| Background and Objective:Ulcerative colitis(Ulcerative colitis, UC) is a kind of physical and mental disease, most patients are often accompanied by anxiety and depression symptoms in different degree,while the elderly UC patients in the factors of society, family and chronic diseases and other problems, anxiety and depression symptoms more prominent, seriously affecting the quality of life of the patients. In this study, with anxiety and depression in elderly patients with UC combined with Paroxetine to give the Mesalamine on the basis of standard treatment,to observe the improvement in depression and quality of life in UC disease activity, clinical efficacy, the degree of anxiety study after treatment, to provide new ideas for the treatment of elderly patients with UC. Materials and methods:152 cases of elderly patients with UC from the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, using the random number table method, 80 patients met the inclusion criteria with anxiety and depression in elderly patients with UC were randomly divided into Paroxetine therapy group(treatment group) and the control group, 40 cases in each group. The control group of patients with UC to give the Mesalamine(1.0g,tid, po); the treatment group in the control group the same dose based on the use of Paroxetine hydrochloride(initial dose was 10.0mg, qd, po, 3d increased to 20 mg, qd, po).During treatment referral, period of treatment 1 times every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. By usingthe modified Mayo scoring system to evaluate disease activity and treatment effect; Hamilton Anxiety Scale(HAMA) and Hamilton Depression Scale(HAMD) score was used to evaluate the anxiety and depression; quality of life questionnaire of inflammatory bowel disease(IBDQ) patients quality of life evaluation. Before and 8 weeks after treatment all subjects underwent modified Mayo score, HAMA, HAMD and IBDQ score, the use of SPSS17.0 software to process data, the differences of each group before and after treatment and between groups. Results:1 Paroxetine treatment group before and after treatment Mayo scores were(8.31 ±1.92)、(2.35±1.02), there was statistical significance difference between the two groups(t=16.809, P=0.000 < 0.01); control group Mayo before and after treatment scores were(8.74±2.11)、(4.76±2.37), a statistical significant difference between the two groups(t=-7.932,P=0.000 < 0.01); Paroxetine treatment group and the control group before treatment Mayo score difference was statistically significant(t=0.953, P=0.343 > 0.05); Paroxetine after treatment, Mayo score decreased significantly after treatment compared with the control group, the difference was statistically significant(t=5.657, P=0.000 < 0.01).2 According to the modified Mayo score for the after treatment, effective evaluation, Paroxetine after treatment, effective in 80%(32/40) was higher than that of the control group 55%(22/40), the difference was statistically significant(χ2=4.615, P=0.031<0.05).3 Paroxetine treatment group before and after treatment HAMA scores were(17.35±3.98)、(10.35±3.66), there was statistical significance difference between the two groups(t=-8.187,P=0.000<0.01); the control group before and after treatment HAMA score was(15.65±4.12)、(14.73±4.38), no statistically significant difference between the two groups(t=-0.967,P=0.336<0.05);Paroxetine, the treatment group and the control group before treatment HAMA score difference was statistically significant(t=-1.876,P=0.064<0.05);Paroxetine after treatment, HAMA score decreased significantly after treatment compared with the control group, the difference was statistically significant(t=4.614,P=0.000<0.05).4 Paroxetine HAMD of the treatment group before and after treatment scores were(20.07±4.72)、(14.25±2.35), there was statistical significance difference between the two groups(t=-6.981,P=0.000<0.01); the control group before and after treatment HAMD score was(21.32±5.15)、(19.18±3.04), there was statistical significant difference between the two groups(t=-2.133,P=0.036< 0.05); Paroxetine the treatment group and the control group before treatment HAMD score difference was statistically significant(t=1.131,P=0.261<0.05); Paroxetine in the treatment group after treatment HAMD score than the control group after treatment were significantly decreased, the difference was statistically significant(t=7.723,P=0.000< 0.01).5 Paroxetine IBDQ of the treatment group before and after treatment scores were(108.43±13.52)、(136.82±17.33), there was statistical significance difference between the two groups(t=8.169,P=0.000<0.01); the control group before and after treatment IBDQ scorewas(110.38±14.66)、(118.76±15.25), there was statistical significant difference between the two groups(t=2.505,P=0.014< 0.05); Paroxetine, the treatment group and the control group before treatment IBDQ score difference was statistically significant(t=0.618,P=0.538<0.05);Paroxetine in the treatment group after treatment IBDQ score than the control group after treatment was significantly increased, the difference was statistically significant(t=-4.683,P=0.000< 0.01). Conclusion:1 The clinical curative effect of combined use of Paroxetine with anxiety and depression in elderly patients with UC were significantly higher than that of single clinical curative effect in the Mesalamine;2 Based on the use of standard treatment for the Mesalamine in the combined with paroxetine can improve the anxiety and depression status of patients with anxiety and depression in elderly patients with UC, improve the quality of life. |
PDF Full Text Request