Effect of Pharmacotherapy with Paroxetine on Biofeedback Measurement Variables in Panic Disorder Patients.
- Author:
Han Wook RYU
1
;
Moon Sun KOO
;
Bum Hee YU
Author Information
1. Department of Psychiatry, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. bhyu@smc.samsung.co.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Panic disorder;
Biofeedback;
Electrodermal response;
Pharmacotherapy;
Treatment response
- MeSH:
Anxiety;
Biofeedback, Psychology*;
Depression;
Drug Therapy*;
Electromyography;
Forearm;
Galvanic Skin Response;
Humans;
Panic Disorder*;
Panic*;
Paroxetine*;
Skin Temperature
- From:Korean Journal of Psychopharmacology
2004;15(4):468-473
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: There have been much effort to find reliable indicators predicting treatment response in panic disorder. This study aimed to find the effect of pharmacotherapy on biofeedback measurement variables in panic disorder patients. METHOD: We recruited 38 panic disorder patients (M:25, F:13) in the Samsung Medical Center, who were diagnosed by the ADIS-IV (Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule-IV), and 33 normal control subjects (M:21 F:12). Panic patients were treated with paroxetine for 3 months. All subjects were assessed on forearm and frontal electromyography (EMG), electrodermal response (EDR), and skin temperature in baseline, stress, recovery phases using the Procomp & Biograph biofeedback instrument. Psychological measures such as Hamilton anxiety rating scale (HAM-A), Hamilton depression rating scale (HAM-D), Beck depression inventory (BDI), Spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI-S, STAI-T), and Anxiety sensitivity index (ASI) were also assessed. All measurements were performed at the beginning of the study and after 3 months of paroxetine treatment. RESULT: Panic patients had significantly higher scores on psychological measures such as HAM-A, HAM-D, BDI, STAI-S, STAI-T, and ASI (all p values<0.001) before treatment. After 3months of treatment, panic patients showed significant improvement on baseline EDR (z=-2.824, p=0.005), stress EDR (z=-2.691, p=0.007), and recovery EDR (z=-3.416, p=0.001). They also showed significant improvement on HAM-A, HAM-D, BDI, STAI-S, STAI-T, and ASI (all p values<0.001) after treatment. CONCLUSION: Electrodermal response, one of the biofeedback measurement variables, was suggested to be the possible indicator predicting treatment response in panic disorder.
