Search

Aim: Depression has been recognized as one of the disorders associated with cardiac interventions such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sulforaphane in treatment of depression induced by cardiac interventions. Methods: After initial screening, 66 patients with previous history of at least one cardiac intervention and current mild to moderate depression were randomly assigned to two parallel groups receiving either sulforaphane (n = 33) or placebo (n = 33) for six successive weeks. Efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM‐D) at baseline and week 2, 4, and 6. Safety of the treatments was checked during the trial period. Results: Sixty participants completed the clinical trial (n = 30 in each group). Baseline demographic and clinical parameters were all similar among groups. Repeated measures analysis indicated that the sulforaphane group exhibited greater improvement in HAM‐D scores throughout the trial (P < 0.001). Response to treatment (≥50% reduction in the HAM‐D score) rate was higher in the sulforaphane group at trial endpoint (30% vs 6.67%, P = 0.042). Remission (HAM‐D score ≤ 7) rate was also higher in the sulforaphane group; however, the difference was not significant (23.33% vs 3.33%, P = 0.052). Finally, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of frequency of side effects. Conclusions: Sulforaphane could safely improve depressive symptoms induced by cardiac interventions. Further clinical trials with larger sample sizes and longer follow‐up periods are warranted to confirm our results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of tipepidine as an add‐on to methylphenidate in the drug treatment of attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: This study was an 8‐week, randomized, parallel group, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial recruiting 53 ADHD‐diagnosed children. Patients were randomly divided to receive methylphenidate + tipepidine or methylphenidate + placebo for 8 weeks. Participants were assessed using the parent version of ADHD Rating Scale‐IV and the Clinical Global Impression scale at baseline, at week 4, and at the end of the trial. Moreover, the safety and tolerability of the treatment strategies were compared. Results: On general linear model repeated measures analysis a significant effect was seen for time × treatment interaction on the total and hyperactivity–impulsivity subscales of the Parent ADHD Rating Scale‐IV during the trial period (Greenhouse–Geisser corrected: F = 3.45, d.f. = 1.52, P = 0.049, and F = 5.17, d.f. = 1.52, P = 0.014, respectively). The effect for time × treatment interaction, however, was not significant on Clinical Global Impression‐Severity scale (Greenhouse–Geisser corrected: F = 1.79, d.f. = 1.43, P = 0.182). The frequencies of adverse events were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Eight weeks of treatment with tipepidine, as a supplementary medication, resulted in satisfactory efficacy and safety of the adjuvant therapy in management of patients with ADHD. Rigorous investigations, however, involving larger sample sizes, more extended treatment periods, and dose responses should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]