| Literature DB >> 27536116 |
Weihong Kuang1, Liantian Tian2, Lili Yue1, Jin Li1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effects of escitalopram in conjunction with Jiuweizhenxin-keli on neuroelectrophysiology in patients with major depressive disorders (MDD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with depressive episode of MDD according to the criteria of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, were randomly assigned to Esc group (30 patients) receiving escitalopram treatment and JK group (30 patients) treated with a combination of escitalopram and Jiuweizhenxin-keli. The healthy control (HC) group (30 persons with normal health condition) served as control. All groups were subject to examination of 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Hamilton Anxiety Scale, mismatch negativity (MMN), and sensory gating potential P50 (SG-P50) of event-related potentials. Data were collected at three different time points: baseline (before treatment) and week 2 and week 6 post treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Jiuweizhenxin-keli; MMN; P50; escitalopram; major depressive disorder; neuroplasticity
Year: 2016 PMID: 27536116 PMCID: PMC4977078 DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S104020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat ISSN: 1176-6328 Impact factor: 2.570
Characteristics of MDD patients
| Characteristics | HC group (n=30) | Esc group (n=30) | JK group (n=30) |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAMD scores (mean ± SD) | |||
| Baseline | 6.03±1.14 | 30.09±9.03 | 31.54±8.96 |
| Week 2 | 18.40±3.57 | 17.38±5.85 | |
| Week 6 | 11.61±5.02 | 11.38±5.54 | |
| HAMA scores (mean ± SD) | |||
| Baseline | 5.14±2.01 | 17.48±5.89 | 17.63±6.08 |
| Week 2 | 13.19±2.44 | 10.34±6.29 | |
| Week 6 | 10.56±3.41 | 8.56±3.41 | |
Note:
Statistical significance was found when compared with baseline using F-test (P<0.05).
Abbreviations: Esc, escitalopram; HAMA, Hamilton Anxiety Scale; HAMD, Hamilton Depression Scale; HC, healthy control; JK, escitalopram combined with Jiuweizhenxin-keli; MDD, major depressive disorder; SD, standard deviation.
MMN latency (milliseconds) analysis (mean ± SD)
| Baseline | Week 2 | Week 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HC group (n=30) | 187.38±31.06 | – | – |
| Esc group (n=30) | 241.89±41.22 | 220.16±28.37 | 219.57±36.51 |
| JK group (n=30) | 247.11±30.12 | 214.25±22.23 | 206.35±32.14 |
Notes:
Comparing with the HC group, statistical significance was found with the F-test (P<0.05).
Comparing week 2 with baseline of the Esc or JK group, the difference was not statistically significant (F-test, P≥0.05).
Comparing week 6 with baseline of the Esc or JK group, statistical significance was found (F-test, P<0.05).
Abbreviations: Esc, escitalopram; HC, healthy control; JK, escitalopram combined with Jiuweizhenxin-keli; MMN, mismatch negativity; SD, standard deviation.
Analysis of S2-P50 amplitude (μV) and P50 inhibition-related index (S2/S1 amplitude ratio and percentage of S2/S1 ≥0.5)
| S2-P50 amplitude (μV), mean ± SD | S2/S1 amplitude ratio, mean ± SD | Percentage of S2/S1 ≥0.5 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HC group (n=30) | 6.05±3.98 | 0.43±0.19 | 33 |
| Esc group (n=30) | |||
| Baseline | 10.61±4.10 | 0.65±0.52 | 53 |
| Week 2 | 8.98±3.72 | 0.57±0.64 | 47 |
| Week 6 | 8.68±3.33 | 0.52±0.37 | 53 |
| JK group (n=30) | |||
| Baseline | 10.21±4.10 | 0.73±0.52 | 50 |
| Week 2 | 7.80±3.72 | 0.63±0.42 | 43 |
| Week 6 | 7.27±4.85 | 0.60±0.43 | 37 |
Notes:
Statistical significance was found compared with the HC group (P<0.05).
No statistical significance was found before (baseline) and after treatment (P>0.05).
Statistical significance was found before (baseline) and after treatment (P<0.05).
No statistical significance was found compared with the HC group (P>0.05).
Abbreviations: Esc, escitalopram; HC, healthy control; JK, escitalopram combined with Jiuweizhenxin-keli; P50, sensory gating potential P50; S2/S1, stimulus test (S2)/condition (S1); S2-P50, stimulus 2-sensory gating potential P50; SD, standard deviation.