| Literature DB >> 35127907 |
Yi Wang1, Yu-Wei Huang1, Dilnur Ablikim2, Qun Lu3, Ai-Jia Zhang1, Ye-Qing Dong4, Fei-Cui Zeng5, Jing-Hua Xu1, Wen Wang1, Zhi-Hai Hu6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression affects more than 350 million people worldwide. In China, 4.2% (54 million people) of the total population suffers from depression. Psychotherapy has been shown to change cognition, improve personality, and enhance the ability to cope with difficulties and setbacks. While pharmacotherapy can reduce symptoms, it is also associated with adverse reactions and relapse after drug withdrawal. Therefore, there has been an increasing emphasis placed on the use of non-pharmacological therapies for depression. The hypothesis of this study was that acupuncture at ghost points combined with fluoxetine would be more effective than fluoxetine alone for the treatment of depression. AIM: To investigate the efficacy of acupuncture at ghost points combined with fluoxetine for the treatment of patients with depression.Entities:
Keywords: Acupuncture; Depression; Fluoxetine; Ghost point; Resting state magnetic resonance; Traditional Chinese medicine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35127907 PMCID: PMC8790430 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i3.929
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Clin Cases ISSN: 2307-8960 Impact factor: 1.337
Comparison of general information of the two groups of patients, n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Age (yr) | 47.96.5 | 46.3 ± 7.2 | 1.475 | 0.142 |
| Years of education (yr) | 7.9 ± 2.2 | 8.1 ± 2.4 | -0.549 | 0.583 |
| HAMD score (points) | 20.13 ± 2.20 | 19.75 ± 2.38 | 1.049 | 0.296 |
| SDS score (points) | 61.84 ± 4.55 | 60.63 ± 4.92 | 1.615 | 0.108 |
| Gender | 1.047 | 0.306 | ||
| Male | 22 (27.50) | 28 (35.00) | ||
| Female | 58 (72.50) | 52 (65.00) | ||
| Smoking | 1.477 | 0.224 | ||
| Yes | 12 (15.00) | 18 (22.50) | ||
| No | 68 (85.00) | 62 (77.50) | ||
| Drinking | 1.653 | 0.199 | ||
| Yes | 16 (20.00) | 10 (12.50) | ||
| No | 64 (80.00) | 70 (87.50) | ||
| Hypertension | 1.283 | 0.257 | ||
| Yes | 35 (43.75) | 28 (35.00) | ||
| No | 45 (56.25) | 52 (65.00) | ||
| Diabetes | 1.200 | 0.273 | ||
| Yes | 17 (21.25) | 23 (28.75) | ||
| No | 63 (78.75) | 57 (71.25) | ||
| Hyperlipidemia | 2.209 | 0.137 | ||
| Yes | 15 (18.75) | 23 (28.75) | ||
| No | 65 (81.25) | 57 (71.25) |
HAMD: Hamilton depression rating scale.
Comparison of Hamilton depression rating scale scores and self-rating depression scale scores between the two groups (mean ± SD, scores)
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Acupuncture group | 80 | 20.13 ± 2.20 | 16.60 ± 2.85 | 13.64 ± 2.75 | 61.84 ± 4.55 | 56.92 ± 5.10 | 51.14 ± 6.12 |
| Fluoxetine group | 80 | 19.75 ± 2.38 | 17.21 ± 2.91 | 15.20 ± 2.48 | 60.63 ± 4.92 | 57.88 ± 5.53 | 54.63 ± 5.58 |
|
| 1.049 | -1.340 | -3.768 | 1.615 | -1.141 | -3.769 | |
|
| 0.296 | 0.182 | 0.000 | 0.108 | 0.255 | 0.000 | |
P < 0.05 vs this group before treatment.
HAMD: Hamilton depression rating scale; SDS: Self-rating depression scale.
Comparison of fractional amplitude of low frequency fluctuations values between the two groups of patients (mean ± SD)
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| |||
| Before treatment | |||||
| Cingulate back | -3 | -11 | 13 | 12 | -0.431 |
| Left precuneus | -4 | -8 | -4 | 14 | 1.102 |
| Middle occipital gyrus | -9 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 1.339 |
| Left suboccipital back | -14 | -21 | -9 | 17 | 1.482 |
| Lower forehead of right frame | 14 | 12 | -2 | 19 | 1.773 |
| Right insula | 15 | 18 | -5 | 16 | 1.295 |
| Right hippocampus | 11 | -1 | 13 | 14 | 1.374 |
| Post treatment | |||||
| Cingulate back | 14 | 18 | -11 | 21 | 2.23 |
| Left precuneus | 5 | 13 | 6 | 19 | 1.748 |
| Middle occipital gyrus | 12 | 38 | 8 | 24 | 2.548 |
| Left suboccipital back | 7 | 14 | 11 | 32 | 3.251 |
| Lower forehead of right frame | -18 | -16 | 9 | 37 | 3.926 |
| Right insula | -17 | -13 | 14 | 15 | 1.554 |
| Right hippocampus | -13 | 12 | -11 | 9 | 0.983 |
fALFF: Fractional amplitude of low frequency fluctuations.
Comparison of traditional Chinese medicine syndrome scores between the two groups of patients (mean ± SD, scores)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||||
| Acupuncture group | 80 | 21.73 ± 4.20 | 7.96 ± 1.55 | 27.511 | 0.000 |
| Fluoxetine group | 80 | 20.68 ± 4.47 | 10.20 ± 2.39 | 18.493 | 0.000 |
|
| 1.531 | -7.033 | |||
|
| 0.128 | 0.000 | |||
TCM: Traditional Chinese medicine.
Comparison of plasma adrenocorticotropic hormone, Cor and corticotropin-releasing hormone levels before and after treatment in the two groups
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Acupuncture group | 80 | 38.74 ± 7.20 | 28.64 ± 5.51 | 122.64 ± 14.81 | 98.13 ± 11.77 | 132.85 ± 17.20 | 112.69 ± 12.54 |
| Fluoxetine group | 80 | 40.01 ± 8.14 | 31.47 ± 7.08 | 120.28 ± 16.57 | 105.25 ± 13.60 | 130.51 ± 15.83 | 116.11 ± 14.38 |
|
| -1.045 | -2.821 | 0.950 | -3.541 | 0.895 | -1.603 | |
|
| 0.297 | 0.005 | 0.344 | 0.001 | 0.372 | 0.111 | |
P < 0.05 vs this group before treatment.
ACTH: Adrenocorticotropic hormone; CRH: Corticotropin-releasing hormone.
Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups of patients, n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Acupuncture group | 80 | 41 (51.25) | 33 (41.25) | 6 (7.50) |
| Fluoxetine group | 80 | 29 (36.25) | 40 (50.00) | 11 (13.75) |
| Z | -2.041 | |||
|
| 0.041 | |||
Comparison of the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups of patients, n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Acupuncture group | 80 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4 (5.00) |
| Fluoxetine group | 80 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 13 (16.25) |
|
| 5.331 | ||||||
|
| 0.021 |