米那普仑与帕罗西汀治疗躯体形式障碍患者的有效性及安全性对比
Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of milnacipran and paroxetine in the treatment of somatoform disorders
施岩塔1
作者信息
- 1. 355000 福建省宁德市福安精神病人疗养院
- 折叠
摘要
目的 对比躯体形式障碍患者应用米那普仑、帕罗西汀治疗的安全性以及有效性.方法 100 例躯体形式障碍患者,以随机数字表法分为对照组及观察组,各 50 例.对照组应用帕罗西汀治疗,观察组应用米那普仑治疗.对比两组患者的治疗效果,不良反应发生率,治疗前后的症状自评量表(SCL-90)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、副反应量表(TESS)评分.结果 观察组临床治疗总有效率为 94.00%,高于对照组的 80.00%,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05).两组不良反应发生率对比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).治疗后 2、4、8 周,两组患者的SCL-90 评分均低于本组治疗前,且观察组患者的SCL-90 评分分别为(27.18±3.22)、(20.42±3.15)、(14.08±3.02)分,均低于对照组的(28.86±3.14)、(24.57±3.21)、(17.14±3.03)分,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05).治疗后 2、4、8 周,两组患者的HAMD评分均低于本组治疗前,且观察组患者的HAMD评分分别为(51.45±4.30)、(40.46±4.14)、(34.06±4.01)分,均低于对照组的(54.72±4.25)、(43.68±4.18)、(37.18±4.04)分,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05).治疗后2、4、8 周,两组患者的TESS评分均低于本组治疗前,且观察组患者的TESS评分分别为(62.45±3.79)、(50.66±4.16)、(31.46±4.26)分,均低于对照组的(68.42±4.75)、(53.98±4.31)、(34.08±4.37)分,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 躯体形式障碍患者应用米那普仑的治疗效果优于帕罗西汀,米那普仑对于患者临床症状以及抑郁症状的改善效果更为理想,且用药安全性与帕罗西汀相当,对于特殊群体而言更推荐应用米那普仑.
Abstract
Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of milnacipran and paroxetine in the treatment of somatoform disorders.Methods A total of 100 patients with somatoform disorder were divided into a control group and an observation group according to the random numerical table,with 50 cases in each group.The control group was treated with paroxetine,and the observation group was treated with milnacipran.The therapeutic effect,incidence of adverse reactions,and scores of Symptom Check List-90(SCL90),Hamilton Depression Scale(HAMD)and Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale(TESS)before and after treatment were compared between the two groups.Results The total effective rate of clinical treatment in the observation group was 94.00%,which was higher than that of 80.00%in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups(P>0.05).At 2,4 and 8 weeks after treatment,SCL-90 scores in both groups were lower than those before treatment in this group;SCL-90 scores in the observation group were(27.18±3.22),(20.42±3.15)and(14.08±3.02)points,which were lower than those of(28.86±3.14),(24.57±3.21)and(17.14±3.03)points in the control group;the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).At 2,4 and 8 weeks after treatment,HAMD scores in both groups were lower than those before treatment in this group;HAMD scores in the observation group were(51.45±4.30),(40.46±4.14)and(34.06±4.01)points,which were lower than those of(54.72±4.25),(43.68±4.18)and(37.18±4.04)points in the control group;the difference were statistically significant(P<0.05).At 2,4 and 8 weeks after treatment,TESS scores in both groups were lower than those before treatment in this group;TESS scores in the observation group were(62.45±3.79),(50.66±4.16)and(31.46±4.26)points,which were lower than those of(68.42±4.75),(53.98±4.31)and(34.08±4.37)points in the control group;the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion The therapeutic effect of milnacipran is better than that of paroxetine in patients with somatoform disorders,and milnacipran is more ideal in improving clinical symptoms and depressive symptoms of patients,and its drug safety is comparable to paroxetine,and milnacipran is more recommended for special groups.
关键词
米那普仑/帕罗西汀/躯体形式障碍/有效性/安全性Key words
Milnacipran/Paroxetine/Somatoform disorders/Effectiveness/Safety引用本文复制引用
出版年
2023
NETL
NSTL
维普
万方数据