likely to show more severe depressive, psychotic, and phobic symptoms. In other words, clinicians should suspect the presence of alexithymic tendencies if these symptoms coexist in patients with depressive disorders and address their difficulties in effective communication.     

Alexithymia,temperament and character as predictors of psychopathology in patients with major depression

The study investigated the capacity of alexithymic personality features, in combination with temperament and character traits, age and gender, to predict psychopathological symptoms in patients with major depression. Consecutive patients (n = 339) were investigated using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20), the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI), the Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R), and the Hamilton Depression and Anxiety Rating Scales (HDRS, HARS). The amount of variance in SCL-90-R subscales and Hamilton scales predicted by TAS-20, TCI, age and gender was calculated by linear regression analyses. The ‘difficulties identifying feeling’ facet of alexithymia appeared to be a significant predictor of all dimensions of psychopathology. Among TCI scales harm avoidance was the strongest predictor for somatization, phobic anxiety, and anxiety (SCL-90-R, HARS); low self-directedness was the strongest predictor for obsessionality, depression (SCL-90-R, HDRS), interpersonal sensitivity and psychoticism; and low cooperativeness was the strongest predictor for hostility and paranoia. In conclusion, many psychopathological symptoms in major depression are associated with difficulties in the identification of emotions. Relative to alexithymia, Cloninger's psychobiological model of personality could predict psychopathological symptoms in a distinct and meaningful manner. The TAS-20 and the TCI are useful questionnaires for a better understanding of the relationship between psychopathology and personality in major depression.     

神经症与抑郁症的躯体化症状及经济损失比较

目的：比较神经症和抑郁症躯体症状的特点及经济损失。方法：对初次就诊的神经症和抑郁症患者，采用自编躯体症状的特点及经济负担调查问卷，调查躯体症状及经济损失状况。结果：二者躯体症状所占的比例差异无显著性，神经症组的病程显著长于抑郁症组，外院就诊次数也多于后组，从其他科至医学心理科就诊的时间间隔长。抑郁症组汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）精神焦虑因子分、汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）总分、体质量、认知障碍、日夜变化、阻滞、绝望感因子分均高于神经症组，焦虑／躯体化因子分低于神经症组。躯体症状组HAMA总分及躯体焦虑因子分、HAMD总分、焦虑／躯体化、体质量、睡眠障碍、绝望感因子分均高于无躯体症状组。神经症组的直接经济损失重于抑郁症组。结论：抑郁症、神经症的抑郁、焦虑、躯体症状的表现有各自特点，躯体症状会加重抑郁和焦虑症状，均造成很大的经济负担。     

具有分离症状的抑郁症临床特征分析

目的：探讨伴有分离症状的抑郁症患者临床特征。方法：采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）对44例伴或不伴有分离症状抑郁症（分别为研究组及对照组各22例）在治疗前、后各评定1次。结果：两组在治疗2周HAMD总分与治疗前相比均有显著减少（P〈0．05），说明均有显著疗效。研究组除焦虑／抑郁因子分无显著差异外，其他因子分在治疗第2周末均有显著减少。结论：研究组患者的临床特点与所处亚文化背景密切相关。应密切注意这类患者的诊断与治疗。     

Psychopathological constellation in patients with PNES: A new hypothesis

Depression symptoms have often reported in patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES), although the underlying psychopathological symptomatology has been poorly understood. Our aim was to compare constellations of psychological and behavioral disturbance in PNES with respect to patients with mild-major depressive disorder (MDD), hypothesizing that the construct of depression might be different in the two groups.Ten patients with PNES and ten sex-/age-matched patients with mild-MDD newly-diagnosed, were enrolled in this study. A wide neuropsychiatric battery was employed including the following: symptoms checklist 90-R (SCL-90-R), Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-20), Hamilton anxiety rating scale (HAMA), Beck depression inventory (BDI II), dissociative experiences scale (DES), traumatic experience checklist (TEC), somatoform dissociation questionnaire (SDQ-20), and temperament and character inventory-revised (TCI-R).No significant difference was detected in the large part of psychopathological examination including personality profile between the two groups. However, PNES showed high scores in alexithymia (p = 0.02); anxiety (p = 0.03), and somatoform symptomatology (p's < 0.03) with respect to patients with mild-MDD. Moreover, somatoform symptoms strongly correlated with depression scores in both groups, whereas alexithymia was influenced by high anxiety level only in the group with PNES. No significant relationship was found between traumatic experience (as measured by TEC) and construct of depression.Our proof-of-concept study suggests that patients with PNES are characterized by their inability to verbalize emotions when dealing with anxiety symptoms, therefore expressing them in a somatic dimension. Further researches, including the investigation of the relationship between anxiety status and emotional expression, are warranted to better understand the pathogenesis of PNES.     

Predictors of somatic symptoms in depressive disorder

We explored the relative contribution of potential psychological predictors of somatic symptoms in outpatients with major depressive disorder, including; 1) severity of depression; 2) general anxiety; 3) hypochondriacal worry; 4) somatosensory amplification; and, 5) alexithymia by sampling 100 consecutive outpatients with DSM-IV diagnoses of major depressive disorder attending the psychiatry clinics of general hospitals in Turkey. The subjects were rated by clinicians on depressive symptomatology (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale), and anxiety (Hamilton Anxiety Scale), and completed self-report measures of Hypochondriacal worry (7-item version of the Whiteley Index), the Somatosensory Amplification Scale, and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Multivariate models tested the independent contribution of each of the scales to the level of somatic symptoms as measured by a modified version of the SCL-90 somatization scale. At the bivariate level, somatic symptoms were associated with female gender and lower educational level, as well as the Hamilton Depression and Anxiety scales, the Whitely Index, and the Somatosensory Amplification and Alexithymia scales. In multiple regression models incorporating all variables, female gender and higher scores on the anxiety, somatosensory amplification and alexithymia scales all made independent contributions to the level of somatic symptoms and accounted for 54% of the variance. Therefore, somatic symptoms in depression are related to concomitant anxiety, tendency to amplify somatic distress, and difficulty identifying and communicating emotional distress. However, these factors do not account for the tendency for women to report more somatic symptoms.