万拉法新与阿米替林治疗抑郁症疗效对照研究

目的 探讨万拉法新与阿米替林治疗抑郁症的疗效及副作用。方法 将100例符合CCMD—2—R诊断标准的抑郁症患者随机分为两组,各50例,分别给予万拉法新与阿米替林(50～200mg)治疗,疗程6周,治疗前及治疗1、2、6周分别采用HAMD、HAMA及副反应量表(TESS)进行评定。结果 两组疗效接近,万拉法新起效快于阿米替林,两组副反应发生情况万拉法新组明显小于阿米替林组,有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论 万拉法新治疗抑郁症疗效好,起效快,副作用小,治疗依从性强。     

西酞普兰与阿米替林治疗脑梗塞后抑郁症对照研究

目的探讨西酞普兰与阿米替林治疗脑梗塞后抑郁症的疗效与安全性。方法将48例脑梗塞后抑郁症患者随机分成西酞普兰组与阿米替林组治疗8周,应用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）和副反应量表（TESS）评定疗效及安全性。结果西酞普兰与阿米替林疗效相当,但西酞普兰起效快,不良反应轻,而阿米替林副反应大。结论西酞普兰治疗脑梗塞后抑郁症疗效好,起效快,不良反应轻,可作为脑梗塞后抑郁的一线用药。     

Lithium + L-tryptophan compared with amitriptyline in endogenous depression

Endogenously depressed in-patients were treated for four weeks with either lithium + L-tryptophan (N = 22) or amitriptyline (N = 21) in an open study. Before and weekly during treatment the patients were evaluated by means of Hamilton rating scale, and blood samples were collected for determination of serum concentration of lithium, or amitriptyline and nortriptyline. Both groups responded significantly and the two treatments were not significantly different in antidepressive efficacy. No significant correlation could be demonstrated between clinical improvement and steady-state serum drug levels. From this study it appears that lithium combined with L-tryptophan may be effective in the treatment of endogenous depression.     

A sequential double-blind controlled study of moclobemide and diazepam in patients with atypical depression

A double-blind controlled study comparing moclobemide and diazepam in patients with atypical depression was carried out. Statistical comparison of the 14 pairs completing 4 weeks showed that significant reductions in depressive symptomatology as measured by the Hamilton and Carroll depression rating scales occurred in both drug groups, and that diazepam was significantly better than moclobemide. A separate analysis of the 10 pairs completing 8 weeks treatment showed that significant decreases in depression ratings occurred in both drug groups but that by week 8 there was no significant difference between the two drugs for depression scores. Side-effects were minimal, and the most common side-effects emerging for both drugs were sleep disturbance and physical tiredness.     

度洛西汀与西酞普兰治疗脑卒中后抑郁焦虑共病对照研究

目的比较度洛西汀与西酞普兰治疗脑卒中后抑郁焦虑共病的疗效。方法对73例脑卒中后抑郁焦虑共病患者随机分为度洛西汀组和西酞普兰组,疗程6周。于治疗前及治疗1、2、4、6周采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)和汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)评定疗效,用副反应量表(TESS)评定副反应。结果治疗6周后两组HAMD和HAMA评分均显著下降(P<0.01),治疗1周末度洛西汀组疗效优于西酞普兰组(t=-2.312,-2.278;P均<0.05);治疗6周后度洛西汀组有效率为88.88%,西酞普兰组为86.48%,两组疗效差异无统计学意义(t=0.382,P>0.05);两组不良反应的发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论度洛西汀治疗脑卒中后抑郁焦虑疗效与西酞普兰相似,起效时间快于西酞普兰。     

腰椎间盘突出病人术前心理健康状况调查

目的了解腰椎间盘突出病人术前心理状况,加强术前心理干预。方法53例在骨科住院腰椎间盘突出病人术前采用抑郁自评量表及焦虑自评量表进行心理评定。结果腰椎间盘突出病人术前的SDS评分显著高于正常人模（t=2．812,P〈0．046）。SAS评分显著高于正常人模（t=5．395,P〈0．01）。结论腰椎间盘突出病人术前存在不同程度的心理健康问题。     

放免法测定产后抑郁症患者血清雌孕激素水平分析

为研究妊娠28-32周、产后1周及产后4周血清雌二醇(E2)、孕酮(P)水平变化与产后抑郁症的关系,用抑郁自评量表和焦虑自评量表分别评定200例产妇的抑郁和焦虑情绪,并用放免法测定孕妇产前、产后的血清E2和P含量.结果显示:200例产妇抑郁情绪发生率为11%,焦虑情绪的发生率为14%.产后抑郁症产妇产前血清E2、P水平与无产后抑郁症产妇相比无显著差异(P》0.05);产后抑郁症E2水平显著低于对照组(P《0.05),产后1周、4周E2水平与产前的差值,抑郁组明显高于对照组(P《0.05),产后抑郁组P水平下降慢于对照组.研究表明,产后E2、P水平的改变与产后抑郁症的发生有关.     

儿童期受虐与肠易激综合征关系的临床研究

目的:探讨儿童期受虐在肠易激综合征(IBS)发生及患者精神心理状态、生活质量中所起的作用。方法:72例IBS患者(患者组)评定儿童期虐待问卷(CTQ),评估儿童期受虐情况,并与92例正常健康人(对照组)进行对照。IBS患者同时还评定抑郁自评量表(SDS)、焦虑自评量表(SAS)、肠易激综合征患者生活质量表(IBSQOL)。结果:1患者组CTQ评分显著高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(t=3.590,P0.001);患者组儿童期受虐发生率为44.4%,高于对照组的27.2%,差异有统计学意义(χ~2=5.313,P0.05);2与无儿童期受虐的IBS患者(40例)比较,有儿童期受虐的IBS患者(32例)SAS评分显著较高,差异有统计学意义(t=2.099,P0.05);3有儿童期受虐的IBS患者QOL评分显著高于无儿童期受虐的IBS患者,差异有统计学意义(t=-2.223,P0.05)。结论:儿童期受虐可能是IBS发生的社会心理学因素之一,并可能对IBS患者的心理状况、生活质量产生不良的影响。     

艾司西酞普兰和氟西汀治疗焦虑抑郁共病的疗效观察

目的比较艾司西酞普兰和氟西汀治疗焦虑抑郁共病的疗效和安全性。方法将61例焦虑抑郁共病患者随机分为艾司西酞普兰组(31例)和氟西汀组(30例),进行开放式临床对照研究,疗程均为6周,采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD17)和汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)评价疗效,采用药物副反应量表(TESS)评价不良反应。结果艾司西酞普兰组临床总有效率为86.6%,氟西汀组为83.3%,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.131,P>0.05)。治疗1周时,艾司西酞普兰组汉密尔顿抑郁量表和汉密尔顿焦虑量表评分较氟西汀组明显降低(P<0.01),差异有显著性。艾司西酞普兰组未见明显药物不良反应;氟西汀组出现4例药物副反应。结论艾司西酞普兰治疗焦虑抑郁共病患者较氟西汀起效快,药物副反应小。     

文拉法辛与米氮平治疗急性期抑郁症的对照研究

目的比较文拉法辛与米氮平对急性期抑郁症患者的起效时间、疗效和安全性。方法将64例急性期抑郁症患者随机分为两组,分别以文拉法辛与米氮平(各32例)治疗8周。用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)和副反应量表(TESS)评价疗效和不良反应,以治疗1周末HAMD减分率≥20%评定起效时间。结果两组患者HAMD评分从第1周末起明显下降(P<0.01),文拉法辛组治疗1周末HAMD减分率≥20%25例(78.1%);米氮平组23例(71.8%),两组起效时间比较无显著性差异(P>0.050)。治疗8周末文拉法辛显效率75%,米氮平组为78.1%,两组疗效相当。副反应量表(TESS)比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论文拉法辛与米氮平治疗急性期抑郁症起效迅速、疗效肯定,不良反应轻微,安全性好。     

艾司西酞普兰对慢性阻塞性肺疾病合并抑郁焦虑患者的疗效及生存质量的影响

目的研究艾司西酞普兰对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者抑郁焦虑症状疗效及安全性,并评价患者用药前后的生活质量。方法采用汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)及汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)(17项)测量心理状况,将总分值分别大于10和12分判定存在轻中度焦虑、抑郁症状的COPD患者共53例分为艾司西酞普兰组(29例)及对照组(24例),治疗4周后再检测患者COPD的各项指标并用圣乔治呼吸问卷(SGRQ)评价生活质量,应用副反应量表(TESS)记录药物副反应。结果①在53例COPD患者中有抑郁症状20例(37.74%),焦虑症状22例(41.51%),抑郁及焦虑症状并存11例(20.75%);②30例男性COPD患者中表现抑郁症状为40.0%(12/30),焦虑症状为43.3%(13/30);23例女性COPD患者中有抑郁症状34.8%(8/23),焦虑症状为39.1%(9/23),两性间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);③COPD患者治疗前后HAMA及HAMD评分比较:服用艾司西酞普兰治疗前后各阶段的HAMA、HAMD总分下降与治疗前有显著性差异(P<0.05)。FEV1占预计值及FEV1/FVC(%)均有明显改善(P<0.05),生活质量各评分与对照组比较,差异有显著性意义(P<0.05)。结论艾司西酞普兰能改善COPD患者的焦虑及抑郁症状,治疗期间不良反应较少,能明显提高患者的生活质量。     

Does lofepramine have fewer side effects than amitriptyline?: Results of a comparative trial

A double blind trial was carried out comparing the tricyclic antidepressant lofepramine with amitriptyline in the treatment of patients suffering from moderate to markedly severe depression. No difference was demonstrated between the two drugs in terms of their antidepressant effect, but patients treated with lofepramine suffered from significantly less side effects than patients treated with amitriptyline. Both groups of patients had a high drop out rate but this was less marked in the groups of patients treated with lofepramine.     

西酞普兰结合心理治疗对产后抑郁疗效观察

目的：比较单用西酞普兰与西酞普兰结合心理疗法治疗产后抑郁的临床疗效。方法：将58例符合CCMD-3抑郁症诊断标准的产后抑郁患者随机分成两组，分别给予单用西酞普兰20mg／日与西酞普兰20mg／日结合心理治疗，疗程6周。治疗前及治疗后1、2、4、6周末分别用汉密顿抑郁量表（HAMD）进行评定。结果：单用西酞普兰与西酞普兰结合心理疗法治疗产后抑郁均有比较理想的效果，但后者疗效更佳（t=2.24-6、64，P〈0．05）。结论：两酞普兰结合心理疗法治疗产后抑郁效果更好。     

抑郁症患者的应付方式研究

本文应用应付方式评定量表，对30例抑郁症组和30名健康对照组进行研究，结果发现，抑郁症组积极应付的强度均分明显低于对照组，而消极应付的强度均分明显高于对照组。提示消极性应付方式与抑郁有关。     

团体辅导对失恋大学生应对方式的干预

目的探究团体辅导对失恋大学生的干预效果。方法选取症状自评量表(SCL-90)中精神病性量表测量结果为无,SAS得分大于40,SDS得分大于40的正经历着失恋,分手1个月以上的大学生作为研究对象。实验组被试进行为期8次的团体辅导,探讨团体辅导活动对大学生失恋引起的焦虑、抑郁和应对方式的影响效应。用焦虑自评量表(SAS)、抑郁自评量表(SDS)和应对方式问卷调查失恋大学生焦虑、抑郁及其应对方式特点。结果 1在前测中,实验组和对照组在焦虑,抑郁水平和应对方式上的得分没有差异;2团体结束后,实验组与对照组焦虑(t=-4.122,P0.01)、抑郁(t=-3.355,P0.01)得分差异显著;在应对方式方面,相比对照组被试,实验组被试开始更多的运用"问题解决"(t=2.468,P0.05)、"求助"(t=4.174,P0.01)这两种积极的应对方式;33个月后的追踪测表明,实验组与对照组焦虑(t=-3.514,P0.01)、抑郁(t=-6.118,P0.01)得分差异显著;在应对方式方面,实验组被试运用了更多的"问题解决"(t=3.581,P0.01)、"求助"(t=4.521,P0.01)这两种积极的应对方式,对照组被试运用了更多的"自责"(t=-4.045,P0.01)这种消极的应对方式。结论团体辅导能有效地帮助失恋大学生摆脱失恋困境;团体辅导可以在一定程度上改善成员的应对方式。     

帕金森病伴抑郁患者的认知功能研究

目的 探讨帕金森病伴抑郁患者的认知状况及P300电位在评价其认知功能中的临床价值.方法 对42例帕金森病伴抑郁患者和40例健康者分别进行了P300电位测定和韦氏成人智力量表测定,并将两组结果加以比较.结果 ①P300:PD伴抑郁组P300中N2、P3波潜伏期延长和P3波幅降低,较对照组差异显著(P《0.01).②智商:PD伴抑郁VIQ,PIQ(80.42±13.48)及FIQ分值均低于对照组,差异显著(t=8.73,6.59,4.72,P《0.01).③PD伴抑郁组潜伏期P3波与VIQ,PIQ,总智商呈显著负相关(r=-0.29,-0.33,-0.32,P《0.01);P3波幅与VIQ,PIQ,FIQ则呈显著正相关(r=0.36,0.31,0.33,P《0.01).结论 P300电位可作为评价帕金森病伴抑郁患者的认知状况的重要指标应用于临床.     

米氮平与阿米替林治疗老年抑郁症对照研究

目的观察米氮平治疗老年抑郁症的疗效和安全性。方法 62例患者随机分为研究组(米氮平组)和对照组(阿米替林)各31例,研究组用米氮平15～45mg/d,对照组用阿米替林125～250mg/d,用Hamilton抑郁量表(HAM D)评定疗效,用副反应量表(TESS)评定不良反应。结果研究组较对照组早起效1周(P0.05),不良反应明显少于对照组(P0.05),两组疗效相当(P0.05)。结论米氮平治疗老年抑郁症高效、快速、安全。     

天津地区膳食结构特征及其与抑郁症的关系

目的:探究天津地区的膳食结构特征,及其对抑郁症的潜在影响。方法:利用抑郁自评量表(SDS)筛选出48名抑郁患者和61名健康居民分别组成抑郁症患者组和健康组,进行膳食结构问卷调查。运用SPSS16.0软件分析数据,进行t检验组间比较。结果:天津地区居民的膳食结构以主食、蔬菜和水果为主,辅以一定的奶类、肉类和水产品。抑郁症患者组与健康组在蔬菜(t=-0.93,P0.05),水果(t=1.67,P0.05)的摄入方面的差异无统计学意义;在优质蛋白(t=-8.38,P0.001)、肉(t=-37.26,P0.001)、蛋(t=-5.90,P0.001)、奶(t=-11.76,P0.001)、豆(t=-8.29,P0.001)、水产品(t=-2.38,P0.05))和胆固醇的(t=-27.08,P0.001))(肉、蛋、奶)摄入方面,抑郁症患者组的摄入量明显低于健康组的摄入量。结论:富含优质蛋白和胆固醇的食物可能对抑郁症有一定的调节作用。     

Alprazolam and amitriptyline in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a double-blind clinical and sleep EEG study

This study was designed to compare the antidepressant effects of alprazolam and amitriptyline in a group of 30 inpatients suffering from a severe major endogenous depression, diagnosed by Research Diagnostic Criteria and the Newcastle Rating scale, and to examine the effects of alprazolam and amitriptyline on two biological markers of depression, the dexamethasone suppression test and sleep EEG parameters. The 6-week study was double-blind with a random allocation of treatment. Patients were treated with flexible doses of 4-9 mg of alprazolam and 100-225 mg of amitriptyline. After 4 weeks of treatment the antidepressant effects of amitriptyline significantly exceeded those of alprazolam, as measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. There was a high drop-out rate in the alprazolam group because of ineffectiveness of treatment. Alprazolam showed similar effects on sleep parameters as amitriptyline: lengthening of the REM latency and a tendency to shorten stages 3 and 4 and stage REM. These negative clinical results should be interpreted with caution, because of the severity of our selection criteria, and should not be extended to all depressive disorders.     

Classification of depression and response to amitriptyline therapy.

Fifty-four patients suffering from primary depressive illness were rated on the Newcastle diagnostic scale while taking part in a pharmacokinetic study of amitriptyline therapy, and their clinical response was assessed by the Hamilton Rating Scale for depression. Patients with a Newcastle score of 4-8 showed the best response to amitriptyline. Patients with low Newcastle scores, representing the non-endogenous or neurotic group, responded poorly. Patients with high scores on the Newcastle scale, representing those with marked endogenous features, also responded poorly.