Quetiapine in the treatment of anxiety in patients with bipolar I or II depression: a secondary analysis from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: Quetiapine monotherapy shows efficacy in bipolar depression. The analyses in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled study evaluated effects of quetiapine monotherapy on anxiety symptoms in bipolar depression. METHOD: Of 542 outpatients randomly assigned to treatment, 539 with bipolar I (N = 358) or bipolar II (N = 181) disorder experiencing a major depressive episode (DSM-IV) received 8 weeks of quetiapine monotherapy (600 or 300 mg/day) or placebo between September 2002 and October 2003. Anxiety assessments included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) and relevant items from the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). Analyses evaluated the pooled dose groups versus placebo. RESULTS: At week 8, quetiapine 600 and 300 mg/day each demonstrated significant improvements in HAM-A total score versus placebo (-10.8 and -9.9 vs. -6.7, p < .001). Quetiapine (pooled doses) significantly improved HAM-A total score from week 1. In bipolar I depression, quetiapine showed significant improvement in HAM-A total score versus placebo (-10.4 vs. -5.1, p < .001). In bipolar I depression, quetiapine also showed significant improvements versus placebo on the HAM-A anxious mood and tension items, HAM-A psychic and somatic subscales, MADRS inner tension item, and HAM-D psychic anxiety item (all p < .001), but not the HAM-D somatic anxiety item. In bipolar II depression, quetiapine reduced the HAM-A total score more than placebo, but the difference was not statistically significant (-9.8 vs. -9.0, p = .473). In bipolar II depression, quetiapine showed significant improvement versus placebo on the HAM-A anxious mood, MADRS inner tension, and HAM-D psychic anxiety items (all p < .01). CONCLUSION: Quetiapine monotherapy shows efficacy in treating anxiety symptoms in bipolar I depression; however, the anxiolytic effects in bipolar II disorder require further investigation.     

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 of venlafaxine extended release in patients with major depressive disorder and comorbid generalized anxiety disorder

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients with comorbid major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) was examined from a double-blind. placebo-controlled study comparing the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended release (XR) and fluoxetine. METHOD: From a total of 368 patients, 92 patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder who also had comorbid GAD were identified. The comparison group comprised 276 evaluable noncomorbid patients. Patients received venlafaxine XR (75-225 mg/day), fluoxetine (20-60 mg/day), or placebo for 12 weeks. Efficacy evaluations included Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale. RESULTS: By the final assessment at week 12, comorbid patients in the venlafaxine XR group, but not in the fluoxetine group, showed a significantly greater decrease than those in the placebo group in the primary efficacy variables of mean HAM-D and HAM-A total scores (p < .05, pairwise comparison). In comorbid patients, significant pairwise differences were noted between venlafaxine XR and placebo at week 12 for the secondary variables of HAM-D anxiety-somatization and retardation factors, HAM-D depressed mood item. HAM-A psychic anxiety factor, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD) anxiety subscale score, and the Covi Anxiety Scale score. Fluoxetine was significantly different from placebo only on the HAD depression subscale score. Response, defined as > or = 50% decrease in symptoms score, was achieved in 66% and 59% of the comorbid patients for HAM-D and HAM-A, respectively, in the venlafaxine XR group at week 12. This response was higher than that seen with fluoxetine (52% and 45%) or placebo (36% and 24%). Onset of efficacy appeared to be slower in comorbid than in noncomorbid patients. CONCLUSION: This is the first evidence from a controlled study of the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in patients with comorbid major depressive disorder and GAD. The delayed improvement in comorbid patients compared with noncomorbid patients suggests that a longer treatment period may be necessary in comorbid patients.     

Once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) compared with fluoxetine in outpatients with depression and anxiety. Venlafaxine XR 360 Study Group

BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) and fluoxetine in outpatients with major depression and concomitant anxiety. METHOD: Patients who met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder and satisfied eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to once-daily venlafaxine XR, fluoxetine, or placebo for 12 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and Clinical Global Impressions scale. RESULTS: Among 359 outpatients, venlafaxine XR and fluoxetine were significantly superior (p < .05) to placebo on the HAM-D total score beginning at week 2 and continuing to the end of the study. Venlafaxine XR but not fluoxetine was significantly better than placebo at week 2 on the HAM-D depressed mood item. At week 12, the HAM-D response rate was 43% on placebo, 67% on venlafaxine XR, and 62% on fluoxetine (p < .05). The HAM-D remission rate was significantly higher (p < .05) at weeks 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and final evaluation with venlafaxine XR and at weeks 8, 12, and final evaluation with fluoxetine than with placebo. The HAM-A response rate was significantly higher (p < .05) with venlafaxine XR than with fluoxetine at week 12. The incidence of discontinuation for adverse events was 5% with placebo, 10% with venlafaxine XR, and 7% with fluoxetine. CONCLUSION: Once-daily venlafaxine XR is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of major depression and concomitant anxiety and provides evidence for superiority over fluoxetine.     

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.     

Effectiveness of low doses of paroxetine controlled release in the treatment of major depressive disorder

CONTEXT: Paroxetine controlled release (CR) is approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in the dosage range of 25 to 62.5 mg daily. However, lower daily doses (12.5 mg and 25 mg) of this formulation have not been investigated in the treatment of MDD. If the 12.5-mg and 25-mg doses are found to be efficacious, these lower doses may well convey a superior tolerability profile for paroxetine CR in the treatment of MDD. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability profile of daily doses of paroxetine CR 12.5 mg and 25 mg versus placebo in the treatment of MDD. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 40 clinical investigation centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 447 adult (> or = 18 years of age) outpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for MDD and with a baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of at least 20 comprised the intent-to-treat study population (mean age = 38.8 years; 58.4% female; 75.6% white). INTERVENTION: Eligible patients completing a 1-week single-blind placebo run-in period were randomly assigned to receive once-a-day study medication (paroxetine CR 12.5 mg [N = 156], paroxetine CR 25 mg [N = 154], or placebo [N = 149]) in an 8-week, double-blind, parallel cell comparison. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to study endpoint (week 8) as measured by the HAM-D. Secondary efficacy measures included change from baseline to study endpoint as assessed by both the depressed mood item on the HAM-D and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S). The proportion of patients considered at study endpoint to be in response (CGI-Improvement score of 1 or 2) or in remission (HAM-D < or = 7) in the 3 treatment groups was also compared. Quality of life was assessed by the change from baseline in total score of the short form of the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q). Safety observations were made by assessing the proportion of patients who had adverse experiences, including laboratory and electrocardiographic abnormalities, during the treatment period. RESULTS: The primary efficacy analysis revealed that both the 12.5-mg and the 25-mg paroxetine CR treatment groups were associated with significant therapeutic effects (change in HAM-D score) from baseline to study endpoint (LOCF: p = .038, 95% CI = -3.38 to -0.09 and p = .005, 95% CI = -4.06 to -0.74, respectively). Results from the Wilcoxon rank sum test of the depressed mood item of the HAM-D (p = .011, 95% CI = -0.57 to -0.07) demonstrated significant efficacy in the 25-mg treatment group but not in the 12.5-mg group. However, LOCF analysis of the CGI-S revealed significant therapeutic effects for both the 12.5-mg (p = .018, 95% CI = -0.61 to -0.06) and 25-mg (p < .001, 95% CI = -0.78 to -0.22) treatment groups. Significantly more patients in the 25-mg paroxetine CR-treated group than in the placebo-treated group met criteria for response (CGI-Improvement score of 1 or 2, p = .035, OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.04 to 2.73) as well as for remission (HAM-D score 相似文献   

Cognitive behavior therapy and paroxetine in the treatment of hypochondriasis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: This study, to the authors' knowledge, is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), paroxetine, and a placebo (administered in a double blind fashion) in the treatment of hypochondriasis. METHOD: The authors randomly assigned 112 subjects with hypochondriasis according to DSM-IV criteria to 16 weeks of outpatient treatment with CBT, paroxetine, or a placebo. The main outcome measure was the Whiteley Index. The authors made pretest and posttest assessments and analyzed all outcome measures using a General Linear Model 3x2 repeated measures analysis of variance with Helmert contrasts. The authors considered subjects who scored at least one standard deviation below the mean pretest score on the Whiteley Index as responders. All analyses were conducted on intent-to-treat and completer bases. RESULTS: On the Whiteley Index, Helmert contrasts on the intent-to-treat and completer cohorts revealed that pooled CBT and paroxetine were significantly superior to placebo, but did not differ significantly from each other. The responder analysis on the intent-to-treat cohort and completer cohort, respectively, revealed the following percentages of responders per group: CBT group, 45% and 54%; paroxetine group, 30% and 38%; and placebo group, 14% and 12%. In the intent-to-treat analysis, only CBT differed significantly from the placebo. In the completer analysis, both paroxetine and CBT differed significantly from the placebo. CONCLUSIONS: CBT or paroxetine are effective short-term treatment options for subjects with hypochondriasis.     

Comparison of Hypericum extract WS 5570 and paroxetine in ongoing treatment after recovery from an episode of moderate to severe depression: results from a randomized multicenter study

OBJECTIVE: To test and compare the efficacy and safety of Hypericum extract WS 5570 to paroxetine, a potent SSRI, in patients suffering from moderate or severe depression according to DSM-IV criteria. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase III study, the changes in moderate to severe major depression DSM-IV; 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D total>or=22) after an acute treatment with Hypericum extract WS 5570 or paroxetine were analyzed in a 16-week continuation phase for relapse prevention. Patients with a HAM-D total score decrease of >or=50% during the 6 weeks of acute treatment were asked to continue the treatment for another 4 months. One-hundred and thirty-three adult out-patients who received maintenance doses of 900 (n=33) or 1800 mg/d (n=38) of WS 5570 and 20 (n=28) or 40 mg/d (n=34) of paroxetine, respectively, were included. The relevant dosage was already fixed during the acute treatment. RESULTS: Between baseline of the acute phase and end of continuation treatment the HAM-D total score decreased from 25.3+/-2.5 (mean+/-SD) to 4.3+/-6.2 points for WS 5570 and from 25.3+/-2.6 to 5.2+/-5.5 points for paroxetine (p=0.49, two-sided t-test; median relative decrease: 92.0 and 85.5%, respectively). During maintenance treatment alone (day 154-day 42), 61.6% of the patients randomized to WS 5570 and 54.6% treated with paroxetine showed an additional reduction (p=0.59) with respect to the HAM-D total score. Remission (HAM-D endpoint total score below 8) occurred in 81.6% (31 patients) of the patients for WS 5570 and in 71.4% (30 patients) for paroxetine (p=0.29). Three patients in the WS 5570 group and 2 patients in the paroxetine group showed a HAM-D increase>5 points during continuation treatment. In the continuation phase there were 0.006 adverse events per day of exposure for WS 5570 and 0.007 events for paroxetine. CONCLUSION: This study showed that WS 5570 and paroxetine were similarly effective in preventing relapse in a continuation treatment after recovery from an episode of moderate to severe depression and point therefore to an important alternative treatment option for long-term relapse-prevention.     

Efficacy and safety of dexmethylphenidate extended-release capsules in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of dexmethylphenidate extended release (d-MPH-ER) was compared to placebo in pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, two-phase study included 97 patients (ages 6-17 years) with DSM-IV-defined ADHD. The study was carried out between 2001 and 2003. After a 2-week evaluation phase, patients were randomized to d-MPH-ER or placebo for 7 weeks. Flexible d-MPH-ER dosing (30 mg/day) was permitted for 5 weeks, then patients remained on their optimal dose during the last 2 study weeks. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to final rating in Conners ADHD/DSM-IV Scale-Teacher version (CADS-T) total subscale score. Secondary efficacy variables included changes from baseline to final visit in CADS-T Inattentive and Hyperactive-Impulsive subscale scores, CADS-P DSM-IV total subscale score and Inattentive and Hyperactive-Impulsive subscale scores, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) and CGI-Severity (CGI-S) scale scores, and Child Health Questionnaire Parent Form 50 scores. RESULTS: d-MPH-ER improved CADS-T total scores significantly compared with placebo (p <.001), and 67.3% of d-MPH-ER patients were rated much improved or very much improved on CGI-I at final visit versus 13.3% of placebo patients (p <.001). More patients taking d-MPH-ER (49.1%) than placebo (25.5%) spontaneously reported adverse events suspected as drug related. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily d-MPH-ER was more effective than placebo in the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents.     

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment for generalized anxiety disorder: a double-blind, prospective comparison between paroxetine and sertraline

OBJECTIVE: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) appear to be an effective class of medications for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Within the SSRI class, however, there have been no comparative treatment studies for this disorder. Therefore, in the present study, we compared the efficacy and tolerability of 2 SSRIs, paroxetine and sertraline, in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. METHOD: In this parallel-group, double-blind, flexible-dose study, 55 patients with primary generalized anxiety disorder (DSM-IV criteria) were randomly assigned to receive either paroxetine or sertraline treatment for 8 weeks. Primary efficacy measures were the mean changes in Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) scores as well as responder and remission rates based on the Clinical Global Impressions scale. Secondary efficacy measures consisted of the Indiana University Generalized Anxiety Measurement Scale and self-report ratings of anxiety, and quality-of-life outcome. Tolerability was assessed using the Systematic Assessment for Treatment Emergent Events questionnaire for treatment-emergent symptoms. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat sample consisted of 53 patients who received medication for at least 1 week. Of the 53 patients, 43 completed the entire 8 weeks of treatment. Both paroxetine and sertraline resulted in significant decreases in mean HAM-A scores (paroxetine = 57% +/- 28%; sertraline = 56% +/- 28%). There were no differences between medication groups on response or remission rates, and tolerability was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Both paroxetine and sertraline appear similarly effective and well tolerated for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.     

Efficacy of modafinil compared to dextroamphetamine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults

Our objective was to compare the efficacy of the new wake-promoting drug modafinil to that of dextroamphetamine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults. Twenty-two adults who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD participated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-phase crossover study comparing placebo, modafinil, and dextroamphetamine for the treatment of ADHD. The twice-daily study medications were titrated to doses of optimum efficacy over 4-7 days and then held constant during the rest of each 2-week treatment phase. Measures of improvement included the DSM-IV ADHD Behavior Checklist for Adults, the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT, using the letters C, F, and L version), Stroop, and Digit Span (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale version). For the 21 (96%) completers, the mean (+/- SD) optimum doses of modafinil and dextroamphetamine were 206.8 mg/day +/- 84.9 and 21.8 mg/day +/- 8.9, respectively. Scores on the DSM-IV ADHD Checklist (p < 0.001) were significantly improved over the placebo condition following treatment with both active medications. Performance on the COWAT (p < 0.05) reached trend levels of significance. Both medications were generally well tolerated. This preliminary study suggests that modafinil may be a viable alternative to conventional stimulants for the treatment of adults with ADHD.     

Testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadal men with major depressive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of male hypogonadism include low libido, fatigue, and dysphoria and are alleviated with testosterone replacement. The prevalence of major depressive disorder (MDD) in hypogonadal men is not known, nor is the antidepressant efficacy of testosterone replacement in depressed, hypogonadal men. METHOD: A 6-week double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted in 32 men with DSM-IV MDD and a low testosterone level, defined as total serum testosterone < or = 350 ng/dL. Patients were randomly assigned to receive weekly 1-mL intramuscular injections of either testosterone enanthate, 200 mg, or sesame seed oil (placebo). The primary outcome measure was the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). RESULTS: Thirty patients were randomly assigned to an intervention; 13 received testosterone, and 17 received placebo. Mean +/- SD age was 52+/-10 years, mean testosterone level was 266.1+/-50.6 ng/dL, and mean baseline HAM-D score was 21+/-8. All patients who received testosterone achieved normalization of their testosterone levels. The HAM-D scores decreased in both testosterone and placebo groups, and there were no significant between-group differences: reduction in group mean HAM-D score from baseline to endpoint was 10.1 in patients who received testosterone and 10.5 in those who received placebo. Response rate, defined as a 50% or greater reduction in HAM-D score, was 38.5% (5/13) for patients who received testosterone and 41.2% (7/17) for patients who received placebo. Patients receiving testosterone had a marginal but statistically significant improvement in sexual function (p = .02). CONCLUSION: In this clinical trial with depressed, hypogonadal men, antidepressant effects of testosterone replacement could not be differentiated from those of placebo.     

Use of buspirone in patients with generalized anxiety disorder and coexisting depressive symptoms. A meta-analysis of eight randomized, controlled studies.

This report presents the results of a retrospective analysis of pooled efficacy data from eight studies in which buspirone was compared to placebo in 520 patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). In addition to evaluating overall efficacy in the composite patient data base, four criteria were used to identify subsets of patients with GAD who had coexisting depressive symptoms of at least moderate intensity: (1) a score of > or = 2 on the Hamilton Anxiety (HAM-A) Rating Scale item 6 (depressed mood), (2) a score of > or = 2 on the Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) Rating Scale item 1 (depressed mood), (3) a HAM-D total score of > or = 18, or (4) a HAM-D Retardation Factor value (items 1, 7, 8, and 14) greater than the median for the group. Overall, patients treated with buspirone demonstrated significant (p < or = 0.001) improvement over baseline in total HAM-A scores compared to patients who received placebo. Buspirone also produced significant (p < or = 0.001) global improvement compared to placebo as assessed by the attending physician. Of the GAD patients stratified according to the four criteria for coexisting depressive symptoms, a substantial percentage (44-64%) of the total patient sample exhibited significant depressive symptoms as part of their anxiety disorder. Patients with GAD and coexisting depressive symptoms of at least moderate intensity exhibited significantly greater improvement with buspirone compared to placebo treatment regardless of the stratification criterion used. They also responded at least as well or better to buspirone therapy as did those with GAD who had less intense depressive symptoms.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Clinical application of paroxetine for tapering benzodiazepine use in non-major-depressive outpatients visiting an internal medicine clinic

Chronic benzodiazepine (BDZ) users often have difficulty with BDZ withdrawal. To examine clinical effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) on tapering BDZ use in non-depressive patients, 97 outpatients with a history of BDZ use for at least 3 months were recruited at an internal medicine clinic of a university hospital. After the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) clinical interviews for screening major depression, 66 outpatients (68%) without the DSM-IV major depression were randomly assigned to one of three groups: SSRI-assisted BDZ-reduction group (10-20 mg of paroxetine, n = 22), simple BDZ-reduction group (no paroxetine, n = 23), and reference group (no BDZ-reduction, n = 21). A standardized 8-week program involving gradual BDZ discontinuation was performed in the two BDZ-reduction groups. The Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression (HAM-D) and Anxiety (HAM-A) and the BDZ Withdrawal Symptom Questionnaire were assessed during the intervention period. Those with major depression were excluded from the BDZ-reduction intervention and treated with a different protocol of medication. In total, 10 (45.5%) in the SSRI-assisted BDZ-reduction group (n = 22) succeeded in becoming BDZ-free after completing the program, whereas only four (17.4%) in the simple BDZ-reduction group (n = 23) succeeded. The assistance of the SSRI significantly predicted the success of becoming BDZ-free (P = 0.023), controlling for the effects of age, gender, period of BDZ use, and baseline HAM-D and HAM-A scores. The score changes on the three questionnaires were comparable (all P > 0.05) among the three groups during the intervention period. The use of SSRI may have beneficial effects on BDZ withdrawal without the worsening of mood states in cases without major depression.     

Efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine for the long-term treatment of generalized anxiety disorder

BACKGROUND: Paroxetine has demonstrated efficacy in depression and anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). This 32-week study evaluated the maintained efficacy and safety of paroxetine in GAD by assessing the potential for relapse after discontinuation of medication. METHOD: Adults (N = 652) with DSM-IV GAD and a Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score > or = 4 received paroxetine (20-50 mg/day) for 8 weeks. Patients whose CGI-S score had decreased by at least 2 points to < or = 3 at week 8 were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with paroxetine (N = 278) or placebo (N = 288) for a further 24 weeks. The primary efficacy parameter was the proportion of patients relapsing (an increase in CGI-S score of at least 2 points to a score < or = 4 or withdrawal resulting from lack of efficacy) during double-blind treatment. RESULTS: Significantly fewer paroxetine than placebo patients relapsed during the 24-week double-blind phase (10.9% vs. 39.9%; p <.001). Placebo patients were almost 5 times more likely to relapse than paroxetine patients (estimated hazard ratio = 0.213 [95% CI = 0.1 to 0.3]; p <.001). Statistical significance in favor of paroxetine was demonstrated for all secondary efficacy parameters, including functional status. Twice as many paroxetine patients as placebo patients (73%) achieved remission. Paroxetine was well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events reported. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine was found to be effective and well tolerated for both the short- and long-term treatment of DSM-IV GAD. Continued treatment with paroxetine significantly reduced the potential for relapse of GAD symptoms.     

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.     

Tiagabine for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized, open-label, clinical trial with paroxetine as a positive control

BACKGROUND: Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) plays a central role in the pathophysiology of anxiety. Tiagabine, a selective GABA reuptake inhibitor, enhances normal GABA tone. This 10-week, randomized, open-label trial evaluated tiagabine in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), with paroxetine serving as a positive control. METHOD: Adult patients with DSM-IV GAD were randomly assigned to receive either tiagabine or paroxetine. Tiagabine was initiated at 4 mg/day (2 mg morning and evening) during week 1. Between weeks 2 and 6, the dose was individually titrated in 2-mg increments (maximum increase of 4 mg/week) for optimal response to a maximum dose of 16 mg/day (8 mg morning and evening). During weeks 7 through 10, patients received the dosage determined during the titration period. Paroxetine was initiated at 20 mg nightly for the first week and similarly titrated in 10-mg increments to a maximum dose of 60 mg/day. Assessments included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled (tiagabine, N = 20; paroxetine, N = 20). Mean final doses were tiagabine 10 mg/day (range, 4-16 mg/day) or paroxetine 27 mg/day (range, 20-40 mg/day). Tiagabine and paroxetine significantly reduced anxiety (HAM-A and HADS total and anxiety subscales). Although patients were not diagnosed with a mood disorder, both tiagabine and paroxetine reduced comorbid depressive symptoms (HAM-D total and HADS total and depressive subscale). Tiagabine and paroxetine significantly improved sleep quality (PSQI) and functioning (SDS). Both tiagabine and paroxetine were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The selective GABA reuptake inhibitor tiagabine and the positive control paroxetine significantly reduced anxiety and comorbid depressive symptoms, improved sleep quality and functioning, and were well tolerated in patients with GAD. Tiagabine may be a therapeutic option for the treatment of anxiety disorders.     

A controlled trial of paroxetine for chronic PTSD, dissociation, and interpersonal problems in mostly minority adults

This study evaluated the efficacy of paroxetine for symptoms and associated features of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), interpersonal problems, and dissociative symptoms in an urban population of mostly minority adults. Adult outpatients with a primary DSM-IV diagnosis of chronic PTSD received 1 week of single-blind placebo (N = 70). Those not rated as significantly improved were then randomly assigned to placebo (N = 27) or paroxetine (N = 25) for 10 weeks, with a flexible dosage design (maximum 60 mg by week 7). Significantly more patients treated with paroxetine were rated as responders (14/21, 66.7%) on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Scale (CGI-I) compared to patients treated with placebo (6/22, 27.3%). Mixed effects models showed greater reductions on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) total score (primary plus associated features of PTSD) in the paroxetine versus placebo groups. Paroxetine was also superior to placebo on reduction of dissociative symptoms [Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) score] and reduction in self-reported interpersonal problems [Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) score]. In a 12-week maintenance phase, paroxetine response continued to improve, but placebo response did not. Paroxetine was well tolerated and superior to placebo in ameliorating the symptoms of chronic PTSD, associated features of PTSD, dissociative symptoms, and interpersonal problems in the first trial conducted primarily in minority adults.     

Quetiapine adjunct to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or venlafaxine in patients with major depression, comorbid anxiety, and residual depressive symptoms: a randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study

This double-blind, placebo-controlled study examined the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine in combination with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)/venlafaxine in 58 patients with major depressive disorder, comorbid anxiety symptoms (HAM-A-14 score > or =14), and residual depressive symptoms (HAM-D-17 score > or =18, CGI-S score > or =4). Patients had received an SSRI/venlafaxine (at a predefined therapeutic dose) for > or =6 weeks. Overall, 62% (18/29) of quetiapine- and 55% (16/29) of placebo-treated patients completed the study. The mean change in HAM-D and HAM-A total scores from baseline to Week 8 (primary endpoint) was significantly greater with quetiapine (mean dose 182 mg/day) than placebo: -11.2 vs. -5.5 (P=.008) and -12.5 vs. -5.9 (P=.002), respectively. The onset of quetiapine efficacy (HAM-D/HAM-A/CGI-I) was rapid (by Week 1) and continued through to Week 8. Significant differences (P<.05) from baseline to Week 8 were observed between groups in 7/17 HAM-D (including feelings of guilt, suicide) and 6/14 HAM-A items (including tension, cardiovascular symptoms). Response (> or =50% decrease in total score) was higher for quetiapine than placebo: HAM-D, 48% vs. 28% (not significant, NS); HAM-A, 62% vs. 28% (P=.02). Remission (total score < or =7) was higher for quetiapine than placebo: HAM-D, 31% vs. 17% (NS); HAM-A, 41% vs. 17% (NS). CGI-S, CGI-I, and the Global Assessment Scale showed that quetiapine was significantly more effective than placebo. For quetiapine, adverse events (AEs) were similar to those previously observed; sedation/somnolence/lethargy was the most commonly reported. Here quetiapine was shown to be effective as augmentation of SSRI/venlafaxine therapy in patients with major depression, comorbid anxiety, and residual depressive symptoms, with no unexpected tolerability issues. Further studies are warranted.     

Efficacy of a mixed amphetamine salts compound in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

BACKGROUND: We report on a controlled trial of a mixed amphetamine salts compound (Adderall, dextroamphetamine sulfate, dextro-, levoamphetamine sulfate, dextroamphetamine aspartate, levoamphetamine aspartate, and dextroamphetamine saccharate) in the treatment of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: This was a 7-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of Adderall in 27 well-characterized adults satisfying full DSM-IV criteria for ADHD of childhood onset and persistent symptoms into adulthood. Medication was titrated up to 30 mg twice a day. Outcome measures included the ADHD Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impression Score. Comorbid psychiatric disorders were assessed to test for potential effects on treatment outcome. RESULTS: Treatment with Adderall at an average oral dose of 54 mg (administered in 2 daily doses) was effective and well tolerated. Drug-specific improvement in ADHD symptoms was highly significant overall (42% decrease on the ADHD Rating Scale, P<.001), and sufficiently robust to be detectable in a parallel groups comparison restricted to the first 3 weeks of the protocol (P<.001). The percentage of subjects who improved (reduction in the ADHD rating scale of > or =30%) was significantly higher with Adderall treatment than with a placebo (70% vs 7%; P =.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adderall was effective and well tolerated in the short-term treatment of adults with ADHD. More work is needed to evaluate the long-term effects of Adderall, or other amphetamine compounds, in the treatment of adults with ADHD.