
Chinese General Practice ›› 2022, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (03): 285-292.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.02.067
Special Issue: 精神卫生最新文章合辑
• Article·Enteropathy Study • Previous Articles Next Articles
Efficacy and Safety of Wuling Capsule Combined with Fupentixol and Melitracen Tablets in Active Ulcerative Colitis Patients Accompanied with Anxiety and Depression
1.Education Department,the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University,Hangzhou 310005,China
2.Zhejiang Chinese Medical University,Hangzhou 310053,China
3.Deportment of TCM,Zhejiang Provincial Tongde Hospital,Hangzhou 310012,China
4.Department of Gastroenterology,the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University,Hangzhou 310005,China
*Corresponding author:SHEN Yan,Associate chief physician;E-mail:shendanxi61115@163.com
Received:2021-07-07
Revised:2021-10-28
Published:2022-01-20
Online:2021-12-29
通讯作者:
沈雁
基金资助:CLC Number:
MO Dayu, LIU Yingchao, WANG Feida, NI Siyi, SHEN Yan.
Efficacy and Safety of Wuling Capsule Combined with Fupentixol and Melitracen Tablets in Active Ulcerative Colitis Patients Accompanied with Anxiety and Depression [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25(03): 285-292.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chinagp.net/EN/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.02.067
| 项目 | 评分 | 项目 | 评分 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 排便次数 | 结肠黏膜表现 | ||||
| 正常 | 0 | 正常 | 0 | ||
| 比正常次数增加1~2次/d | 1 | 轻度病变(红斑、血管纹理减少、轻度易脆) | 1 | ||
| 比正常次数增加3~4次/d | 2 | 中度病变(明显红斑、血管纹理缺乏、易脆、糜烂) | 2 | ||
| 比正常次数增加5次/d或以上 | 3 | 重度病变(自发性出血、溃疡性形成) | 3 | ||
| 便血 | 医师总体评价 | ||||
| 未见出血 | 0 | 正常 | 0 | ||
| 不到一半时间内便中混血 | 1 | 病情为轻度 | 1 | ||
| 大部分时间内便中混血 | 2 | 病情为中度 | 2 | ||
| 一直存在出血 | 3 | 病情为重度 | 3 | ||
Table 1 The Modified Mayo scoring system
| 项目 | 评分 | 项目 | 评分 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 排便次数 | 结肠黏膜表现 | ||||
| 正常 | 0 | 正常 | 0 | ||
| 比正常次数增加1~2次/d | 1 | 轻度病变(红斑、血管纹理减少、轻度易脆) | 1 | ||
| 比正常次数增加3~4次/d | 2 | 中度病变(明显红斑、血管纹理缺乏、易脆、糜烂) | 2 | ||
| 比正常次数增加5次/d或以上 | 3 | 重度病变(自发性出血、溃疡性形成) | 3 | ||
| 便血 | 医师总体评价 | ||||
| 未见出血 | 0 | 正常 | 0 | ||
| 不到一半时间内便中混血 | 1 | 病情为轻度 | 1 | ||
| 大部分时间内便中混血 | 2 | 病情为中度 | 2 | ||
| 一直存在出血 | 3 | 病情为重度 | 3 | ||
| 组别 | 例数 | 腹泻 | 黏液脓血便 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 28 | 2.0±0.4 | 1.2±0.3 | 8.678 | <0.001 | 1.2±0.2 | 0.6±0.1 | 12.644 | <0.001 |
| 黛力新组 | 28 | 2.1±0.3 | 1.3±0.4 | 8.581 | <0.001 | 1.2±0.3 | 0.6±0.1 | 9.491 | <0.001 |
| 乌灵胶囊组 | 29 | 1.9±0.3 | 1.2±0.1 | 13.845 | <0.001 | 1.2±0.2 | 0.5±0.1ab | 14.213 | <0.001 |
| 联合治疗组 | 28 | 2.0±0.3 | 0.9±0.2abc | 15.358 | <0.001 | 1.2±0.2 | 0.4±0.1abc | 16.775 | <0.001 |
| F值 | 1.77 | 11.30 | 0.12 | 25.69 | |||||
| P值 | 0.157 | <0.001 | 0.948 | <0.001 | |||||
Table 2 Comparison of pre- and post-treatment main clinical symptom score in the four groups
| 组别 | 例数 | 腹泻 | 黏液脓血便 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 28 | 2.0±0.4 | 1.2±0.3 | 8.678 | <0.001 | 1.2±0.2 | 0.6±0.1 | 12.644 | <0.001 |
| 黛力新组 | 28 | 2.1±0.3 | 1.3±0.4 | 8.581 | <0.001 | 1.2±0.3 | 0.6±0.1 | 9.491 | <0.001 |
| 乌灵胶囊组 | 29 | 1.9±0.3 | 1.2±0.1 | 13.845 | <0.001 | 1.2±0.2 | 0.5±0.1ab | 14.213 | <0.001 |
| 联合治疗组 | 28 | 2.0±0.3 | 0.9±0.2abc | 15.358 | <0.001 | 1.2±0.2 | 0.4±0.1abc | 16.775 | <0.001 |
| F值 | 1.77 | 11.30 | 0.12 | 25.69 | |||||
| P值 | 0.157 | <0.001 | 0.948 | <0.001 | |||||
| 组别 | 例数 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 | 28 | 6.3±0.9 | 2.0±0.3 | 23.284 | <0.001 |
| 黛力新组 | 28 | 6.5±0.9 | 1.9±0.3 | 26.941 | <0.001 |
| 乌灵胶囊组 | 29 | 6.2±1.0 | 1.7±0.4ab | 23.478 | <0.001 |
| 联合治疗组 | 28 | 6.2±1.2 | 1.4±0.3abc | 21.253 | <0.001 |
| F值 | 0.56 | 18.16 | |||
| P值 | 0.646 | <0.001 |
Table 3 Comparison of pre- and post-treatment modified Mayo score in the four groups
| 组别 | 例数 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 | 28 | 6.3±0.9 | 2.0±0.3 | 23.284 | <0.001 |
| 黛力新组 | 28 | 6.5±0.9 | 1.9±0.3 | 26.941 | <0.001 |
| 乌灵胶囊组 | 29 | 6.2±1.0 | 1.7±0.4ab | 23.478 | <0.001 |
| 联合治疗组 | 28 | 6.2±1.2 | 1.4±0.3abc | 21.253 | <0.001 |
| F值 | 0.56 | 18.16 | |||
| P值 | 0.646 | <0.001 |
| 组别 | 例数 | ESR(mm/1 h) | CRP(mg/L) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 28 | 24.6±1.1 | 18.4±1.6 | 16.973 | <0.001 | 28.37±2.81 | 23.49±3.63 | 5.623 | <0.001 |
| 黛力新组 | 28 | 25.1±1.4 | 17.7±1.4 | 19.738 | <0.001 | 28.91±3.34 | 23.13±3.25 | 6.568 | <0.001 |
| 乌灵胶囊组 | 29 | 24.4±1.7 | 15.8±1.2ab | 22.027 | <0.001 | 29.28±2.89 | 20.27±2.37ab | 12.980 | <0.001 |
| 联合治疗组 | 28 | 25.0±1.6 | 13.5±2.2abc | 22.649 | <0.001 | 29.78±2.59 | 17.19±1.67abc | 21.633 | <0.001 |
| F值 | 1.48 | 50.06 | 1.16 | 30.05 | |||||
| P值 | 0.223 | <0.001 | 0.327 | <0.001 | |||||
Table 4 Comparison of pre- and post-treatment inflammatory response indicators in the four groups
| 组别 | 例数 | ESR(mm/1 h) | CRP(mg/L) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 28 | 24.6±1.1 | 18.4±1.6 | 16.973 | <0.001 | 28.37±2.81 | 23.49±3.63 | 5.623 | <0.001 |
| 黛力新组 | 28 | 25.1±1.4 | 17.7±1.4 | 19.738 | <0.001 | 28.91±3.34 | 23.13±3.25 | 6.568 | <0.001 |
| 乌灵胶囊组 | 29 | 24.4±1.7 | 15.8±1.2ab | 22.027 | <0.001 | 29.28±2.89 | 20.27±2.37ab | 12.980 | <0.001 |
| 联合治疗组 | 28 | 25.0±1.6 | 13.5±2.2abc | 22.649 | <0.001 | 29.78±2.59 | 17.19±1.67abc | 21.633 | <0.001 |
| F值 | 1.48 | 50.06 | 1.16 | 30.05 | |||||
| P值 | 0.223 | <0.001 | 0.327 | <0.001 | |||||
| 组别 | 例数 | SAS评分 | SDS评分 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 28 | 56.1±2.1 | 55.4±1.9 | 1.211 | 0.231 | 57.4±2.7 | 56.4±2.8 | 1.277 | 0.207 |
| 黛力新组 | 28 | 57.1±2.0 | 48.0±1.7a | 18.412 | <0.001 | 58.2±2.9 | 52.0±2.0a | 9.161 | <0.001 |
| 乌灵胶囊组 | 29 | 56.2±2.8 | 49.7±1.4ab | 11.492 | <0.001 | 58.6±2.6 | 52.7±2.1a | 9.498 | <0.001 |
| 联合治疗组 | 28 | 56.0±2.0 | 45.3±1.6abc | 22.012 | <0.001 | 58.4±2.6 | 46.5±2.2abc | 18.562 | <0.001 |
| F值 | 1.41 | 185.80 | 1.07 | 88.79 | |||||
| P值 | 0.243 | <0.001 | 0.365 | <0.001 | |||||
Table 5 Comparison of pre- and post-treatment SAS and SDS scores in the four groups
| 组别 | 例数 | SAS评分 | SDS评分 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 28 | 56.1±2.1 | 55.4±1.9 | 1.211 | 0.231 | 57.4±2.7 | 56.4±2.8 | 1.277 | 0.207 |
| 黛力新组 | 28 | 57.1±2.0 | 48.0±1.7a | 18.412 | <0.001 | 58.2±2.9 | 52.0±2.0a | 9.161 | <0.001 |
| 乌灵胶囊组 | 29 | 56.2±2.8 | 49.7±1.4ab | 11.492 | <0.001 | 58.6±2.6 | 52.7±2.1a | 9.498 | <0.001 |
| 联合治疗组 | 28 | 56.0±2.0 | 45.3±1.6abc | 22.012 | <0.001 | 58.4±2.6 | 46.5±2.2abc | 18.562 | <0.001 |
| F值 | 1.41 | 185.80 | 1.07 | 88.79 | |||||
| P值 | 0.243 | <0.001 | 0.365 | <0.001 | |||||
| 组别 | 例数 | 肠道症状 | 全身症状 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 28 | 50.1±1.6 | 58.2±2.2 | -15.565 | <0.001 | 23.8±1.1 | 25.9±1.5 | -6.128 | <0.001 |
| 黛力新组 | 28 | 49.8±1.6 | 58.1±1.4 | -20.623 | <0.001 | 23.9±1.0 | 28.9±2.0a | -11.905 | <0.001 |
| 乌灵胶囊组 | 29 | 50.5±1.2 | 57.4±1.5 | -18.732 | <0.001 | 24.3±1.2 | 29.5±1.2a | -16.536 | <0.001 |
| 联合治疗组 | 28 | 50.4±1.1 | 65.1±1.9abc | -35.599 | <0.001 | 24.0±1.0 | 32.4±2.0abc | -20.132 | <0.001 |
| F值 | 1.46 | 116.64 | 1.15 | 68.38 | |||||
| P值 | 0.229 | <0.001 | 0.334 | <0.001 | |||||
Table 6 Comparison of pre- and post-treatment IBDQ score in the four groups
| 组别 | 例数 | 肠道症状 | 全身症状 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 28 | 50.1±1.6 | 58.2±2.2 | -15.565 | <0.001 | 23.8±1.1 | 25.9±1.5 | -6.128 | <0.001 |
| 黛力新组 | 28 | 49.8±1.6 | 58.1±1.4 | -20.623 | <0.001 | 23.9±1.0 | 28.9±2.0a | -11.905 | <0.001 |
| 乌灵胶囊组 | 29 | 50.5±1.2 | 57.4±1.5 | -18.732 | <0.001 | 24.3±1.2 | 29.5±1.2a | -16.536 | <0.001 |
| 联合治疗组 | 28 | 50.4±1.1 | 65.1±1.9abc | -35.599 | <0.001 | 24.0±1.0 | 32.4±2.0abc | -20.132 | <0.001 |
| F值 | 1.46 | 116.64 | 1.15 | 68.38 | |||||
| P值 | 0.229 | <0.001 | 0.334 | <0.001 | |||||
| [1] | NG W K, WONG S H, NG S C. Changing epidemiological trends of inflammatory bowel disease in Asia[J]. Intest Res,2016,14(2):111-119. DOI:10.5217/ir.2016.14.2.111. |
| [2] | LI X, SONG P, LI J,et al. The disease burden and clinical characteristics of inflammatory bowel disease in the Chinese population:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health,2017,14(3):238. DOI:10.3390/ijerph14030238. |
| [3] | BRESSLER B, MARSHALL J K, BERNSTEIN C N,et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the medical management of non-hospitalized ulcerative colitis:the Toronto consensus[J]. Gastroenterology,2015,148(5):1035-1058. e3. DOI:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.03.001. |
| [4] | BERNSTEIN C N, HITCHON C A, WALLD R,et al. Increased burden of psychiatric disorders in inflammatory bowel disease[J]. Inflamm Bowel Dis,2019,25(2):360-368. DOI:10.1093/ibd/izy235. |
| [5] | REGUEIRO M, GREER J B, SZIGETHY E. Etiology and treatment of pain and psychosocial issues in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases[J]. Gastroenterology,2017,152(2):430-439. e4. DOI:10.1053/j.gastro.2016.10.036. |
| [6] | MIKOCKA-WALUS A, PITTET V, ROSSEL J B,et al. Symptoms of depression and anxiety are independently associated with clinical recurrence of inflammatory bowel disease[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol,2016,14(6):829-835. e1. DOI:10.1016/j.cgh.2015.12.045. |
| [7] | GRACIE D J, IRVINE A J, SOOD R,et al. Effect of psychological therapy on disease activity,psychological comorbidity,and quality of life in inflammatory bowel disease:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol,2017,2(3):189-199. DOI:10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30206-0. |
| [8] | VEGNI E, GILARDI D, CORRòB E,et al. P506 Psychological factors and quality of life in inflammatory bowel diseases patients:the Psycho study[J]. J Crohns Colitis,2017,11():S337. DOI:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx002.630. |
| [9] | 中华医学会心身医学分会,乌灵胶囊临床应用专家共识组.乌灵胶囊在心身相关障碍中的临床应用专家共识[J]. 中华内科杂志,2020,59(6):427-432. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112138-20191223-00838. |
| [10] | 中华医学会消化病学分会炎症性肠病学组. 炎症性肠病诊断与治疗的共识意见(2018年·北京)[J]. 中华炎性肠病杂志(中英文),2018,2(3):173-190. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.2096-367X.2018.03.005. |
| [11] | 张明园. 精神科评定量表手册[M]. 2版. 长沙:湖南科学技术出版社,1998:3542-3547. |
| [12] | 郑筱萸. 中药新药临床研究指导原则(试行)[M]. 北京:中国医药科技出版社,2002:349-353. |
| [13] | GUYATT G, MITCHELL A, IRVINE E J,et al. A new measure of health status for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease[J]. Gastroenterology,1989,96(3):804-810. |
| [14] | NEUENDORF R, HARDING A, STELLO N,et al. Depression and anxiety in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:a systematic review[J]. J Psychosom Res,2016,87:70-80. DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.06.001. |
| [15] | WILLIET N, SARTER H, GOWER-ROUSSEAU C,et al. Patient-reported outcomes in a French nationwide survey of inflammatory bowel disease patients[J]. J Crohns Colitis,2017,11(2):165-174. DOI:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw145. |
| [16] | GRACIE D J, GUTHRIE E A, HAMLIN P J,et al. Bi-directionality of brain-gut interactions in patients with inflammatory bowel disease[J]. Gastroenterology,2018,154(6):1635-1646. e3. DOI:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.027. |
| [17] | 胡义亭,张建,贾桂丛,等. 炎症性肠病患者焦虑、抑郁状态分析及其与生活质量的关系[J]. 中国医药导报,2017,14(28):57-59,68. |
| [18] | 李晓婷,刘云,任建安,等. 克罗恩病患者健康相关生活质量及其影响因素调查[J]. 中华护理杂志,2014,49(1):70-75. DOI:10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2014.01.018. |
| [19] | MIKOCKA-WALUS A A, TURNBULL D A, MOULDING N T,et al. Controversies surrounding the comorbidity of depression and anxiety in inflammatory bowel disease patients:a literature review[J]. Inflamm Bowel Dis,2007,13(2):225-234. DOI:10.1002/ibd.20062. |
| [20] | CASTILLO A, FASIHUDDIN F, SALIAJ M,et al. Tu2015 the impact of depression on disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease(IBD)patients[J]. Gastroenterology,2016,150(4):S1006. DOI:10.1016/S0016-5085(16)33407-2. |
| [21] | CAWTHORPE D, DAVIDSON M. Temporal comorbidity of mental disorder and ulcerative colitis[J]. Perm J,2015,19(1):52-57. DOI:10.7812/TPP/14-120. |
| [22] | NARULA N, PINTO-SANCHEZ M I, CALO N C,et al. Anxiety but not depression predicts poor outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease[J]. Inflamm Bowel Dis,2019,25(7):1255-1261. DOI:10.1093/ibd/izy385. |
| [23] | HUPPERTZ-HAUSS G, HØIVIK M L, JELSNESS-JØRGENSENL P,et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with inflammatory bowel disease 20 years after diagnosis:results from the IBSEN study[J]. Inflamm Bowel Dis,2016,22(7):1679-1687. DOI:10.1097/MIB.0000000000000806. |
| [24] | HUPPERTZ-HAUSS G, HØIVIK M L, LANGHOLZ E,et al. Health-related quality of life in inflammatory bowel disease in a European-wide population-based cohort 10 years after diagnosis[J]. Inflamm Bowel Dis,2015,21(2):337-344. DOI:10.1097/MIB.0000000000000272. |
| [25] | 马志章,左萍萍,陈宛如,等. 乌灵菌粉的镇静作用及其机理研究[J]. 中国药学杂志,1999,34(6):374. DOI:10.3321/j.issn:1001-2494.1999.06.007. |
| [26] | 杨楠,刘雁勇,郝文宇,等. 应用基因芯片技术探讨乌灵菌粉的抗抑郁机制[J]. 中国康复理论与实践,2010,16(4):328-331. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2010.04.009. |
| [27] | LI D, ZHENG J, WANG M,et al. Wuling powder prevents the depression-like behavior in learned helplessness mice model through improving the TSPO mediated-mitophagy[J]. J Ethnopharmacol,2016,186:181-188. DOI:10.1016/j.jep.2016.03.065. |
| [28] | WANG L, BAO B B, SONG G Q,et al. Discovery of unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides as novel inhibitors of SARS-CoV main protease:chemical synthesis,biological evaluation,molecular docking and 3D-QSAR study[J]. Eur J Med Chem,2017,137:450-461. DOI:10.1016/j.ejmech.2017.05.045. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||