Double-blind, placebo-substitution study of nefazodone in the prevention of relapse during continuation treatment of outpatients with major depression

The efficacy of nefazodone in prevention of relapse of depression was evaluated in a 36-week double-blind, placebo-substitution, continuation treatment trial. After 16 weeks of acute, single-blind treatment with nefazodone, 131 patients responding to treatment and in stable remission were randomized in a 36-week double-blind trial to either nefazodone (n = 65) or placebo (n = 66). Patients were defined as having relapsed if they had a total score > or = 18 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale on two consecutive visits or if they discontinued treatment for lack of efficacy. Relapse rates were significantly lower for patients randomized to continued nefazodone treatment than for patients switched to placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimates of relapse rates 9 months (36 weeks) after the end of acute treatment were 1.8% for nefazodone versus 18.3% for placebo (P = 0.009) by the Hamilton Depression Scale and 17.3% versus 32.8% (P = 0.028) by discontinuation for lack of efficacy. The mean modal dose of nefazodone was 412 mg/day at study endpoint. These results demonstrate the clinical effectiveness of up to 1 year's treatment (16 weeks acute and 36 weeks continuation) with nefazodone in depressed patients. Long-term efficacy of nefazodone was accompanied by a good safety profile without any weight gain and with minimal symptoms of withdrawal upon abrupt discontinuation of treatment.     

Trazodone in late life depressive states: a double-blind multicenter study versus amitriptyline and mianserin

Seventy five elderly depressed in-patients, ages ranging from 60 to 83 years, diagnosed as Major Depression according to DSM III were treated, under double-blind conditions, with 75 mg Amitriptyline (AMI) (26 patients), 60 mg Mianserin (MIA) (24 patients) or 150 mg Trazodone (TRZ) (25 patients) p.o. for 5 weeks. There were no differences in the clinical outcome between the three groups of patients at the end of the trial, with a significant amelioration (P<0.01) at the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Geriatric Depression Scale. TRZ showed a significantly lower incidence of side effects compared to MIA and AMI. Atypical antidepressants, including TRZ, seem more suitable for treating elderly depression than the first generation antidepressants on the basis of risk/benefit ratio considerations.     

A randomized, single-blind, comparison of venlafaxine with paroxetine in elderly patients suffering from resistant depression

It is estimated that up to 45% of patients with depression do not have an adequate response to a first trial of antidepressant therapy with even higher reported rates for the elderly patients. To compare the efficacy and the tolerability of venlafaxine vs. paroxetine in elderly patients suffering from resistant major depression, who did not respond to at least two previous adequate trials of antidepressants. Patients entered an 8-week single-blind study. Patients were rated using the Clinical Global Impression Scale, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Geriatric Depression Scale. Assessments were performed at baseline and on days 7, 14, 21, 28, 42 and 56. Side effects were recorded in a systemic manner. Thirty patients were included in the study, (17 women, 13 men; mean age=75.9 years, range: 68-83) and all had completed the 6-week trial. Mean dose of venlafaxine used was 165 mg/day (SD=73.8; range 75-300 mg). Mean dose of paroxetine used was 26 mg/day (SD=15.04; range 10-60 mg). Nine patients treated with venlafaxine (60%) and five patients treated with paroxetine (33%) remitted after 8 weeks of treatment. Four patients treated with venlafaxine and eight patients treated with paroxetine failed to respond. Significant improvement in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores between baseline and endpoint were observed in both groups of patients. The mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression change for paroxetine was -12.5 and for venlafaxine -19.1 (P<0.05). The mean Geriatric Depression Scale change for paroxetine was -3.2 and for venlafaxine -6.0 (P<0.3). The mean Clinical Global Impression Scale change was -2.3 for paroxetine and -3.5 for venlafaxine (P<0.05). Venlafaxine was significantly superior to paroxetine on Clinical Global Impression Scale and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression measures. Side effects were transient and did not differ between treatment groups. Elderly depressed patients resistant to previous treatments had responded to a trial of paroxetine or venlafaxine. Remission rates were higher for venlafaxine and tolerability was acceptable for both compounds.     

An open-label extension trial of risperidone monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar I disorder

The primary objective of this 9-week open-label extension trial was to assess the effects of risperidone monotherapy in patients with acute bipolar I disorder who completed treatment in two preceding 3-week double-blind trials. Patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, experiencing an acute manic episode, received a flexible dose of risperidone (1-6 mg/day) or placebo in two independent double-blind, randomized, 3-week monotherapy trials. Completers who required ongoing treatment were eligible to enter this open-label 9-week extension trial during which all patients received risperidone. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score. Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Global Assessment Scale. Safety assessments included adverse event reports, laboratory tests, and the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS). Of the 283 patients who entered the extension study, 160 had previously received risperidone (RIS/RIS) in the acute treatment trial and 123 had received placebo (PLA/RIS). This study was completed by 71% of these patients. The mean+/-SE modal dose of risperidone was 4.6+/-1.5 mg/day. Patients in both the RIS/RIS and PLA/RIS groups improved significantly at the endpoint of the 9-week open-label study compared to their open-label baseline scores (-5.2+/-0.69, P<0.001 and -9.12+/-1.44, P<0.001, respectively) on the YMRS. Furthermore, changes from double-blind baseline to open-label endpoint were -29.4+/-1.0 in the RIS/RIS group and -23.9+/-1.4 in the PLA/RIS group. Significant improvements from both double-blind and open-label baseline were seen at week 1 of the open-label trial (P<0.001) and at each subsequent timepoint. A similar pattern was observed on the secondary measures of efficacy. Most frequent adverse events were extrapyramidal disorder (18%) and somnolence (12%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The mean score for the Parkinsonism subscale of the ESRS was 1.1 at open-label baseline, and decreased by 0.1 at endpoint. Mean increase in body weight from open-label baseline was 0.6 kg in patients treated with placebo in the preceding double-blind trial and 1.2 kg in patients previously treated with risperidone. Risperidone treatment was well tolerated and resulted in further improvement during the 9-week extension, beyond the 3 weeks of acute treatment. Patients switched from placebo to risperidone improved markedly. Risperidone treatment did not induce depression.     

Experimental investigation of psychophysiological effect of a new antidepressant (lofepramine) as compared to imipramine and placebo (author's transl)

Using 24 non-selected healthy male students the effects of imipramine (single dose of 100 mg orally) and 4'-chloro-2-[3-(10,11-dihydro-5H-dibenz[b,f]azepin-5-yl)-propyl]-methylamino]-acetophenone-hydrochloride (lofepramine, Gamonil) (single dose of 140 mg orally) in comparison to placebo (doubleblind) on subjective, physiological and performance variables were examined. All subjects (Ss) received the three drugs in a completely counterbalanced sequence. On the basis of their scores on the Depression Scale of the Freiburger Personality Inventory (FPI, Fahrenberg) Ss were divided into two groups of 12 Ss each, "high depression" and "low depression" group. Two-way analyses of variance were computed. Imipramine and Lofepramine elevate scores in the mood scale, but only for the "high depression" group. For the Ss scoring lower in depression no such effect can be demonstrated. The physiological effects are similar. Reported side effects are less for lofepramine than for imipramine.     

Sertraline versus fluvoxamine in the treatment of elderly patients with major depression: a double-blind, randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Major depression is a common psychiatric disorder in the elderly population. The efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants is well established, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors appear to have a similar effectiveness along with advantages in terms of tolerability and safety. Given the lack of literature data regarding fluvoxamine in the treatment of depressed elderly patients, the aim of the present study was to compare its efficacy and tolerability with those of sertraline in a sample of elderly patients. METHODS: Under double-blind conditions, 93 hospitalized patients older than 59 years, who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria for a major depressive episode, were randomly assigned to receive sertraline (150 mg daily) or fluvoxamine (200 mg daily) for 7 weeks. The clinical response was defined as a reduction on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score to 8 or below. RESULTS: At study completion, the response rates were 55.6% (25/45) and 71.8% (28/39) for sertraline and fluvoxamine, respectively. No significant difference in final response rates was found between the 2 treatment groups (P = 0.12). A repeated-measures analysis of variance on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores revealed a significantly different decrease of depressive symptoms between the 2 treatment groups, favoring fluvoxamine (P = 0.007). The overall safety profile of sertraline and fluvoxamine was favorable with no differences between the 2 drugs. CONCLUSION: The results of this double-blind trial show that sertraline and fluvoxamine may be effective compounds in the treatment of elderly depression with the latter showing some advantage in terms of speed of response. These findings warrant further replication in placebo-controlled studies.     

Antidepressive therapy with escitalopram improves mood, cognitive symptoms, and identity memory for angry faces in elderly depressed patients

Depression is a common disorder in the elderly handicapping patients with affective and cognitive symptoms. Because of their good tolerability relative to the older tricyclic compounds, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are increasingly used for the treatment of depression in the elderly. Little is known about their effects on cognition in elderly patients. In the present 4-wk, single-centre, randomized, open-label trial we investigated the antidepressive effects of escitalopram, an SSRI, in 18 elderly depressed patients [mean age (+/-s.e.m.) 76.2+/-1.8 yr] compared to 22 healthy age-matched controls (mean age 76.9+/-1.8 yr). Affective and cognitive symptoms were assessed using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and a face portrait recognition test to assess memory for happy and angry faces. Depressed patients prior to treatment had markedly reduced memory performance. Treatment with escitalopram improved affective and cognitive symptoms significantly. Furthermore, escitalopram treatment improved memory for negative facial stimuli. Control subjects confirmed the well- established memory bias favouring recognition of identities acquired with happy expressions. Importantly, this bias was absent in depressed patients prior to, but also after treatment. In conclusion, escitalopram, even after a relatively short treatment period, was effective in treating depression in the elderly and may help improve cognitive performance for social stimuli.     

A double-blind comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects of single doses of lofepramine,amitryptyline and placebo in elderly subjects

Summary In a double-blind five-way cross-over study, six drug free healthy elderly subjects received single oral doses of lofepramine (70 mg, 105 mg and 140 mg), amitriptyline (50 mg) and matched placebo tablets.A dose related increase in plasma drug levels and pharmacological effects of lofepramine was observed. Lofepramine (140 mg) improved psychomotor performance (choice reaction time and letter cancellation), but no such change was seen with lower dose regimes or placebo. No significant differences between lofepramine and placebo were observed in other parameters measured.Amitriptyline, as expected, reduced salivary volume, produced drowsiness and impaired psychomotor performance. These changes correlated with plasma amitriptyline levels. The incidence of subjective side-effects with amitryptyline was also higher than that of lofepramine or placebo.In the dosage used, lofepramine exhibited no deleterious effect on the peripheral cholinergic system or psychomotor performance. This drug therefore is likely to be a relatively safe antidepressant for the elderly, but further investigations during long-term medication are required to verify these observations.     

Demonstration of the efficacy and safety of a novel substance P (NK1) receptor antagonist in major depression.

The efficacy and safety of a selective NK(1) antagonist, L-759274, was investigated in outpatients with diagnosis of major depressive disorder with melancholic features, following evidence obtained with the novel compound aprepitant that Substance P (NK(1)) antagonists may provide a unique mechanism of antidepressant activity. A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study was carried out. Patients, male or female, aged 18-60, scoring >/=25 points on total of first 17 items of 21-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), and scoring >/=4 (moderately ill) on Clinical Global Impressions-Severity Scale were randomized to oral L-759274 40 mg daily (n=66) or placebo (n=62) for 6 weeks. For patients receiving L-759274, improvement (mean decrease from baseline) in HAMD-17 total score was 10.7 points, compared with a mean 7.8 point improvement in patients receiving placebo (p<0.009). Mean scores for item 1 of HAMD-17 (depressed mood) also improved to a greater extent in the active group compared with the placebo group (0.3 points, p<0.058). Compared with placebo, mean scores on Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Scale improved significantly by the end of the trial (p=0.009). L-759274 was generally safe and well-tolerated. The incidence of sexual side effects was on par with that observed in patients receiving placebo, and the incidences of gastrointestinal effects were low. Antidepressant actions have now been observed with two different highly selective NK(1) antagonists (aprepitant and L-759274). NK(1) antagonism is a replicated and generally well-tolerated antidepressant mechanism.     

Limited efficacy of ketoconazole in treatment-refractory major depression.

The authors examined the efficacy of ketoconazole in 16 adults with treatment-refractory major depressive disorder. Subjects participated in a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Assessments of mood were made using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI). Results showed that none of eight patients randomly assigned to receive placebo and two of eight patients randomly assigned to receive ketoconazole met criteria for response. As a group, patients assigned to receive ketoconazole showed no significant reductions in HAM-D, BDI, or CGI scores during the 6-week trial compared with those receiving placebo. These findings suggest a limited efficacy for ketoconazole in patients with treatment-refractory major depression.     

Randomised clinical trial: escitalopram for the prevention of psychiatric adverse events during treatment with peginterferon-alfa-2a and ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND Treatment of hepatitis C with peginterferon and ribavirin is associated with psychiatric side-effects, frequently necessitating dose reduction or therapy cessation. AIM To assess the efficacy of prophylactic escitalopram to prevent psychiatric side-effects during peginterferon and ribavirin treatment in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS Seventy-nine hepatitis C patients were treated with peginterferon and ribavirin. Patients received escitalopram (n = 40, 10 mg) or placebo (n = 39), which was initiated together with peginterferon and ribavirin. Primary outcomes were an increase of two points or more on the items reported sadness, inner tension and impaired concentration of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and hostile feelings of the Brief Anxiety Scale. Secondary outcome was the development of depression diagnosed by the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Measurements were performed at baseline, week 4, 12 and 24 during anti-viral treatment, and 24 weeks thereafter. RESULTS The incidence of psychiatric side-effects was significantly lower in patients treated with escitalopram compared with placebo for all primary and secondary outcomes, except for impaired concentration: reported sadness 27.5 vs. 48.7% (P = 0.052), inner tension 17.5 vs. 38.5% (P = 0.038), impaired concentration 55.0 vs. 66.7% (P = 0.288) and hostile feelings 22.5 vs. 43.6% (P = 0.046) (escitalopram vs. placebo, Chi-squared test). The sum scores of all four endpoints showed an overall beneficial effect of escitalopram (P = 0.009, Mann-Whitney U-test). Depression occurred in 12.5% of the patients in the escitalopram-group vs. 35.9% in the placebo-group (P = 0.015, Chi-squared test). CONCLUSIONS Prophylactic treatment with escitalopram is effective in the prevention of psychiatric side-effects during interferon-based treatment of hepatitis C.     

Escitalopram versus placebo in the treatment of dysthymic disorder

Numerous studies have assessed the acute efficacy of antidepressants, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, in treating dysthymic disorder; however, escitalopram, the S-enantiomer of citalopram, has not been studied. Thirty-six outpatients with Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R-diagnosed dysthymic disorder, aged 23-65 years (mean±SD=44.7±11 years), were randomly assigned to double-blind escitalopram (maximum dose 20?mg/day) versus placebo for 12 weeks. Inclusion criteria included age 18-65 years and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score≥12. We hypothesized that escitalopram would be superior to placebo in the HDRS-24 item total score at week 12. We also hypothesized the superiority of escitalopram over placebo for secondary measures, including the percentage of participants classified as responders and remitters, as well as social functioning (Social Adjustment Scale), clinical global impression-improvement, Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. Participants' baseline HDRS-24 averaged 23.4±5.9. Final HDRS-24 scores at last observation carried forward did not differ significantly between escitalopram-treated (mean±SD=10.88±5.83) and placebo-treated individuals (mean±SD=16.4±6.34) (F=2.82, degrees of freedom=1,32, P=0.10). Significant differences favoring active medication were found on the Social Adjustment Scale and the Clinical Global Impression Severity and Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, but not in the percentages of responders or remitters. A larger study sample or higher escitalopram dose may show more significant placebo-medication differences.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of augmentation with an extended release formulation of methylphenidate in outpatients with treatment-resistant depression

We examined the efficacy and tolerability of augmentation with an extended release formulation of methylphenidate (OROS MPH, Concerta) in patients with major depression who were nonresponders or partial responders to antidepressants. Sixty subjects with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) participated in a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of augmentation with methylphenidate (18-54 mg/d). The preexisting antidepressant dose was unchanged. The primary efficacy measure was change in the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale from randomization to end of treatment. Data were analyzed with intent-to-treat with last observation carried forward approach. There were no statistically significant differences between the methylphenidate (n = 30) and placebo (n = 30) groups in reduction in 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (drug, -6.9; placebo, -4.7) from baseline to end of treatment (F1,47 = 1.24, P = 0.22), although responders were numerically higher in the extended-release methylphenidate group (40.0%) than in the placebo group (23.3%). On the secondary efficacy measures of changes in Clinical Global Impression-Improvement and Severity scores and Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition, the drug failed to separate from placebo, although the proportion of responders in the drug group were numerically higher than placebo. There were no significant differences in weight, heart rate, and blood pressure changes between the 2 groups. The common adverse events were loss of appetite, nausea, headache, and anxiety. The mean dose of drug was 34.2 mg/d. The study did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit for augmentation with methylphenidate in TRD. Combination of methylphenidate with antidepressants was well tolerated. Adequately powered, randomized, controlled trials are necessary to fully evaluate the efficacy of extended-release methylphenidate in TRD.     

Coadministration of modafinil and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor from the initiation of treatment of major depressive disorder with fatigue and sleepiness: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that adjunctive modafinil treatment provides benefit for patients with depression with significant sleepiness and fatigue. METHODS: We conducted a multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the treatment of major depression characterized by excessive sleepiness and fatigue, adding adjunctive modafinil or placebo to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor from the beginning of treatment. Seventy-three of 90 consenting patients met all screening criteria to begin treatment with open-label selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor therapy and double-blind addition of either modafinil (100 mg/d for 1 week then 200 mg/d) or matching placebo for 6 weeks. RESULTS: Mixed-model analysis of the change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the primary outcome measure, showed no difference between modafinil- and placebo-treated patients. However, the hypersomnia items on the 31-item Hamilton Depression Scale were significantly more improved with modafinil than placebo. The total 31-item Hamilton Depression Scale score was significantly better with modafinil than placebo at Weeks 4 and 5, but not at the final study visit. There was no difference in dropout rates caused by adverse events, but 2 patients in the modafinil-treated group developed new onset or worsening of suicidal ideation, leading to the trial being discontinued prematurely. CONCLUSIONS: Power to detect differences between modafinil and placebo was limited because of the premature discontinuation of the trial. Although modafinil did not show evidence of benefit over placebo on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, secondary measures suggested modafinil may have provided benefit for symptoms of excessive sleepiness in patients with depression.     

Is duloxetine effective treatment for depression with atypical features?

Depression with atypical features responds preferentially to monoamine oxidase inhibitors relative to tricyclic antidepressants. The efficacies of newer agents have been little studied in this group, although fluoxetine was more effective than placebo. Studies with newer agents seem indicated. Twenty outpatients having major depression with atypical features were treated for 8 weeks with up to 120 mg/day of duloxetine. Fifty percent responded (>50% decrease in 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and 35% remitted (final 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression < or =7). The small sample size results in wide confidence intervals and lack of a placebo control group limits inferences of efficacy. Response and remission rates for depressed patients with atypical depression were similar to those reported for depressed patients in general. Placebo-controlled studies are required to definitively demonstrate whether these pilot results represent the efficacy of duloxetine in treating atypical depression.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluvoxamine in patients with schizophrenia: a preliminary study

ABSTRACT: Cognitive impairments in schizophrenia are associated with suboptimal psychosocial performance. Several lines of evidence have suggested that endoplasmic reticulum protein sigma-1 receptors were involved in cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia and that the sigma-1 receptor agonist fluvoxamine was effective in treating cognitive impairments in animal models of schizophrenia and in some patients with schizophrenia. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel trial of fluvoxamine adjunctive therapy in patients with schizophrenia was performed. A total of 48 patients with chronic schizophrenia were enrolled. Subjects were randomly assigned to an 8-week administration of add-on fluvoxamine (n = 24, titrated up to 150 mg/d) or placebo (n =24) in a total 12-week double-blind trial. The primary outcome measure was the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB), assessing visual memory, working memory, attention, and executive function. The secondary outcome measures were the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, the Quality of Life Scale, and the Montgomery-?sberg Depression Rating Scale. Fluvoxamine was well tolerated. No significant time × group interaction effects were observed in the scores of the CANTAB, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, Quality of Life Scale, or the Montgomery-?sberg Depression Rating Scale. However, in secondary analyses, the change from baseline to end point on the Spatial Working Memory strategy score (executive function) of CANTAB improved in the fluvoxamine group. This study suggests no major benefit of fluvoxamine adjunctive therapy to improve cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Nevertheless, a further study using a large sample size will be needed to confirm the secondary analyses findings.     

Desipramine treatment of cocaine-dependent patients with depression: a placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that desipramine would be an effective treatment in cocaine abusers with current depressive disorders. METHOD: This was a randomized, 12-week, double-blind, 'placebo-controlled trial of outpatients (N = 111) meeting DSM-III-R criteria for cocaine dependence and major depression or dysthymia (by SCID interview). Participants were treated with desipramine, up to 300 mg per day, or matching placebo. All patients received weekly individual manual-guided relapse prevention therapy. Weekly outcome measures included the Clinical Global Impression Scale, self-reported cocaine use and craving, urine toxicology, and the Hamilton Depression Scale (biweekly). Summary measures of mood and cocaine use outcome were compared between treatment groups with chi2- or t-tests. Dichotomous summary measures of depression response and cocaine response were the primary outcomes. Mixed effect models were also fit to explore the relationship of cocaine use to mood improvement and treatment over weeks in the trial. RESULTS: Desipramine was associated with a higher rate of depression response (51%, 28/55) than placebo (32%, 18/56) (p < 0.05), but treatment groups did not differ in rate of cocaine response. Depression improvement was associated with improvement in cocaine use. Desipramine was associated with more dropouts due to side effects and medical adverse events, while placebo was associated with more dropouts due to psychiatric worsening. CONCLUSIONS: Desipramine was an effective treatment for depression among cocaine-dependent patients. Improvement in mood was associated with improvement in cocaine abuse, but a direct effect of medication on cocaine outcome was not clearly established and rates of sustained abstinence were low. Future research should examine newer antidepressant medications with more benign side effect profiles and combinations of behavioral and pharmacological treatments to maximize effects on cocaine use.     

Spotlight on sertraline in the management of major depressive disorder in elderly patients

Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) with well established antidepressant and anxiolytic activity. Results from several well designed trials show that sertraline (50-200 mg/day) is effective in the treatment of major depressive disorder in elderly patients (> or =60 years of age). Primary endpoints in most studies included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Clinical Global Impression score and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Sertraline was significantly more effective than placebo and was as effective as fluoxetine, nortriptyline and imipramine in elderly patients. During one trial, amitriptyline was significantly more effective than sertraline (mean reduction from baseline on one of six primary outcomes [HDRS]), although no quantitative data were provided. Subgroup analysis of data from a randomised, double-blind trial in elderly patients with major depressive disorder suggests that vascular morbidity, diabetes mellitus or arthritis does not affect the antidepressant effect of sertraline. Secondary endpoints from these clinical trials suggest that sertraline has significant benefits over nortriptyline in terms of quality of life. In addition, significant differences favouring sertraline in comparison with nortriptyline and fluoxetine have been recorded for a number of cognitive functioning parameters. Sertraline is generally well tolerated in elderly patients with major depressive disorder and lacks the marked anticholinergic effects that characterise the adverse event profiles of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). The most frequently reported adverse events in patients aged > or =60 years with major depressive disorder receiving sertraline 50-150 mg/day were dry mouth, headache, diarrhoea, nausea, insomnia, somnolence, constipation, dizziness, sweating and taste abnormalities. The tolerability profile of sertraline is generally similar in younger and elderly patients. Sertraline has a low potential for drug interactions at the level of the cytochrome P450 enzyme system. In addition, no dosage adjustments are warranted for elderly patients solely based on age. CONCLUSION: Sertraline is an effective and well tolerated antidepressant for the treatment of major depressive disorder in patients aged > or =60 years. Since elderly patients are particularly prone to the anticholinergic effects of TCAs as a class, SSRIs such as sertraline are likely to be a better choice for the treatment of major depressive disorder in this age group. In addition, sertraline may have advantages over the SSRIs paroxetine, fluoxetine and fluvoxamine in elderly patients because of the drug's comparatively low potential for drug interactions, which is of importance in patient groups such as the elderly who are likely to receive more than one drug regimen.     

Short-term intravenous citalopram augmentation in partial/nonresponders with major depression: a randomized placebo-controlled study

Approximately 30-45% of patients with major depressive episode (MDE) do not fully respond to standard recommended treatments and further strategies of intervention, including pharmacological augmentation, have been proposed for these patients. This study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of short-term, low-dose (10 mg/day) intravenous (i.v.) citalopram augmentation versus placebo in a sample of patients with MDE and partial or no response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Thirty-six patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision criteria MDE and partial or no response to oral SSRIs were selected and randomly assigned to citalopram (n=18) or to placebo (n=18) i.v. augmentation. The augmentation regimen lasted 5 consecutive days during which the patients were maintained on their current treatment with oral SSRIs. Analyses of variance with repeated measures on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total scores, administered daily with blind-raters conditions, were done. With regard to the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores, a significant time effect (F=42.02, P<0.0001) and timextreatment effect (F=21.17, P<0.0001) were found in favor of citalopram. Similar results were obtained from the analysis on Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total scores: time effect (F=50.07, P<0.0001), timextreatment effect (F=19.91, P<0.0001), and treatment effect (F=4.07, P=0.05). Even though referred to a small sample, the present findings seem to suggest that short-term, low-dose, i.v. citalopram augmentation may be effective in depressed patients with partial or no response to oral SSRIs. Further controlled studies performed with double-blind conditions are warranted to confirm the present results.