米氮平治疗躯体化障碍1例

1病例介绍 患者，女，45岁，农民，小学文化。因夜眠差、心烦、自觉浑身不适2年余前来就诊。家族史、个人史无特殊记载，无重大疾病史。 2病例分析 2．12年前患者无明显诱因出现夜眠差、心烦。逐渐出现浑身不适症状。经常感觉心慌、气短，身体有时忽冷忽热，大小便不规律，经常尿频、尿急，便秘与腹泻交替出现。患者曾就诊于多家医院，做各种检查均未见异常。在综合医院的．医生建议下来我院门诊就诊。查体及各项辅助检查未见异常。精神检查：意识清、问答切题、言流畅、主动述说病情，称因经常感觉浑身不适，心烦、感觉活着没意思。因在多家医院都查不出患什么病，自己对治疗已没有信心，但仍希望医生给好好治疗。注意力、记忆力，智能无异常，白知力部分存在。诊断：躯体化障碍。     

帕罗西汀治疗躯体形式疼痛障碍疗效观察

目的：探讨帕罗西汀治疗持续性躯体形式疼痛障碍的疗效及安全性。方法：对62例持续性躯体形式疼痛障碍患者用帕罗西汀20mg／d治疗,疗程6周。采用疼痛量表（MOSPM）、汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）及治疗中出现的症状量表（TESS）评定疗效及不良反应。结果：治疗后MOSPM、HAMD总分及各因子分均较治疗前显著下降（P均〈0．01）;治疗6周,疼痛与抑郁症状的有效率分别为79．0％和77．4％结论：帕罗西汀治疗持续性躯体形式疼痛障碍疗效显著,安全性高,依从性好。     

米氮平合并心理疗法治疗躯体形式障碍的疗效分析

本文作者采用米氮平合并心理疗法与单独米氯平治疗躯体形式障碍患者,并对比观察其疗效及安全性,现报告如下： 1对象和方法 1．1对象人组对象为2005年1月～12月在门诊或住院治疗的患者,均符合中国精神障碍分类与诊断标准第三版（CCMD-3）中躯体形式障碍的诊断标准,     

躯体形式障碍的治疗

对躯体形式障碍的治疗作一综述.     

米氮平治疗躯体变形障碍一例报告

患者 ,男性 ,2 0岁 ,大学一年级学生。自感上牙前凸而被议论 2年 ,辍学 1周入院。 2年前出现自己上牙前凸感 ,为此寝食不安 ,留恋往返于镜前。导致学习成绩下降。此后渐发展认为上牙前凸明显 ,相貌丑陋 ,整日沉湎于此想象中 ,感周围同学在议论、讥讽他的相貌。 2年来时常要求牙医为其作矫形术 ,经多位牙科专家检查证实无恙 ,心中怨气顿生 ,焦躁、痛苦、心情压抑、悲观而辍学。因感丑陋而足不出户 ,常对镜而叹 !吃饭时桌前置镜一面 ,常抱怨父母 ,时有冲突产生。曾就医服氟西汀 6 0mg/d治疗 2月无效。入院精神检查 :意识清 ,低头不语 ,口罩遮…     

帕罗西汀联合奥氮平治疗躯体形式障碍的疗效观察

目的探讨帕罗西汀联合奥氮平对躯体形式障碍的疗效。方法将167例躯体形式障碍患者随机分为研究组和对照组,研究组即帕罗西汀联合奥氮平组,对照组为单用帕罗西汀组,治疗前后应用抑郁自评量表(SDS)和副反应量表(TESS)分别评定疗效及不良反应。结果治疗第2周末,研究组SDS评分较治疗前有显著性降低(P<0.05),而对照组无显著性变化。治疗第4周末及第8周末,两组SDS评分较治疗前均有显著性降低(P<0.05)。在第2周末及第4周末,研究组和对照组的治疗有效率有显著性差异(P<0.05)。两组均未出现严重不良反应。结论帕罗西汀联合奥氮平治疗躯体形式障碍较单用帕罗西汀,具有疗效好,起效快,不良反应少的优点。     

文拉法辛缓释剂治疗躯体形式疼痛障碍疗效观察

目的探讨文拉法辛缓释剂治疗躯体形式疼痛障碍的疗效及不良反应。方法将67例躯体形式疼痛障碍患者随机分成文拉法辛缓释片纽和多塞平组,分别治疗6周。采用医学结局研究用疼痛量表（MOSPM）、Hamilton抑郁量表（HAMD）、焦虑量表（HAMA）及副反应量表（TESS）评定疗效及不良反应。结果文拉法辛缓释片组和多塞平组有效率分别为68．6％、71．9％,两组比较无显著性差异（P〉0．05）。治疗后6周末文拉法辛缓释片组和多塞平组MOSPM、HAMD及HAMA评分与治疗前比较均有极显著性差异（P〈0．01）,但文拉法辛缓释片组在治疗1周末MOSPM评分就明显下降,与治疗前比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05）,且文拉法辛缓释片组药物副反应少而轻,多塞平组抗胆碱方面副作用明显。结论文拉法辛缓释片治疗躯体形式疼痛障碍疗效显著,不良反应轻,依从性好。     

躯体形式障碍药物治疗的研究进展

<正>躯体形式障碍(Somatoform Disorders,SFD)是一类以持久地担心或相信各种躯体症状的优势观念为特征的神经症。不能证实有器质性损害或明确的病理生理机制存在,但有证据表明与心理因素或内心冲突密切相关。病程多为慢性波动性,均有不同程度的焦虑和抑郁症状。目前对躯体形式障碍治疗的研究主要集中于心理治疗、药物治疗、心理结合药物治疗、其他治疗四个方面[1]。在临床工作中,精神科医生面对的患者更多的是     

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.     

舍曲林治疗躯体形式障碍的临床研究

目的 观察舍曲林治疗躯体形式障碍的临床疗效和不良反应.方法 采用开放式临床研究方法,收集60例躯体形式障碍患者,接受可变剂量的舍曲林治疗8周.在治疗前和治疗后第1、2、4、8周末分别采用症状自评量表(SCL-90)躯体化因子和临床总体印象量表(CGI-SI)评定,用不良反应症状量表(TESS)评定并记录药物的不良反应.结果 57例完成8周试验.总有效率为80.7%,显效率49.1%.治疗后SCL-90躯体化因子评分和CGI-SI评分较治疗前明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).常见的不良反应为头晕、嗜睡和体质量增加等,程度较轻.结论 舍曲林治疗躯体形式障碍的疗效肯定,不良反应少,安全性依从性好.     

氟西汀与阿米替林治疗躯体形式障碍的对照研究

目的 探讨氟西汀对躯体形式障碍的临床疗效及副反应。方法 采用随机分组的方法，将符合CCMD-3标准的63例躯体形式障碍患者分为氟西汀组(33)例、阿米替林组(30)例，治疗6周，用HAMD和TESS评定两组药的疗效及副反应。结果 氟西汀与阿米替林疗效相当，但在副反应方面差异有显著性，氟西汀副反应轻微。结论 氟西汀治疗躯体形式障碍安全、有效，值得临床应用。     

Alexithymia in somatoform and depressive disorders

OBJECTIVE: Alexithymia and its association with attribution styles, amplification and illness attitudes was studied among subjects with somatoform disorders, depressive disorders and normal subjects. METHODS: Two groups of 30 subjects each, bearing diagnoses of somatoform disorder and depressive disorder respectively (ICD-10 DCR), and one group of 30 normal controls were recruited. The study subjects were assessed using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and scales for assessing attribution styles, amplification and illness attitudes. RESULTS: Mean alexithymia scores in the somatoform (60.4) and depressive disorder groups (62.5) were higher than in normal subjects (54.2). In the somatoform disorder group, total alexithymia and 'difficulty describing feelings' scores positively correlated with psychological attribution (the latter correlation was also noted in the depressive disorder group), but not with the illness attitudes, amplification, somatic attribution scores or any of the sociodemographic variables. Compared with normal subjects, those with somatoform and depressive disorder had greater difficulty in identifying bodily sensations and feelings. Subjects with depressive disorder had more difficulty in expressing feelings compared to somatoform disorder subjects. CONCLUSIONS: While total alexithymia scores do not differentiate somatoform from depressive disorders, the two diagnostic groups do differ in that depressed subjects have greater difficulty in expressing feelings. However, all three groups had mean scores within the non-alexithymic range. Alexithymia and difficulty in expressing feelings were associated with psychological attribution of innocuous bodily sensations in the somatoform disorder group suggesting that alexithymic subjects are more able to psychologize bodily symptoms than non-alexithymic subjects. Somatoform and depressive disorder subjects and normals differ from each other in certain alexithymic characteristics, which could have potential therapeutic implications.     

舍曲林合并森田疗法治疗躯体形式障碍的对照研究

目的研究舍曲林与森田疗法联合治疗与单用舍曲林治疗躯体形式障碍的临床疗效。方法将58例躯体形式障碍的患者,分别给予森田疗法与舍曲林联合治疗（联合治疗组30例）和单用舍曲林药物治疗（单药治疗组28例）。采用汉密顿焦虑量表（HAMA）、大体评定量表（GAS）评定疗效,采用治疗时出现的症状量表（TESS）评定不良反应。比较2组疗效、不良反应发生率及1.5年内的复发率。结果联合治疗组在治疗后4、8、12周的HAMA总分和躯体性焦虑因子分明显低于药物组,其减分率明显高于药物组。治疗8周后联合治疗组GAS评分及有效率明显高于单药治疗组,用药剂量少于单药治疗组（t=2.13,P=0.04）。联合治疗组治疗有效率为83.3%（25/30）,显著高于单药治疗组为57.1%（16/28）,（χ^2=4.79,P=0.030）。联合治疗组1.5年内的复发率（20%）显著低于单药治疗组（46.4%）,（χ^2=4.592,P=0.033）。联合治疗组不良反应发生率为26.7%,单药治疗组为25%,2组比较无统计学差异。结论舍曲林与森田疗法联合治疗躯体形式障碍有效,并可减少用药剂量和复发。     

文拉法辛联合小剂量多塞平治疗躯体形式障碍的疗效观察

目的探讨文拉法辛联合小剂量多塞平治疗躯体形式障碍的疗效及安全性。方法将64例躯体形式障碍患者随机分为研究组(文拉法辛联合多塞平组)与对照组(文拉法辛组)各32例,分别予文拉法辛联合小剂量多塞平与文拉法辛治疗,疗程均为8周。临床疗效评定分别采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD-17)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、临床疗效总评量表-病情严重度(CGI-SI)及治疗时出现的症状量表(TESS)于治疗前后进行评定。结果研究组在治疗第2,4,6,8周末HAMA总分显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究组在治疗第2周末精神性焦虑分低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究组在治疗第2,4周末HAMA减分率均高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究组在治疗第2,8周末HAMD总分显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05或P<0.01)。研究组在治疗第2,8周末HAMD减分率均高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.01)。研究组总有效率为93.75%与对照组总有效率为87.50%比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),研究组的显效率为75.00%与对照组的50.00%比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组的不良反应均少,在治疗第8周末两组的TESS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论文拉法辛联合小剂量多塞平治疗躯体形式障碍疗效优于单用文拉法辛,且无明显不良反应。     

合并小剂量奥氮平治疗躯体形式障碍的对照研究

目的探讨合并小剂量奥氮平对躯体形式障碍的治疗作用。方法将97例躯体形式障碍患者随机分成帕罗西汀组48例及帕罗西汀合用奥氮平组49例,于治疗前、治疗后1,2,4,6周末采用汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMD）、SCL-90（躯体化、抑郁、焦虑三个因子）评定疗效,用不良反应量表（TESS）在治疗后1,2,4,6周末评定副反应。结果合用小剂量奥氮平组疗效显著,两组间痊愈率（48．98％vs22．92％,P〈0．05）、治疗后2、4、6周末HAMD评分及SCL-903个因子评分差异有显著性。TESS评分两组无明显差异,1年内的复发率无明显差异（8．16％vs10．42％,P〉0．05）。结论合用小剂量奥氮平治疗躯体形式障碍可提高疗效,起效快,但不降低复发率。     

米氮平治疗伴有睡眠障碍的围绝经期综合征患者的疗效分析

目的 分析米氮平治疗伴有睡眠障碍的围绝经期综合征患者的临床疗效.方法 选取2017年1月～2019年5月内收治的伴有睡眠障碍的围绝经期综合征患者60例,随机法分为2组,各30例.对照组采用谷维素片治疗,试验组采用米氮平治疗.比较两组治疗前、后4w、8w时汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、匹兹堡睡眠指数(PSQI)等评分变化...     

Association between tinnitus and somatoform disorders

Pathophysiological mechanisms are often unknown in patients suffering from “idiopathic” tinnitus, and the presence of other unexplained physical symptoms such as those seen in somatoform disorders can be assumed. This study investigates how often tinnitus exists in general medical out-patients with and without somatoform disorders. In an international study initiated by the World Health Organization (WHO), 1275 patients from 12 participating centers located in 11 different countries were examined by means of the WHO Somatoform Disorders Schedule. The overall prevalence of unexplained tinnitus was 11%; however, tinnitus was clearly more frequent among patients with somatization disorder (42%) or hypochondriacal disorder (27%). It was also more frequent than a great number of other symptoms considered to be typical of somatoform disorders. Tinnitus was also related to depression, anxiety, and to symptoms indicating autonomic arousal. Three possible conclusions are discussed: (i) tinnitus may be a somatoform symptom; (ii) the findings may indicate a substantial comorbidity of two different conditions; (iii) tinnitus and somatization may be linked through common mechanisms of arousal and somatic anxiety.     

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.