Search

INTRODUCTION: Long-term exposure to antidepressants is required to prevent relapses and recurrences in patients with recurrent major depression. Furthermore, a good pharmacological compliance is the key to successful long-term treatment. Since the early phases of a treatment influence long-term compliance and compliance is adversely affected by poorly tolerated treatments, efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine and amitryptiline over 12 weeks were compared as an introduction to the issue of long-term compliance to these two agents. METHOD: A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, doubledummy, parallel-group trial which involved 129 patients with recurrent major depression. RESULTS: Both paroxetine and amitriptyline were effective in controlling the symptoms of depression, as shown by the reduction in HAMD total score and CGI severity-of-illness score at endpoint compared to baseline. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference between the two treatments in terms of efficacy. However, marked numerical differences were noted in tolerability: the percentage of patients who reported treatment-emergent adverse experiences was greater in the amitriptyline group (40.0% vs 28.1%). This difference was mainly due to anticholinergic adverse events, which were six times more frequent with amitriptyline than with paroxetine. CONCLUSION: When compared with amitriptyline, paroxetine should allow patients with recurrent major depression to receive an equally effective treatment with a relatively lower incidence of adverse experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two hundred and fifty patients participated in a 6-month, double-blind study to evaluate safety and efficacy of a medium-term treatment with amisulpride 50 mg/day versus amitriptyline 25-75 mg/day in dysthymia. Patients in treatment groups (165 amisulpride; 85 amitriptyline) were well balanced for demographic and baseline characteristics. A total of 139 patients (93 amisulpride, 46 amitriptyline) completed the study with no statistically significant differences in reasons for premature termination between the two groups. A tendency towards a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events with amitriptyline was observed (73% versus 64% amisulpride). In the amitriptyline group, a statistically significantly higher incidence of central nervous system (41% versus 24%, p=0.004) and autonomic nervous system disorders (45% versus 16%, p < 0.0001) was reported. Conversely, endocrine disorders were more frequent with amisulpride (18% versus 7%, p=0.023). Efficacy was a secondary end-point. Results of the symptom rating scales indicate that both drugs were equally effective: 60% and 62% of patients under amisulpride and amitriptyline, respectively, achieved a reduction > or = 50% of the Montgomery and Asberg Rating Scale total score at end-point. On the item 'global improvement' of the Clinical Global Impression, 67% of amisulpride and 68% of amitriptyline patients were rated as 'very much' or 'much' improved. Results of the present study in a large patient population further confirm the safe use of amisulpride in dysthymia and support its administration upon a medium-term treatment period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]