4.5 Article

BDNF and cortisol levels in children with or without post-traumatic stress disorder after sustaining sexual abuse

期刊

PSYCHONEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 56, 期 -, 页码 45-51

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.02.017

关键词

BDNF; Cortisol; HPA axis; PTSD; Sexual abuse; Trauma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: There are studies reporting that cortisol and brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF) play a role in the pathophysiology of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, up-to-date no study evaluated the relationship between PTSD and the levels of cortisol and BDNF in children and adolescents who have sustained trauma. The aim of this study was to investigate whether BDNF, cortisol and adrenocorticotropine (ACTH) levels differ between individuals who developed PTSD or not following a sexual trauma. Method: The study included 55 children aged between 6 and 17 years who sustained sexual assault (M/F: 13/42). The patients were divided into two groups, with or without PTSD based on the results of a structured psychiatric interview (K-SADS-PL and CAPS-CA). Of the participants, 49% (n = 27) were diagnosed with PTSD. Cortisol, ACTH, and BDNF levels were evaluated using the ELISA method. Results: There were no significant differences between patients with or without PTSD in terms of cortisol, ACTH, BDNF levels. There were no correlations between CAPS-CA scores and cortisol, ACTH, and BDNF levels in patients with or without PTSD. In patients with PTSD, decreased cortisol levels were found with increasing time after trauma, and no significant correlation was found with the cortisol levels in patients without PTSD. Conclusion: Although no significant association was found between biochemical parameters and the presence or severity of PTSD; decreasing cortisol levels with increasing time after trauma in patients with PTSD suggest that cortisol might have played a role in the pathophysiology of this disorder. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据