摘要
目的研究广泛性焦虑障碍(GAD)患者应用米氮平联合奥氮平的治疗效果。方法84例GAD患者,采用随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组,各42例。对照组采用米氮平治疗,观察组采用米氮平联合奥氮平治疗。比较两组临床疗效,治疗前后心理情绪及生活质量,睡眠质量,不良反应发生情况。结果治疗后,观察组汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、多伦多述情障碍量表(TAS)评分分别为(8.31±2.06)、(9.22±2.01)、(71.34±6.15)分,均低于治疗前的(18.64±4.42)、(20.53±4.32)、(84.51±10.32)分,健康问卷简表(SF-36)评分(88.32±8.57)分高于治疗前的(75.38±7.64)分;对照组HAMA、HAMD、TAS评分分别为(13.15±2.71)、(12.54±2.53)、(78.25±8.59)分,均低于治疗前的(18.53±4.39)、(20.49±4.28)、(84.56±10.35)分,SF-36评分(82.14±8.41)分高于治疗前的(75.41±7.52)分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后,观察组HAMA、HAMD及TAS评分均低于对照组,SF-36评分高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组入睡时间评分(1.71±0.52)分、睡眠时间评分(1.62±0.43)分、睡眠效率评分(1.71±0.62)分、睡眠障碍评分(1.52±0.53)分及日间功能评分(1.41±0.29)分均低于对照组的(2.85±0.51)、(2.81±0.42)、(2.84±0.54)、(2.51±0.25)、(2.52±0.68)分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组总有效率97.62%高于对照组的80.95%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组不良反应发生率4.76%低于对照组的9.52%,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论GAD患者应用米氮平联合奥氮平治疗效果显著,能缓解焦虑程度、提高睡眠质量,改善生活质量,保证用药合理、安全性,值得推广应用。
Objective To study the effect of mirtazapine combined with olanzapine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder(GAD).Methods A total of 84 GAD patients were divided into control group and observation group by random numerical table,with 42 cases in each group.The control group was treated with mirtazapine,and the observation group was treated with mirtazapine and olanzapine.Both groups were compared in terms of clinical efficacy,psychological mood and quality of life before and after treatment,quality of sleep,and occurrence of adverse reactions.Results In the observation group,the Hamilton Anxiety Scale(HAMA),Hamilton Depression Scale(HAMD),Toronto Alexithymia Scale(TAS)scores of the observation group were(8.31±2.06),(9.22±2.01)and(71.34±6.15)points after treatment,which were lower than(18.64±4.42),(20.53±4.32)and(84.51±10.32)points before treatment,and the 36-item short-form health survey(SF-36)score(88.32±8.57)points after treatment was higher than(75.38±7.64)points before treatment.In the control group,HAMA,HAMD, and TAS scores were (13.15±2.71), (12.54±2.53), and (78.25±8.59) points after treatment, which were lower than (18.53±4.39), (20.49±4.28) and (84.56±10.35) points before treatment, and SF-36 score (82.14± 8.41) points after treatment was higher than (75.41±7.52) points before treatment. All the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). After treatment, HAMA, HAMD and TAS scores of the observation group were lower than those of the control group, and SF-36 scores were higher than those of the control group;all the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The time to fall asleep score (1.71±0.52) points, sleep duration score (1.62±0.43) points, sleep efficiency score (1.71±0.62) points, sleep disorder score (1.52±0.53) points and daytime function score (1.41±0.29) points in the observation group were lower than (2.85±0.51), (2.81±0.42), (2.84±0.54), (2.51±0.25) and (2.52±0.68) points in the control group, and the difference was statistically signi
作者
刘洋
代淑云
LIU Yang;DAI Shu-yun(Fushun Fifth Hospital,Fushun 113003,China)
出处
《中国现代药物应用》
2021年第19期4-7,共4页
Chinese Journal of Modern Drug Application
关键词
米氮平
奥氮平
广泛性焦虑障碍
临床疗效
Mirtazapine
Olanzapine
Generalized anxiety disorder
Clinical efficacy
