Search

Background: We examined the efficacy and safety of three different dosages of venlafaxine hydrochloride (75, 225, and 375 mg/day) in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-group study., Method: Outpatients, 18 to 65 years old, who met DSM-III criteria for major depression were included (N = 358 randomized; 194 completed). Of the total patients completing the trial, 59%, 56%, 51%, and 51% were in the placebo, 75-mg, 225-mg, and 375-mg groups, respectively. The primary outcome measures were the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D21) total, HAM-D21 depression item, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total, and Clinical Global Impressions scale., Results: Each dosage of venlafaxine was associated with statistically significant improvement as compared with placebo, based on the intent-to-treat sample. The two higher dosages were associated with a modestly greater antidepressant response than was the 75-mg dosage. Nausea, dizziness, somnolence, and anorexia were the most common adverse events attributable to venlafaxine. Since headache occurred at a similar frequency in both the drug and placebo groups, we did not consider it to be attributable to venlafaxine use. Withdrawal from the study due to adverse events occurred in 5%, 17%, 24%, and 30% of the patients in the placebo, 75-mg, 225-mg, and 375-mg groups, respectively., Conclusion: Venlafaxine, at dosages of 75-375 mg/day, is an effective and well-tolerated antidepressant. With increasing dosage, greater efficacy and possibly more adverse effects will occur.

Paroxetine is a novel antidepressant that selectively inhibits neuronal reuptake of serotonin. Results are reported from a 6-week, double-blind trial of paroxetine, imipramine, and placebo in 120 outpatients with DSM-III major depression. Paroxetine was significantly superior to placebo on almost all measures. This included the main outcome variable, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and its factor scores, anxiety-somatization, cognitive disturbance, psychomotor retardation, and sleep disturbance. There were no significant differences between paroxetine and imipramine on the same scales. Imipramine-treated patients were significantly more likely than those taking placebo to report one or more adverse effects, which were predominantly anticholinergic in nature. There was no significant difference in the number of paroxetine and placebo patients who reported one or more adverse effects. The results of this and similar studies indicate that paroxetine is an effective treatment in major depression and has a favorable side effect profile.

The safety and efficacy of nortriptyline and fluoxetine were compared in a double-blind, randomized, multicenter 5-week trial involving 205 outpatients with acute major depression of moderate severity. Seventy-two nortriptyline and 84 fluoxetine patients completed at least 2 weeks of medication and were included in the efficacy analysis; all patients were evaluated for side effects. Average total scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) for both treatment groups declined from 22-23 at baseline to 11.5 at the conclusion of the 5-week period. At Week, 5, 71% of nortriptyline patients and 65% of fluoxetine patients were much or very much improved. Fluoxetine was associated more frequently with nausea (p less than .05), while nortriptyline was associated more frequently with dry mouth (p less than .05). These results are discussed in the context of selecting between nortriptyline and fluoxetine for a particular depressed patient.

Two hundred forty-one elderly depressed patients entered the 8-week, double-blind phase of this parallel-group, multicenter study; 161 patients were randomized to receive sertraline (50-200 mg/day) and 80 were randomized to receive amitriptyline (50-150 mg/day). Among evaluable patients, there were no statistically significant differences between treatments in any of the primary efficacy variables: change in total Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score (17 items), percentage change in HAM-D score, change in HAM-D Item 1, change in Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Severity score, change in the Depression Factor of the 56-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist, and the CGI Improvement score at the last visit. Similar results were obtained using data from all patients (intention-to-treat analysis), except that amitriptyline was superior in HAM-D Total score (p = .044). The two drugs produced a similar degree of response: on the basis of the HAM-D criterion, 69.4% of sertraline patients and 62.5% of amitriptyline patients responded, and, on the basis of CGI criterion, 79.5% of sertraline and 73.4% of amitriptyline patients responded. Twenty-eight percent of the sertraline patients withdrew from the study because of a treatment-related side effect and 2.5% (4) because of a laboratory abnormality. In comparison, 35% of the amitriptyline patients withdrew because of treatment-related side effects. Sertraline was associated with a statistically lower frequency of somnolence, dry mouth, constipation, ataxia, and pain and a higher frequency of nausea, anorexia, diarrhea/loose stools, and insomnia; thus, anticholinergic effects were less common and gastrointestinal effects were more common with sertraline than with amitriptyline.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

One hundred forty outpatients with major depression were admitted to an 8-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of buspirone. Entry criteria included a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (25-item [HAM-D]) score of greater than or equal to 18 and a Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), score of greater than or equal to 18. A flexible dose schedule ranging from 5-90 mg/day was employed. The mean dose of buspirone was 41-54 mg/day from Week 2 to the end of the study. Sixty-four percent of buspirone patients and 50% of placebo patients were melancholic; 64% of buspirone patients and 74% of placebo patients discontinued treatment before the end of the study. Extender data analysis showed that buspirone patients had significant (p less than .05) HAM-D score reductions compared with the placebo group at Weeks 2, 3, 4, and 6. The HAM-D retardation factor trended toward significance over placebo at Weeks 3, 4, and 6. HAM-D change scores for the subgroup of melancholic patients taking buspirone were significantly (p less than .02) better than those of the placebo-treated melancholic subjects at Weeks 2, 3, 4, and 6. Most other efficacy parameters also favored the buspirone-treated group over the placebo-treated group. The most common adverse experiences for the buspirone group were CNS effects (74% in the buspirone group vs. 21% in the placebo group) and gastrointestinal effects (55% in the buspirone group vs. 37% in the placebo group). Side effects consisted of dizziness, light-headedness, nausea, and headache. No serious or unexpected adverse effects occurred.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Efficacy being constant, antidepressant choice is dictated by side effect profile, patient acceptance, and safety. Trazodone has been shown to be safe in overdose, and the side effect profile is mild, with sedation the most common side effect. Sleep electroencephalogram and clinical studies have shown trazodone effective in improving sleep in normal subjects, insomniac patients, and patients with major depression. Tolerance and rapid eye movement rebound on discontinuation do not occur. The 3- to 9-hour half-life of trazodone and its pharmacokinetics favors a dose weighted at bedtime. Studies comparing multiple daytime dosing to single dosing at bedtime have shown equal efficacy in relieving depression. At treatment onset, a single nighttime dose is more productive of sleep with less daytime drowsiness. These differences between single nighttime dosing and multiple daily dosing disappear with continued administration. Geriatric patients respond similarly. Trazodone is best dosed at 150 mg given predominantly (but not necessarily all) at bedtime and increased as needed to 200 to 300 mg for full antidepressant efficacy.

In a 4-week double-blind study, amoxapine and maprotiline were compared in the treatment of 76 outpatients with moderate to severe depressive illness. Mean maximum daily dosages were 230 mg for amoxapine and 165 mg for maprotiline. The data suggest that in these dosages amoxapine and maprotiline are equally effective overall. However, significant differences favored amoxapine at Days 4 and 7, in agreement with other studies showing early onset of therapeutic action of amoxapine.

Fixed daily doses of 20 mg, 40 mg, or 60 mg of fluoxetine, a highly specific serotonin reuptake inhibitor, were given to 84 depressed outpatients in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized 6-week trial. The 20-mg dose produced improvement of depression in the moderate-severe depression group as expressed in significant reductions of scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (p greater than or equal to .007) and the Patient Global Impressions scale (p greater than or equal to .011), and the 20-mg dose caused fewer side effects than did the higher doses. A mildly depressed group of patients showed no improvement at any dose level of fluoxetine.

The combined data from two 1970s anxiety studies that used clorazepate and placebo as controls were reanalyzed statistically with a focus on intellectual functioning and depressive symptoms. For the 176 patients given either clorazepate or placebo, significant improvement was observed on the mean scores of the intellectual item and the depressive item of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety; the clorazepate group was significantly more improved than the placebo group. Similar results were observed in patients' self-ratings. The authors conclude that clorazepate is effective in treating depressive symptoms and improving intellectual functioning in patients with generalized anxiety disorder.

In this multi-clinic double-blind study, patients suffering from insomnia were treated with triazolam 0.5 mg (Halcion) or placebo for 14 days. Four investigators treated 239 patients, 122 on triazolam and 117 on placebo. Thirty-nine patients, 10 on triazolam and 29 on placebo, dropped out for ineffectiveness of the medication and 32 patients, 16 in each group, dropped out for side effects. Analysis of pooled efficacy data showed that triazolam was significantly better than placebo on all efficacy parameters measured, including how much the medication helped the patients sleep, onset of sleep, duration of sleep, duration compared to usual, number of nocturnal awakenings, and feeling of restfulness in the morning. Triazolam did not produce evidence of tolerance development after 2 weeks of treatment. The same variety of side effects occurred on each treatment and primarily included drowsiness, grogginess, headaches, impaired coordination nausea, and dizziness.

Trazodone and imipramine were compared in a two-center double-blind study of moderately to severely depressed outpatients. Results for 44 patients who have completed the 12-month comparison showed superior efficacy of trazodone at endpoint on all efficacy measures. Significant differences were also seen on individual Hamilton Depression Rating Scale items, with lower anxiety scores at 5 evaluation points for the trazodone group. Clinical Global Impressions ratings also favored trazodone treatment. Anticholinergic effects and tremor were significantly more frequent in imipramine-treated patients, whereas drowsiness was more frequent with trazodone. No significant changes were seen in blood pressure or ophthalmologic exams; 2 trazodone patients and 1 imipramine patient developed slight ECG changes during therapy; these may have been age-related. Continued clinical benefit has been seen in 12 patients who have received open-label trazodone for additional periods of up to 3 years. These findings show trazodone to be clearly effective in long-term treatment of moderate to severe depression; the drug may be of particular benefit when atropine side effects pose serious problems, as in the elderly and patients with cardiovascular disorders.

Bupropion, a new antidepressant with a novel structure and neurochemical profile, was compared to placebo in a three-center evaluation. Seventy-five depressed inpatients, 48 on bupropion and 27 on placebo, participated for up to 28 days. At dosages of 300-600 mg/day, bupropion was significantly more active than placebo in reducing depressive and anxious symptomology, beginning at the 3-week evaluation. Bupropion was particularly efficacious in more severely ill and older patients. Symptoms reflecting cognitive disturbance, somatic anxiety, and psychomotor retardation were most improved; sleep disturbances showed less marked effects. Appetite and diurnal variation were not markedly influenced. Adverse effects were minimal, with no significant cardiovascular or clinical laboratory findings. Three patients developed a skin rash. There was a notable absence of sedative, anticholinergic, and cardiovascular-related side effects. Bupropion has demonstrated antidepressant effects and a spectrum of activity that holds promise for a difficult subgroup: the older depressed patient with retardation and cognitive disturbance.