Paroxetine in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Japanese patients

The efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder in Western populations is well established. The present study compares the efficacy and safety of paroxetine with placebo in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder in Japanese patients. Patients aged 16 years or older who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn; DSM-IV) criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder and had a Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) score of >/=16 were randomized to receive 12 weeks' therapy in a double-blind manner. Paroxetine 20-50 mg/day or placebo was administered following a 1 week, placebo run-in phase. One hundred and ninety-one patients were randomized to either paroxetine or placebo, 188 patients were assessed as the full analysis set (FAS) and 144 patients completed the 12 week study. After adjustment for the Y-BOCS total score at baseline, reductions in obsessive-compulsive total score at week 6 and at the end of therapy were significantly greater in the paroxetine group than the placebo group. Most of the adverse events that occurred during the study were of mild to moderate intensity. Paroxetine is effective and well tolerated in Japanese adult patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder.     

Paroxetine treatment in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in pediatric major depressive disorder. METHOD: Subjects 7 to 17 years old with major depressive disorder received paroxetine (10-50 mg/day) or placebo for 8 weeks from 2000 to 2001. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised total score at week 8 last observation carried forward). Safety was primarily assessed by spontaneous reporting of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients (intent to treat) were randomized to paroxetine (n = 104) or placebo (n = 102). Week 8 Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised total score adjusted mean changes from baseline for patients receiving paroxetine and placebo were -22.58 (SE 1.47) and -23.38 points (SE 1.60), respectively (0.80, 95% confidence interval -3.09 to 4.69, p = 0.684). Increased cough (5.9% versus 2.9%), dyspepsia (5.9% versus 2.9%), vomiting (5.9% versus 2.0%), and dizziness (5.0% versus 1.0%) occurred in >or=5% of the paroxetine group and at least twice that of the placebo group. Six of 104 (5.8%) paroxetine patients reported serious adverse events compared to 1 placebo patient (1.0%). The incidence of adverse events of suicidal behavior and/or ideation while taking study medication (excluding taper) was 1.92% (2/104) for paroxetine versus 0.98% (1/102) for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Paroxetine was not shown to be more efficacious than placebo for treating pediatric major depressive disorder.     

Efficacy of controlled-release paroxetine in the treatment of late-life depression

BACKGROUND: Depression is the second most common neuropsychiatric disorder in older Americans, with significant clinical and public health costs. Despite advances in treatment, late-life depression remains a clinical challenge. Although the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most common pharmacologic intervention for late-life depression, few placebo-controlled trials have assessed the efficacy of SSRIs for this condition. METHOD: In this 12-week, multicenter, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose, double-blind, randomized trial, 319 elderly patients (mean age = 70 years) were treated with controlled-release paroxetine (paroxetine CR) up to 50 mg/day (N = 104), immediate-release paroxetine (paroxetine IR) up to 40 mg/day (N = 106), or placebo (N = 109). Patients met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder and had a total score of 18 or more on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to endpoint in HAM-D total score. RESULTS: The primary efficacy analysis showed an adjusted difference between change from baseline in HAM-D score for paroxetine CR and placebo of -2.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -4.47 to -0.73, p = .007) at the week 12 last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) endpoint. The adjusted difference between paroxetine IR and placebo was -2.8 (95% CI = -4.65 to -0.99, p = .003) at week 12. Paroxetine CR and IR were more effective than placebo, with mean +/- SD endpoint HAM-D total scores of 10.0 +/- 7.41 and 10.0 +/- 7.10, respectively, for the active treatments compared with 12.6 +/- 7.34 for placebo. Response, defined as a score of 1 or 2 on the Clinical Global Impressions-global improvement scale, was achieved by 72% of paroxetine CR patients (LOCF; p < .002 vs. placebo), 65% of paroxetine IR patients (p = .06 vs. placebo), and 52% of placebo patients. Remission, defined as a HAM-D total score < or = 7, was achieved by 43% of paroxetine CR patients (LOCF; p = .009 vs. placebo), 44% of paroxetine IR patients (p = .01 vs. placebo), and 26% of placebo patients. In a post hoc analysis, mean HAM-D improvement for paroxetine CR and paroxetine IR was greater than for placebo in both chronically depressed patients (duration > 2 years) and those with short-term (< or = 2 years) depression. Dropout rates due to adverse events were 12.5% for paroxetine CR, 16.0% for paroxetine IR, and 8.3% for placebo. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine CR and paroxetine IR are effective and well tolerated treatments for major depressive disorder in elderly patients, including those with chronic depression.     

Controlled-release paroxetine in the treatment of patients with social anxiety disorder

BACKGROUND: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of the controlled-release (CR) formulation of paroxetine in adults with social anxiety disorder. METHOD: Outpatients with a primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder according to DSM-IV criteria entered a 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive paroxetine CR (flexible dose of 12.5-37.5 mg/day) or placebo for 12 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy measures were the change from baseline in Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) score and the proportion of responders based on Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-Global Improvement scale score. Data were gathered from September 2001 to July 2002. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population consisted of 186 patients randomly assigned to paroxetine CR and 184 patients randomly assigned to placebo. Statistically significant differences in favor of paroxetine CR compared with placebo were observed in the change from baseline to week 12 last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) dataset in LSAS total score (difference = -13.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -18.25 to -8.41, p <.001). In the CGI-Global Improvement responder analysis, 57.0% of patients treated with paroxetine CR achieved response (very much improved or much improved), compared with 30.4% of patients treated with placebo at week 12 LOCF (odds ratio = 3.12, 95% CI = 2.01 to 4.83, p <.001). Dropout rates due to adverse events were low and comparable in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine CR effectively treated the symptoms associated with social anxiety disorder and was well tolerated, with few patients stopping treatment due to adverse events. This favorable tolerability profile may enable more patients to experience the benefits of effective therapy.     

Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare paroxetine with placebo and imipramine with placebo for the treatment of adolescent depression. METHOD: After a 7- to 14-day screening period, 275 adolescents with major depression began 8 weeks of double-blind paroxetine (20-40 mg), imipramine (gradual upward titration to 200-300 mg), or placebo. The two primary outcome measures were endpoint response (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] score < or = 8 or > or = 50% reduction in baseline HAM-D) and change from baseline HAM-D score. Other depression-related variables were (1) HAM-D depressed mood item; (2) depression item of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for Adolescents-Lifetime version (K-SADS-L); (3) Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement scores of 1 or 2; (4) nine-item depression subscale of K-SADS-L; and (5) mean CGI improvement scores. RESULTS: Paroxetine demonstrated significantly greater improvement compared with placebo in HAM-D total score < or = 8, HAM-D depressed mood item, K-SADS-L depressed mood item, and CGI score of 1 or 2. The response to imipramine was not significantly different from placebo for any measure. Neither paroxetine nor imipramine differed significantly from placebo on parent- or self-rating measures. Withdrawal rates for adverse effects were 9.7% and 6.9% for paroxetine and placebo, respectively. Of 31.5% of subjects stopping imipramine therapy because of adverse effects, nearly one third did so because of adverse cardiovascular effects. CONCLUSIONS: Paroxetine is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents.     

Citalopram treatment of children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: a preliminary report

The purpose of the present study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of citalopram in the acute treatment of children and adolescents with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) during an 8-week, open-label study. Fifteen patients (six female, nine male) with a mean age of 12.1 +/- 3.3 years (range: 6-17 years) were treated with citalopram (range of dose: 20-30 mg/day, mean dose: 24 +/- 5.5 mg/day). The children's version of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive scale (CY-BOCS) was rated at the baseline, at the 4th week and at the 8th week of treatment. Fourteen patients had a decrease in total score of CY-BOCS from baseline to the 4th week of treatment (P < 0.01) and the 8th week of treatment (P < 0.01). Sedation (n = 1) and insomnia (n = 1) were reported in the first weeks of treatment. The primary data suggest the efficacy and tolerability of citalopram in young patients with OCD.     

Acute and long-term treatment and prevention of relapse of obsessive-compulsive disorder with paroxetine

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding optimal dosing or long-term pharmacotherapy with serotonin reuptake inhibitors in obsessive-compulsive disorder. This study evaluated the acute safety and efficacy and long-term efficacy, safety, and impact on relapse prevention of paroxetine in obsessive-compulsive disorder. METHOD: We enrolled 348 outpatients with DSM-III-R obsessive-compulsive disorder in phase 1, a 12-week randomized, double-blind, parallel study of fixed doses of paroxetine (20 mg/day, 40 mg/day, or 60 mg/day) and placebo. In phase 2, 263 phase 1 completers were enrolled in 6 months of flexibly dosed open-label paroxetine treatment. In phase 3, 105 responders to open-label paroxetine were randomized to 6-month double-blind, fixed-dose, parallel paroxetine/placebo treatment to evaluate long-term efficacy, safety, and impact on relapse prevention. The study was conducted from July 1991 to February 1994. RESULTS: Patients in phase 1 acute treatment receiving 40 mg/day or 60 mg/day of paroxetine improved significantly (p < .05) more than those receiving placebo; the mean reduction in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale score was 25% on 40 mg/day of paroxetine and 29% on 60 mg/day compared with 13% on placebo. During phase 3, long-term treatment, a greater proportion of placebo- (59%) than paroxetine-treated (38%) patients relapsed. Paroxetine was well tolerated at all doses, with no significant increase in frequency of adverse events during long-term compared with short-term therapy. Greater adverse events in the placebo than in the paroxetine group in phase 3 probably represent a discontinuation effect. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine doses of 40 mg/day and 60 mg/day (but not 20 mg/day) are effective in treating acute obsessive-compulsive disorder. Long-term treatment with paroxetine is effective and safe, decreases the rate of relapse, and lengthens the time to relapse.     

Paroxetine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: results of a placebo-controlled, flexible-dosage trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of paroxetine in outpatients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHOD: Male and female outpatients 18 years and older who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD and had baseline scores of at least 20 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) were randomly assigned to treatment with paroxetine (20-50 mg/day) or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the mean change from baseline in the total score of the HAM-A. Additional key efficacy variables were the change from baseline in the scores of the HAM-A items anxious mood and tension, the anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). The proportions of patients fulfilling response and remission criteria at week 8 were also determined. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 324 patients. At week 8, compared with the placebo group (N = 163), the paroxetine group (N = 161) had a significantly greater reduction of GAD symptoms on all of the above-mentioned efficacy variables. On the HAM-A anxious mood item, which encompasses the cardinal symptoms of GAD, significantly greater efficacy was observed from week 1 and on the SDS significantly greater improvement was documented in the domain "social life" as early as week 4 for paroxetine compared with placebo. In both the last-observation-carried-forward and completer data sets, significantly greater proportions of paroxetine-treated patients achieved response or remission by week 8. Treatment with paroxetine was well tolerated, and the number and type of adverse events recorded in the paroxetine group correspond to the known safety profile of this medication. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine in doses of 20 to 50 mg once daily is effective in the treatment of patients with GAD. Improvement of core symptoms of GAD occurs early and is associated with significant reduction in disability after only 8 weeks of treatment.     

Efficacy and tolerability of controlled-release paroxetine in the treatment of panic disorder

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of controlled-release paroxetine (paroxetine CR) in the treatment of adults with panic disorder. METHOD: Paroxetine CR (25-75 mg/day; N = 444) was compared with placebo (N = 445) in patients with DSM-IV panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in 3 identical, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 10-week clinical trials that were pooled for analysis. RESULTS: Paroxetine CR was statistically superior to placebo in the primary outcome measure, percentage of patients who were free of panic attacks in the 2 weeks prior to endpoint. Of the total population that completed or prematurely terminated treatment, 63% and 53% of paroxetine CR-and placebo-treated patients, respectively, were panic-free during the final 2 weeks (p < .005; odds ratio [OR] = 1.63; 95% CI = 1.21 to 2.19). For week 10 completers (72% of total), 73% and 60% of paroxetine CR- and placebo-treated patients, respectively, were panic-free at week 10 (p < .005; OR = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.45 to 3.07). Paroxetine CR was also statistically superior to placebo on the global improvement and severity items of the Clinical Global Impressions scale and in reducing anxiety symptoms as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety total score and total fear and avoidance on the Marks-Sheehan Phobia Scale. Adverse events leading to study withdrawal were minimal and occurred in 11% of the paroxetine CR group and 6% of the placebo group. Most of the treatment-emergent adverse events were rated as mild to moderate in severity and occurred early in the study. There were no unexpected adverse events, and serious adverse events were uncommon (10 [2.3%] of the 444 patients treated with paroxetine CR vs. 8 [1.8%] of the 445 patients treated with placebo). CONCLUSION: Paroxetine CR is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for panic disorder. Paroxetine CR is associated with low rates of treatment-emergent anxiety as well as low dropout rates from adverse events.     

Pregabalin for treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a 4-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin and alprazolam

BACKGROUND: Pregabalin inhibits release of excess excitatory neurotransmitters, presumably by binding to the alpha2-delta subunit protein of widely distributed voltage-dependent calcium channels in the brain and spinal cord. OBJECTIVE: To assess the anxiolytic efficacy of pregabalin in patients with generalized anxiety disorder. DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-comparator trial. Patients were randomized to 4 weeks of treatment with pregabalin, 300 mg/d (n = 91), 450 mg/d (n = 90), or 600 mg/d (n = 89); alprazolam, 1.5 mg/d (n = 93); or placebo (n = 91). SETTING: Psychiatry research and clinic settings. PATIENTS: Outpatients meeting the DSM-IV criteria for generalized anxiety disorder, with a baseline Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score of 20 or greater. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change from baseline to end point in total HAM-A score in the pregabalin and alprazolam groups compared with the placebo group. The end point response criterion was 50% or greater reduction in the HAM-A total score. RESULTS: Pregabalin and alprazolam produced a significantly greater reduction in mean +/- SE HAM-A total score at last-observation-carried-forward end point compared with placebo (-8.4 +/- 0.8): pregabalin, 300 mg (-12.2 +/- 0.8, P<.001), 450 mg (-11.0 +/- 0.8, P = .02), and 600 mg (-11.8 +/- 0.8, P = .002), and alprazolam (-10.9 +/- 0.8, P = .02). By week 1 and at last-observation-carried-forward end point, the 3 pregabalin groups and the alprazolam group had significantly (P<.01) improved HAM-A psychic anxiety symptoms compared with the placebo group. Compared with the placebo group, HAM-A somatic anxiety symptoms were also significantly (P<.02) improved by the 300- and 600-mg pregabalin groups, but not by the 450-mg pregabalin (week 1, P = .06; week 4, P = .32) and the alprazolam groups (week 1, P = .21; week 4, P = .15). Of the 5 treatment groups, the 300-mg pregabalin group was the only medication group that differed statistically in global improvement at treatment end point not only from the placebo group but also from the alprazolam group. CONCLUSION: Pregabalin was significantly more efficacious than placebo for the treatment of psychic and somatic symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder and was well tolerated by most study patients.     

A randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose comparison of paroxetine and placebo in the treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder

BACKGROUND: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was carried out to determine the effectiveness and safety of various daily dosages of paroxetine for the treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder. METHOD: A 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in was followed by 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. 384 eligible patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for social anxiety disorder were randomly assigned to receive paroxetine, 20 (N = 97), 40 (N = 95), or 60 mg (N = 97), or placebo (N = 95) once daily in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Primary efficacy variables included mean change from baseline in the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) total score and proportion of patients exhibiting a therapeutic response (defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Global Improvement scale [CGI-1] score of 1 or 2). RESULTS: In the last-observation-carried-forward analyses, patients treated with paroxetine, 20 mg/day, had significantly greater improvement on mean LSAS total scores compared with those receiving placebo (p < .001), while the incidence of responders, based on the CGI-I rating, was significantly greater with paroxetine, 40 mg/day, than with placebo (p = .012). Patients treated with paroxetine, 20 and 60 mg, also had significantly better responses on the social item of the Sheehan Disability Scale than did patients treated with placebo (p < .019). The completer analyses showed a significant difference between the placebo group and the 20-mg and 40-mg paroxetine groups on LSAS total score and rate of response (p < or = .006). There were no serious adverse experiences attributed to paroxetine treatment. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine, 20 mg/day, is an effective and safe treatment for patients with generalized social anxiety disorder and significantly improves social anxiety, avoidance of social interactions, social disability, and overall clinical condition. Further data analyses are needed to determine whether more specific guidelines for paroxetine dosage escalation in social anxiety disorder can be drawn.     

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of citalopram for the treatment of major depression in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE: Open-label trials with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram suggest that this agent is effective and safe for the treatment of depressive symptoms in children and adolescents. The current study investigated the efficacy and safety of citalopram compared with placebo in the treatment of pediatric patients with major depression. METHOD: An 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the safety and efficacy of citalopram with placebo in the treatment of children (ages 7-11) and adolescents (ages 12-17) with major depressive disorder. Diagnosis was established with the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version. Patients (N=174) were treated initially with placebo or 20 mg/day of citalopram, with an option to increase the dose to 40 mg/day at week 4 if clinically indicated. The primary outcome measure was score on the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised; the response criterion was defined as a score of < or =28. RESULTS: The overall mean citalopram dose was approximately 24 mg/day. Mean Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores decreased significantly more from baseline in the citalopram treatment group than in the placebo treatment group, beginning at week 1 and continuing at every observation point to the end of the study (effect size=2.9). The difference in response rate at week 8 between placebo (24%) and citalopram (36%) also was statistically significant. Citalopram treatment was well tolerated. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were comparable in the placebo and citalopram groups (5.9% versus 5.6%, respectively). Rhinitis, nausea, and abdominal pain were the only adverse events to occur with a frequency exceeding 10% in either treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of children and adolescents, treatment with citalopram reduced depressive symptoms to a significantly greater extent than placebo treatment and was well tolerated.     

Efficacy and tolerability of controlled-release and immediate-release paroxetine in the treatment of depression

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant efficacy may be compromised by early discontinuation of treatment secondary to common, treatment-emergent side effects, including nausea, agitation, and somnolence. Paroxetine controlled-release (CR) was developed to improve general tolerability and, in particular, gastrointestinal tolerability. OBJECTIVE: To determine the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine CR in adult patients 18 to 65 years of age with DSM-IV major depressive disorder. METHOD: Paroxetine CR (25-62.5 mg/day; N = 212) and paroxetine immediate-release (IR; 20-50 mg/day; N = 217) were compared with placebo (N = 211) in the pooled dataset from 2 identical, double-blind, 12-week clinical trials. RESULTS: Both paroxetine CR and paroxetine IR exhibited efficacy in major depressive disorder as assessed by the reduction in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score compared with placebo. Moreover, depressed mood and psychic anxiety symptoms improved as early as treatment week 1 in the paroxetine CR group compared with the placebo group. After 6 weeks of treatment, response and remission rates were 41.5% and 20.5% for placebo, 52.8% and 29.6% for paroxetine IR, and 58.9% and 34.4% for paroxetine CR, respectively. After 12 weeks of treatment, response and remission rates were 61.2% and 44.0% for placebo, 72.9% and 52.5% for paroxetine IR, and 73.7% and 56.2% for paroxetine CR, respectively. Rates of nausea were significantly lower for paroxetine CR (14%) than for paroxetine IR (23%; p < or = .05) during week 1. Rates of dropout due to adverse events were comparable between paroxetine CR and placebo, while significantly (p = .0008) more patients treated with paroxetine IR withdrew from the study prematurely compared with those treated with placebo. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine CR is an effective and well-tolerated antidepressant exhibiting symptomatic improvement as early as week 1. Paroxetine CR is associated with low rates of early-onset nausea and dropout rates due to adverse events comparable to those of placebo. The clinical improvement seen with paroxetine CR, coupled with its favorable adverse event profile, suggests a benefit for therapeutic outcome with paroxetine CR.     

Fluoxetine treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: a placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the efficacy and tolerability of fluoxetine in the acute treatment of child and adolescent obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during a 13-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. METHOD: Eligible patients aged 7 to 17 (N = 103) were randomized at a ratio of 2:1 to receive either fluoxetine or placebo. Dosing was initiated at 10 mg daily for 2 weeks, then increased to 20 mg daily. After 4 weeks of treatment, and again after 7 weeks of treatment, non-responders could have their dosage increased by 20 mg daily, for a maximum possible dosage of 60 mg daily. Primary measure of efficacy was improvement in OCD symptoms as measured by the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). All analyses were intent-to-treat. RESULTS: Fluoxetine was associated with significantly greater improvement in OCD as assessed by the CY-BOCS (p = .026) and other measures than was placebo. Fluoxetine was well tolerated and had a rate of discontinuation for adverse events similar to that of placebo (p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg daily was effective and well tolerated for treatment of OCD in this pediatric population.     

Multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of porcine secretin in autism.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of intravenous porcine secretin for the treatment of autistic disorder. METHOD: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design. Fifty-six subjects with autistic disorder received either a secretin or placebo infusion at baseline and the other substance at week 4. Subjects were given the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and other pertinent developmental measures at baseline and at weeks 4 and 8 to assess drug effects. RESULTS: For the primary efficacy analysis, change of ADOS social-communication total score from week 0 to week 4, no statistically significant difference was obtained between placebo (-0.8 +/- 2.9) and secretin groups (-0.6 +/- 1.4; t54 = 0.346, p < .73). The other measures showed no treatment effect for secretin compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence for efficacy of secretin in this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.     

Paroxetine treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a double-blind,placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of two fixed doses of paroxetine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. METHOD: Outpatients (N=566) with generalized anxiety disorder and no other axis I disorder were eligible if they scored >/=20 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (with a score of 2 or higher on the anxious mood and tension items). Following a 1-week placebo run-in phase, patients were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with paroxetine, 20 or 40 mg/day, or placebo. The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline in total score on the Hamilton anxiety scale. Response was defined as a rating of "very much improved" or "much improved" on the Clinical Global Impression global improvement measure; remission was defined as a Hamilton anxiety scale score 相似文献   

Escitalopram in the Treatment of Adolescent Depression: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Multisite Trial

ObjectiveThis article presents the results from a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of escitalopram in adolescent patients with major depressive disorder.MethodMale and female adolescents (aged 12–17 years) with DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with escitalopram 10 to 20 mg/day (n = 155) or placebo (n = 157). The primary efficacy parameter was change from baseline to week 8 in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) score using the last observation carried forward approach.ResultsA total of 83% patients (259/312) completed 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. Mean CDRS-R score at baseline was 57.6 for escitalopram and 56.0 for placebo. Significant improvement was seen in the escitalopram group relative to the placebo group at endpoint in CDRS-R score (?22.1 versus ?18.8, p = .022; last observation carried forward). Adverse events occurring in at least 10% of escitalopram patients were headache, menstrual cramps, insomnia, and nausea; only influenza-like symptoms occurred in at least 5% of escitalopram patients and at least twice the incidence of placebo (7.1% versus 3.2%). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were 2.6% for escitalopram and 0.6% for placebo. Serious adverse events were reported by 2.6% and 1.3% of escitalopram and placebo patients, respectively, and incidence of suicidality was similar for both groups.ConclusionsIn this study, escitalopram was effective and well tolerated in the treatment of depressed adolescents. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2009;48(7):721–729.     

Interrater reliability and clinical efficacy of Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale in an outpatient setting

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interrater reliability of the Turkish version of the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) and to measure the clinical efficacy using a clinician-rated impression scale in a clinical outpatient setting. METHOD: Data were collected from 19 nonmedicated children and adolescents (6 girls, 13 boys, mean age 14 +/- 2.25 years) with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Interrater reliability was assessed by 3 raters through videotape recordings of evaluation. Correlational analyses were maintained by comparing CY-BOCS scores to self-ratings of Children's Depression Inventory (depression), 20-item Leyton Obsessional Inventory-Child Version (obsessive-compulsive symptoms), and Child Behavior Checklist (parent ratings of behavioral problems). The Clinical Global Impression for OCD was administered to measure the clinical efficacy of CY-BOCS. RESULTS: Internal consistency was .77 for the total 10 items. The interrater reliabilities, defined as the intraclass correlation for the compulsion subscale, the obsession subscale, and the CY-BOCS total scores were .85, .94, and .89, respectively. Although the sample size was small, CY-BOCS total score was correlated with the Clinical Global Impression score (P < .01) and showed a significantly higher correlation with Leyton Obsessional Inventory-Child Version scores when compared with Children's Depression Inventory and Child Behavior Checklist scores. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the Turkish version of CY-BOCS yielded good interrater reliability and was significantly correlated with a clinician-rated global impression scale. Although the small sample size hinders a conclusion, CY-BOCS showed significant results regarding validity measures. Therefore, our results support that CY-BOCS has the potential to fulfill the need in clinical research settings.     

Analysis of electrocardiographic data following use of paroxetine in pediatric depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective analysis of electrocardiographic (ECG) data investigated the cardiovascular effects of paroxetine 10-50 mg/day in pediatric patients (7-18 years of age). Data were collected from three 8- to 10-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of paroxetine in pediatric patients with major depressive disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder. METHOD: Electrocardiograms (ECGs) were retrospectively retrieved from 63 study sites in the United States and Canada. Only patients with at least one screening and one on-treatment ECG were included. ECGs were analyzed for heart rate, QT interval corrected using Bazett's formula (QTcB) and Fridericia's formula (QTcF), at screening and while being treated. PR, R-R, and QRS intervals and the maximum change in QTcB and QTcF from screening to endpoint were determined. Clinically significant thresholds were defined a priori. RESULTS: A total of 1,451 ECGs from 449 patients receiving placebo (n = 207), paroxetine (n = 200), or imipramine (n = 42) were analyzed. Treatment with paroxetine did not significantly increase QTcB or QTcF or any ECG parameters compared with placebo. Treatment with imipramine significantly increased heart rate and QTcB, R-R, and QRS intervals compared with either paroxetine or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this retrospective study indicate that paroxetine (10-50 mg/day) is unlikely to be associated with significant ECG changes in medically healthy pediatric patients.     

Escitalopram in the acute treatment of depressed patients aged 60 years or older.

OBJECTIVE: The present study examined the efficacy and tolerability of acute escitalopram treatment in depressed patients aged 60 years or older. METHODS: Patients aged > or =60 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition major depressive disorder were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind, flexible-dose treatment with escitalopram (10-20 mg/day; N = 130) or placebo (N = 134). The prospectively defined primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to week 12 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score using the last observation carried forward approach. RESULTS: A total of 109 (81%) patients in the placebo group and 96 (74%) patients in the escitalopram group completed treatment. Mean age in both groups was approximately 68 years. Mean baseline MADRS scores were 28.4 and 29.4 for the placebo and escitalopram treatment groups, respectively. Escitalopram did not achieve statistical significance compared with placebo in change from baseline on the MADRS (least square mean difference: -1.34; last observation carried forward). Discontinuation rates resulting from adverse events were 6% for placebo and 11% for escitalopram. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by >10% of patients in the escitalopram group were headache, nausea, diarrhea, and dry mouth. CONCLUSIONS: Escitalopram treatment was not significantly different from placebo treatment on the primary efficacy measure, change from baseline to week 12 in MADRS. In patients aged 60 years or older with major depression, acute escitalopram treatment appeared to be well tolerated.