首页|耳穴压丸联合光疗治疗轻中度抑郁症的临床研究

耳穴压丸联合光疗治疗轻中度抑郁症的临床研究

扫码查看
目的 比较耳穴压丸联合光疗、耳穴压丸与艾司西酞普兰治疗轻中度抑郁症的临床疗效.方法 将2021 年4 月—2023 年6 月在佛山市中医院就诊的96 例轻中度抑郁症患者随机分为耳穴压丸联合光疗组(32 例,脱落2 例)、耳穴压丸组(32 例,脱落 1 例)和西药组(32 例,脱落 1例).耳穴压丸联合光疗组给予抑郁症光疗灯具光照(光照强度10 000 lux,每次治疗30 min,每周治疗5 次)及单侧耳穴王不留行籽贴压(每周治疗1 次,双耳交替)治疗,耳穴压丸组给予单侧耳穴王不留行籽贴压治疗,西药组给予艾司西酞普兰10 mg/d口服,3 组均治疗2 个月.比较3 组患者治疗前后汉密尔顿抑郁量表24 项版本(HAMD-24)评分、生活质量量表(SF-36)评分、抑郁自评量表(SDS)评分、一般自我效能感量表(GSES)评分,并评定3 组临床疗效.结果 与治疗前比较,3 组患者治疗后HAMD-24 总分、SDS评分均明显降低(P均<0.05),SF-36 量表中生理机能、生理职能、精力、情感职能、精神健康评分及GSES评分均明显升高(P均<0.05);耳穴压丸联合光疗组HAMD-24 总分、SDS评分降低幅度和HAMD-24 量表中阻滞、认知障碍、日夜变化评分降低幅度均明显大于耳穴压丸组和西药组(P均<0.05),SF-36 量表中生理机能、情感职能评分升高幅度均明显大于耳穴压丸组和西药组(P均<0.05),各组GSES评分升高幅度比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05).耳穴压丸联合光疗组治疗总有效率明显高于耳穴压丸组和西药组[96.7%(29/30)比71.0%(22/31)、71.0%(22/31),P均<0.05].结论 耳穴压丸联合光疗可明显减轻轻中度抑郁症患者抑郁程度,治疗总体效果优于单纯光疗和西药治疗.
Clinical efficacy of auricular point pressing therapy combined with light therapy on mild to moderate depression
Objective It is to compare the clinical efficacies of auricular point pressing combined with light therapy,auricular point pressing and escitalopram in the treatment of mild to moderate depression.Methods Ninety-six patients with mild to moderate depression treated in Foshan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine from April 2021 to June 2023 were randomly divided into auricular point pressing combined with light therapy group(combination group,n=32,2 cases dropped),auricular point pressing group(n=32,1 case dropped),and the western medicine group(n=32,1 case dropped).The combination group was treated with light therapy with depression light-therapy lamp(light intensity 10000 lux,30 min per time,5 times per week)and unilateral auricular point pressing with Cowherb Seed(1 time per week,al-ternating between bilateral ears),the auricular point pressing group was treated with unilateral auricular point pressing with Cowherb Seed,and the western medicine group was treated with escitalopram orally,10 mg/d,all the three groups were treated for 2 months.The scores of Hamilton Depression Scale 24-item version(HAMD-24),Short Form 36 Questionnaire(SF-36),Self-Depression Scale(SDS)and General Self-Efficacy Scale(GSES)of patients before and after the treatment were compared among the three groups,and the clinical efficacies of the three groups were assessed.Results Compared with those before treatment,the total scores of HAMD-24 and SDS scores of the three groups were significantly reduced after treatment(all P<0.05),and their scores of physiological function,physiological role,energy,emotional role,mental health of SF-36 and GSES scores were significantly increased(all P<0.05);the decreases of total scores of HAMD-24 and SDS scores,and the scores of block,cognitive impairment,day-night change of HAMD-24 were more significant in the combination group than those in the auricular point pressing group and western medicine group(all P<0.05),while the increases of the scores of physiological function and emotional role of SF-36 were more significant than those in the auricular point pressing group and western medicine group(all P<0.05),there was no significant difference in the increase of GSES scores among the three groups(all P>0.05).The total effective rate of the combination group was significantly higher than those in the auricular point pressing group and western medicine group[96.7%(29/30)VS.71.0%(22/31)and 71.0%(22/31),respectively both P<0.05].Conclusion Auricular point pressing combined with light therapy can significantly alleviate the depression of patients with mild to moderate moderate depression,and its overall curative effect is better than that of light therapy and western medicine alone.

mild to moderate depressionlight therapyauricular point pressing

唐捷怡、梁泳彤、郑美鸿、黎焕杰、刘继洪

展开 >

广州中医药大学,广东广州 510405

广州中医药大学附属佛山中医院,广东佛山 528000

佛山市南海区大沥镇社区卫生服务中心,广东 佛山 528000

轻中度抑郁症 光疗 耳穴压丸

广东省中医药局科研项目

20211368

2024

现代中西医结合杂志
中国中西医结合学会河北分会,中华中医药学会

现代中西医结合杂志

CSTPCD
影响因子:1.775
ISSN:1008-8849
年,卷(期):2024.33(10)