盐酸安非他酮缓释片治疗抑郁症的Ⅱ期临床研究

目的评价盐酸安非他酮缓释片治疗抑郁症的临床疗效和安全性。方法对58例抑郁症患者进行盐酸安非他酮缓释片和氟西汀片的对照研究，其中盐酸安非他酮缓释片组29例（300mg／d），氟西汀组29例（20mg／d），共治疗6周。采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD），汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA），临床总体评定量表（CGI）评定临床疗效，不良事件量表评定安全性。结果经6周治疗后，盐酸安非他酮缓释片治疗总有效率为86．2％，氟西汀组为69．0％，两组比较差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。两组不良反应的发生率无显著性差异（P〉0．05），常见的不良反应有恶心、口干、头昏、出汗、食欲减退等。结论盐酸安非他酮缓释片是一种安全有效的抗抑郁药物。     

Rapid antimanic effect of risperidone monotherapy: a 3-week multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of risperidone monotherapy in the treatment of acute bipolar mania. METHOD: Patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder experiencing an acute manic episode (baseline Young Mania Rating Scale score >/==" BORDER="0">20) were randomly assigned to 3 weeks of treatment with risperidone (flexible dose: 1-6 mg/day) or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the mean baseline-to-endpoint change in total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale. Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity rating and scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Global Assessment Scale (GAS). Safety assessments consisted of monitoring adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiogram and laboratory results, and scores on the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale. RESULTS: Subjects (N=259) received treatment with either risperidone (N=134) or placebo (N=125). The mean modal dose of risperidone was 4.1 mg/day. Improvement in mean Young Mania Rating Scale total score (adjusted for covariates) was significantly greater in the risperidone than in the placebo group at endpoint (mean change=-10.6 [SD=9.5] versus -4.8 [SD=9.5], respectively), with significant between-group differences seen as early as 3 days after start of treatment (change with risperidone: mean=-6.8 [SD=5.8]; change with placebo: mean=-4.0 [SD=5.8]) and continuing throughout all time points. Improvements in CGI severity ratings and scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and GAS were also significantly greater among patients receiving risperidone than those given placebo. The most common adverse event reported among risperidone patients was somnolence. While Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale scores were significantly greater in patients receiving risperidone, mean total and subscale scores were low. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone monotherapy was significantly more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of acute mania and demonstrated a rapid onset of action. Risperidone was well tolerated by patients in this study.     

A double-blind,comparative, multicentre study comparing paroxetine with fluoxetine in depressed patients

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 6-week study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of once or twice daily administration of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors paroxetine and fluoxetine. After a 1-week placebo wash-out, patients suffering from DSM-III major depression and with a score of 18 or more on the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) received either paroxetine or fluoxetine. The patients were assessed for efficacy using the HRSD, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression; for tolerability, adverse events were elicited by the use of a non-leading question and a side effects checklist. The groups of patients were comparable on entry to the study. One hundred patients were recruited into the study, of whom 78 were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. Paroxetine and fluoxetine showed comparable efficacy at the end of the 6-week treatment period, but a statistically significant difference in the number of responders at week 3 in favour of paroxetine was observed. This could suggest an earlier onset of action with paroxetine. Also, associated anxiety symptoms were significantly reduced on paroxetine compared with fluoxetine at week 3. Patients on paroxetine reported fewer adverse events than those on fluoxetine. The most commonly reported adverse events were nausea and vomiting in both groups.     

Paroxetine controlled-release formulation in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Japan and Korea

Aim: The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of paroxetine controlled‐release (CR) formulation compared to placebo. A secondary objective was to test the hypothesis that the CR decreases selective‐serotonin‐reuptake‐inhibitors‐induced nausea as its formulation allows more distal gastrointestinal absorption than the paroxetine immediate‐release (IR) formulation. Methods: We conducted this study in Japanese and Korean patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in order to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of paroxetine CR compared with placebo. The primary efficacy end‐point was the adjusted mean change from baseline in the 17‐item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score at Week 8. Results: A total of 416 patients with MDD were randomly assigned to the CR, IR and placebo groups. The mean change from baseline in the 17‐item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was ?12.8 in the CR group, ?12.5 in the IR group, and ?10.4 in the placebo group, which showed a statistically significant difference compared to placebo in CR (P < 0.001) and IR (P = 0.015). The incidence of adverse events was 65% in CR, 69% in IR and 55% in placebo. The adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity. In the early treatment period, when initiated from 12.5 mg, the incidence of nausea in the CR group was 6%, which was comparable with that of placebo (5%). Conclusion: Paroxetine CR is efficacious in the acute treatment of MDD and may have the potential benefit of decreasing the incidence of nausea in the early treatment period.     

A dose-ranging study of the effects of ethyl-eicosapentaenoate in patients with ongoing depression despite apparently adequate treatment with standard drugs

BACKGROUND: In depressed patients, low blood levels of eicosapentaenoic acid are seen. We tested the antidepressive effect of ethyl-eicosapentaenoate in these patients. METHODS: We included 70 patients with persistant depression despite ongoing treatment with an adequate dose of a standard antidepressant. Patients were randomized on a double-blind basis to placebo or ethyl-eicosapentaenoate at dosages of 1, 2, or 4 g/d for 12 weeks in addition to unchanged background medication. Patients underwent assessment using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Beck Depression Inventory. RESULTS: Forty-six (88%) of 52 patients receiving ethyl-eicosapentaenoate and 14 (78%) of 18 patients receiving placebo completed the 12-week study with no serious adverse events. The 1-g/d group showed a significantly better outcome than the placebo group on all 3 rating scales. In the intention-to-treat group, 5 (29%) of 17 patients receiving placebo and 9 (53%) of 17 patients receiving 1 g/d of ethyl-eicosapentaenoate achieved a 50% reduction on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score. In the per-protocol group, the corresponding figures were 3 (25%) of 12 patients for placebo and 9 (69%) of 13 patients for the 1-g/d group. The 2-g/d group showed little evidence of efficacy, whereas the 4-g/d group showed nonsignificant trends toward improvement. All of the individual items on all 3 rating scales improved with the 1-g/d dosage of ethyl-eicosapentaenoate vs placebo, with strong beneficial effects on items rating depression, anxiety, sleep, lassitude, libido, and suicidality. CONCLUSION: Treatment with ethyl-eicosapentaenoate at a dosage of 1 g/d was effective in treating depression in patients who remained depressed despite adequate standard therapy.     

Bupropion XL in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Data remain limited on treatment strategies for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of an extended-release, once-daily formulation of bupropion (XL) in the treatment of adults with ADHD. METHODS: This multisite, placebo-controlled, 8-week prospective trial evaluated 162 adult patients diagnosed with ADHD (combined and inattentive types). Subjects were treated with up to 450 mg/day of bupropion XL. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of ADHD responders (defined as at least a 30% reduction in the investigator-rated ADHD Rating Scale score) at week 8 (last observation carried forward [LOCF]). RESULTS: Bupropion XL responders (53%) exceeded placebo responders (31%) (p =.004 at week 8) with a significantly greater proportion of bupropion XL responders as early as week 2 (p = .01). Treatment effect size calculated for the ADHD Rating Scale total score was .6. Bupropion XL appeared to provide sustained benefit throughout the day compared with placebo (morning p =.033, afternoon p =.004, evening p = .024). Bupropion XL was safe and well tolerated, with no serious or unexpected adverse events and a low rate of drug-related study discontinuation (5%). CONCLUSIONS: The results from this multisite study indicate that bupropion XL is an effective and well-tolerated nonstimulant treatment for adult ADHD.     

Do bupropion SR and sertraline differ in their effects on anxiety in depressed patients?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of bupropion sustained release (SR) and sertraline on anxiety in outpatients with recurrent DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder. METHOD: This retrospective analysis was conducted using pooled data from 2 identical, 8-week, acute-phase, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies of bupropion SR (N = 234), sertraline (N = 225), and placebo (N = 233). Symptoms of anxiety and depression were measured using the 14-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) and the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-21), respectively. Percentage reduction in baseline HAM-A total score for each treatment week was calculated to determine whether the time to onset of anxiolytic activity differed among antidepressant responders to each agent. Central nervous system (CNS) adverse events were tabulated. RESULTS: Bupropion SR and sertraline were comparably effective, both were superior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms. and they did not differ in their effect on anxiety symptoms. Antidepressant responders (> 50% reduction in baseline HAM-D-21 score) in both groups showed marked and comparable reductions in HAM-A scores (baseline to exit). There were no differences between bupropion SR and sertraline in the median time (4 weeks) to reach a clinically significant anxiolytic effect (> or = 50% reduction in baseline HAM-A score). CNS adverse events were comparable for bupropion SR and sertraline, except for somnolence, which was more common in sertraline-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Bupropion SR and sertraline had comparable antidepressant and anxiolytic effects and an equally rapid onset of clinically significant anxiolytic activity. There was no difference in the activating effects between the 2 antidepressants. Selection between these 2 agents cannot be based on either anticipation of differential anxiolytic activity or differential CNS side effect profiles.     

A randomized, double-blind study of fluoxetine and maprotiline in the treatment of major depression.

In a six-week double-blind randomized trial, preceded by a one-week single-blind placebo treatment, the efficacy and the side-effects of fluoxetine (40-80 mg/d) (n = 30) and maprotiline (50-150 mg/d) (n = 35) were compared in hospitalized patients with DSM-III Major Depression without psychotic features. Efficacy was measured by means of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Raskin Depression Scale, the Covi Anxiety Scale, and a Clinical Global Impression. Side-effects were evaluated by an Adverse Events Scale. A statistically significant improvement was achieved in both treatment groups but success rates were modest. No differences in efficacy were found between the two groups. In addition, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups either in frequency or in severity of adverse events. In fact, the only statistically significant difference found was in weight change: weight loss in the fluoxetine group and weight gain in the maprotiline group.     

Short-term continuous infusion of apomorphine hydrochloride for treatment of Huntington's chorea: A double blind, randomized cross-over trial.

We evaluated tolerability and the efficacy of continuous infusion of apomorphine hydrochloride on involuntary movements and mood disorder in Huntington's disease (HD) patients in a pilot, single center, double-blind, randomized, crossover, and controlled versus placebo study. Nine patients with a molecular diagnosis of HD were screened for response to acute apomorphine injection. Four of them, not ameliorating at the acute test, were discontinued. Five patients, responding to acute apomorphine, received continuous infusion of either apomorphine or placebo for 5 days. After 2 days of washout, the alternative treatment was administered. Primary endpoint measures were scores of the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS "motor section") and of the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS). Secondary endpoint measures were the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAD) score and safety parameters. Both UHDRS and AIMS scores significantly decreased in all patients after apomorphine. The beneficial effect of apomorphine was recorded throughout the 5 treatment days. The HAD score did not change after infusion of either treatment. No serious adverse events were reported by either group during the study. Our results suggest that continuous infusion of apomorphine might be considered for the treatment of involuntary movements in some HD patients.     

Fixed-dose trial of the single isomer SSRI escitalopram in depressed outpatients

BACKGROUND: Escitalopram is the single isomer responsible for the serotonin reuptake inhibition produced by the racemic antidepressant citalopram. The present randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose multicenter trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder. METHOD: Outpatients with an ongoing DSM-IV major depressive episode (N = 491) were randomly assigned to placebo, escitalopram, 10 mg/day, escitalopram, 20 mg/day, or citalopram, 40 mg/day, and entered an 8-week double-blind treatment period following a 1-week single-blind placebo lead-in. Clinical response was evaluated by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and patient-rated quality-of-life scales. RESULTS: Escitalopram, at both doses, produced significant improvement at study endpoint relative to placebo on all measures of depression; significant separation of escitalopram from placebo was observed within I week of double-blind treatment. Citalopram treatment also significantly improved depressive symptomatology compared with placebo; however, escitalopram, 10 mg/day, was at least as effective as citalopram, 40 mg/day, at endpoint. Anxiety symptoms and quality of life were also significantly improved by escitalopram compared with placebo. The incidence of discontinuations due to adverse events for the escitalopram 10 mg/day group was not different from the placebo group (4.2% vs. 2.5%; p = .50), and not different for the escitalopram 20 mg/day group and the citalopram 40 mg/day group (10.4% vs. 8.8%; p = .83). CONCLUSION: Escitalopram, a single isomer SSRI, is well-tolerated and has demonstrated antidepressant efficacy at a dose of 10 mg/day.     

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of oxcarbazepine in the treatment of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter trial examined the efficacy and safety of oxcarbazepine in the treatment of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents. METHOD: A total of 116 outpatients 7 to 18 years of age with bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed, were recruited at 20 centers in the United States and randomly assigned to receive 7 weeks of double-blinded, flexibly dosed treatment with oxcarbazepine (maximum dose 900-2400 mg/day) or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change from baseline to endpoint in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), using the last-observation-carried-forward method. RESULTS: Oxcarbazepine (mean dose=1515 mg/day) did not significantly improve YMRS scores at endpoint compared with placebo [adjusted mean change: oxcarbazepine, -10.90 (N=55); placebo, -9.79 (N=55)]. Dizziness, nausea, somnolence, diplopia, fatigue, and rash were each reported in at least 5% of the patients in the oxcarbazepine group with an incidence at least twice that of the placebo group. The majority of adverse events were mild to moderate and occurred during the titration period. Eleven patients (19%) in the oxcarbazepine group discontinued the study because of adverse events, compared with two (4%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Oxcarbazepine is not significantly superior to placebo in the treatment of bipolar disorder in youths. While the overall adverse event profile was similar to that reported for patients with epilepsy, the incidence of psychiatric adverse events for both the oxcarbazepine and placebo groups was higher than that reported for the epilepsy population.     

Paroxetine versus placebo: a double-blind comparison in depressed patients.

BACKGROUND: Paroxetine is a potent and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). The present study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine against placebo in depressed outpatients. METHOD: A double-blind, parallel-group study was undertaken in four stand-alone centers. Patients aged 18-65 years, meeting DSM-III criteria for major depression, and having a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score > or = 18 on the first 17 items of the HAM-D-21 were randomized to paroxetine or placebo for 6 weeks of treatment. Efficacy outcome variables included the HAM-D, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI), and the Covi Anxiety Scale. Tolerability was assessed by asking a non-leading question. Routine laboratory safety and vital sign data from all four centers were pooled. The primary analysis used the intention-to-treat sample and for efficacy variables the last-observation-carried-forward data set was employed. Statistical methods included one-way analysis of variance for parametric and Fisher exact test for nonparametric variables. RESULTS: Significant differences (p < or = .05) were found between paroxetine and placebo on the HAM-D and CGI by Week 2 and on all efficacy outcome variables by Week 4. Improvement on the HAM-D sleep factor occurred 2 weeks prior to that seen on the retardation factor. Similar results were obtained when an adequate treatment group (therapy for > or = 28 days) was considered. A full clinical response (CGI-severity of illness score 1 or 2) was seen in over 40% of subjects. Adverse events were more common for paroxetine compared with placebo (p < or = .01). Somnolence was twice more common than nervousness. Dropout due to adverse events was similar between therapies. Paroxetine had no clinically significant effect on laboratory safety data or vital signs. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine was an effective, well tolerated, and safe antidepressant. Side effects were typical of the SSRI class of drugs. Symptoms indicative of a nonalerting profile were more common than those associated with alerting effects.     

A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of oral creatine monohydrate augmentation for enhanced response to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in women with major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE Antidepressants targeting monoaminergic neurotransmitter systems, despite their immediate effects at the synaptic level, usually require several weeks of administration to achieve clinical efficacy. The authors propose a strategy of adding creatine monohydrate (creatine) to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder. Such augmentation may lead to a more rapid onset of antidepressant effects and a greater treatment response, potentially by restoring brain bioenergetics at the cellular level. METHOD Fifty-two women with major depressive disorder were enrolled in an 8-week double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial and randomly assigned to receive escitalopram in addition to either creatine (5 g/day, N=25) or placebo (N=27). Efficacy was primarily assessed by changes in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score. RESULTS In comparison to the placebo augmentation group, patients receiving creatine augmentation showed significantly greater improvements in HAM-D score, as early as week 2 of treatment. This differential improvement favoring creatine was maintained at weeks 4 and 8. There were no differences between treatment groups in the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment prematurely (creatine: N=8, 32.0%; placebo: N=5, 18.5%) or in the overall frequency of all reported adverse events (creatine: 36 events; placebo: 45 events). CONCLUSIONS The current study suggests that creatine augmentation of SSRI treatment may be a promising therapeutic approach that exhibits more rapid and efficacious responses in women with major depressive disorder.     

Fluoxetine treatment for prevention of relapse of depression in children and adolescents: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: To compare fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg/day with placebo for prevention of relapse of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents who had achieved Children's Depression Rating Scale, Revised scores of < or =28 during treatment with fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg. METHOD: In this 32-week relapse-prevention phase of a double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled 51-week study, 20 patients continued to receive their fixed dose of fluoxetine (F/F group), while 20 similar patients were switched to placebo (F/P group). Definition of relapse for the primary analysis was a Children's Depression Rating Scale, Revised score of >40 with a 2-week history of clinical deterioration or relapse in the opinion of the physician. Adverse events were compared between treatment groups to assess discontinuation-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: Mean time to relapse was longer in the F/F recipients than in the F/P recipients (p=.046). Relapse occurred in an estimated 34% in the F/F cohort and 60% in the F/P cohort. Incidence of adverse events and tolerability were similar in the F/F and F/P groups, suggesting that fluoxetine is not associated with significant discontinuation events. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg/day was well tolerated and can significantly delay relapse of major depressive disorder symptoms in children and adolescents.     

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.     

Placebo-controlled comparison of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors citalopram and sertraline.

BACKGROUND: Previous comparative studies of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have rarely included a placebo control group and have rarely demonstrated significant between-group differences. The study reported on here was a placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant effects of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-three patients with DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder were randomized to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with citalopram (20-60 mg/day), sertraline (50-150 mg/day), or a placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and the primary statistical analysis was an analysis of variance comparing the change from baseline to the last observation carried forward in each treatment group. RESULTS: Both citalopram and sertraline produced significantly greater improvement than placebo on the HAMD, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. Significant improvement was observed at earlier timepoints in the citalopram group than the sertraline group; however, sertraline treatment was associated with increased gastrointestinal side effects and a tendency toward early discontinuation, and analyses that excluded early dropouts revealed similar acute efficacy for the two active treatments. The Hamilton Anxiety Scale demonstrated a significant anxiolytic effect of citalopram, but not sertraline, relative to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the antidepressant efficacy of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline. It is hypothesized that the more consistent evidence of antidepressant activity that was observed early in treatment in the citalopram group was related to more pronounced antianxiety effects and better tolerability upon initiation of therapy.     

Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial of sertraline in the treatment of depression complicating Alzheimer's disease: initial results from the Depression in Alzheimer's Disease study

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sertraline in the treatment of major depression in 22 outpatients with Alzheimer's disease. METHOD: Twelve of the 22 patients were given sertraline and 10 were given placebo by random group assignment for 12 weeks. Response to treatment was measured by using the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia. The patients were also assessed with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the activities of daily living subscale of the Psychogeriatric Dependency Rating Scales, and the Mini-Mental State. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment, nine of the patients given sertraline and two of those given placebo were at least partial responders. Patients given sertraline had significantly greater mean declines from baseline in Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia scores; the bulk of antidepressant response occurred by the third week of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Sertraline is superior to placebo in reducing depression in patients with Alzheimer's disease who also suffer from major depression.     

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.     

Antidepressants in 'depressed' schizophrenic inpatients. A controlled trial

Fifty-eight actively psychotic inpatients who initially met criteria for long-standing schizophrenia and subsequently met Research Diagnostic Criteria for a current episode of schizoaffective disorder (mainly schizophrenic) with a depressive syndrome, and who scored at least 30 (mean = 55, SEM = 1.6) on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and 17 (mean = 23, SEM = 0.7) on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, were treated for 5 weeks with haloperidol hydrochloride and benztropine. Haloperidol and benztropine treatment was continued, while those patients who consistently scored greater than 17 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression were randomly assigned to the following double-blind treatment groups for 4 weeks: adjunctive amitriptyline hydrochloride, desipramine hydrochloride, or placebo. Adjunctive desipramine or amitriptyline showed no significant therapeutic advantage, when compared with haloperidol and placebo, on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale or the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. After 4 weeks of combine therapy, patients receiving adjunctive amitriptyline or desipramine, as compared with those receiving adjunctive placebo, tended to score higher on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale hallucinatory behavior item and on the thinking disturbance factor than patients receiving placebo. These results suggest that adjunctive antidepressants are not indicated for the treatment of depressive symptoms in actively psychotic schizophrenic inpatients. Adjunctive antidepressants may retard the rate of resolution of psychosis in this population.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in geriatric outpatients with major depression.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of depression in elderly patients, few well-designed, placebo-controlled studies of antidepressants have been conducted in this population. This masked, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in depressed patients older than 65 years. METHOD: Three hundred patients were randomly assigned to treatment with venlafaxine immediate release ([IR]; N = 104), fluoxetine (N = 100), or placebo (N = 96) in an eight-week trial. Venlafaxine doses were titrated from 37.5 to 225 mg per day and fluoxetine doses were titrated from 20 to 60 mg per day, as necessary, over 29 days. Efficacy variables included the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D21) total score, HAM-D21 depressed mood item score, scores on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales, and rates of response (based on change from baseline HAM-D or MADRS score or CGI-I score) and remission (HAM-D17 < or =7). For the purposes of this report, efficacy analyses are focused on the HAM-D21 total score. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs assessments, laboratory determinations, and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: In all three of the treatment groups, there was a significant reduction at week 8 compared with the baseline HAM-D21 total score. However, there were no significant differences among the three treatment groups on the change in HAM-D21, MADRS, or CGI scores from baseline to week 8. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of remitters at the last on-therapy visit. The incidence of individual AEs was higher in the venlafaxine group (27%) compared with patients taking fluoxetine (19%) or placebo (9%). CONCLUSION: In this study, there was no significant difference in efficacy among placebo, venlafaxine, and fluoxetine for the treatment of depression.