中国科学院心理研究所机构知识库

目的:观察电针与选择性五羟色胺再摄取抑制剂类抗抑郁药(SSRIs)治疗抑郁症的临床效果及两种干预措施的疗效特点。方法:本研究基于真实世界研究(RWS)原则,纳入60例抑郁症患者,按患者意愿分为电针组(35例)和西药组(25例),电针组选取百会、印堂作为主穴,随证配穴,西药组服用选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂类药物。治疗8周,治疗结束4周后随访。选用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD-24)和健康调查简表(SF-36)在治疗前后及随访时进行临床评价。结果:治疗8周后,电针组痊愈率为57.14%,西药组为12%,2组痊愈率比较差异有统计学意义,治疗后HAMD-24总评分差异有统计学意义。2种干预手段治疗前后抑郁症患者生存质量总评分、生理职能、总体健康、精力、社会功能、情感职能、精神健康6个领域评分均差异有统计学意义,其中躯体疼痛、生理机能和总体健康状况领域电针和西药差异有统计学意义。结论:电针与SSRIs均能改善抑郁症患者抑郁程度,提高抑郁症患者的总体生存质量,其中电针对躯体疼痛改善作用明显,SSRIs对生理机能和总体健康状况改善效果明显。

Abstract: Objective: To observe the clinical effectiveness and features of electro-acupuncture ( EA) and Selective Serotonin Ｒeuptake Inhibitors ( SSＲIs) on depression． Methods: Based on the Ｒeal World Study ( ＲWS) principle，60 participants who were diagnosed for depression were enrolled into an 8-week non-randomized controlled study and were divided into EA group ( n = 35) and SSＲIs group ( n = 25) according to their preference． The Hamilton Depression Ｒating Scale ( HAMD) and the MOS item short from health survey ( SF-36) were used to evaluate the depressive severity and quality of life ( QOL) respectively before and after treatment． Ｒesults: After 8 weeks intervention，there were significant differences between EA and SSＲIs groups in remission rate and the HAMD total score． There were also significant differences between the two groups in overall QOL，role-physical，general health，vitality，social functioning，roleemotional and mental health． In addition，EA and SSＲIs had significant difference with respect to bodily pain，physical functioning and general health． Conclusions: Both EA and SSＲIs intervention could improve depression and QOL． EA had advantage on improving bodily pain，and SSＲIs improved physical functioning better．