Multicenter, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study of citalopram in moderate-to-severe depression

BACKGROUND: Citalopram, the most selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is a bicyclic phthalane derivative with a chemical structure that is unrelated to that of other SSRIs and available antidepressants. The drug is approved for use in 69 countries. This 6-week, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, multicenter trial was performed to confirm its efficacy and safety in treatment of outpatients with major depression in the United States. METHOD: Six hundred and fifty adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe major depression (DSM-III-R) were randomly assigned to receive citalopram at doses of 10 mg (N = 131), 20 mg (N = 130), 40 mg (N = 131), or 60 mg (N = 129) or placebo (N = 129) once daily. Outcome assessments were the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinical Global Impressions scale. RESULTS: Between-group comparisons of the change from baseline to endpoint revealed significantly greater improvement in the citalopram patients relative to the placebo patients on all 3 efficacy measures. Patients randomly assigned to 40 mg/day and 60 mg/day of citalopram showed significantly greater improvement than placebo on all efficacy measures, as well as on the HAM-D symptom clusters measuring depressed mood, melancholia, cognitive disturbance, and psychomotor retardation. Patients who received 10 mg/day and 20 mg/day of citalopram also showed consistent improvement relative to placebo on all efficacy ratings, with statistical significance demonstrated in the MADRS response rate, the HAM-D depressed mood item, and the HAM-D melancholia subscale. Citalopram was well tolerated, with only 15% of patients discontinuing for adverse events. The side effects most commonly associated with citalopram treatment were nausea, dry mouth, somnolence, insomnia, and increased sweating. CONCLUSION: Citalopram was significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe major depression, especially symptoms of depressed mood and melancholia, with particularly robust effects shown at doses of 40 and 60 mg/day. Citalopram was well tolerated in spite of forced upward titration to fixed-dose levels, with a low incidence of anxiety, agitation, and nervousness.     

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.     

Pattern analysis of antidepressant response to fluoxetine

Seventy patients with unipolar major depressive disorder were treated with fluoxetine or placebo in a 6-week double-blind trial and were evaluated by changes in scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and the global improvement measure of the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale. High correlations were found between the changes in HAM-D scores from baseline to endpoint and the final CGI improvement ratings. In patients with moderate depression (baseline HAM-D score of 20 or more), the differences in endpoint analysis between active treatment and placebo groups were significant. A persistent pattern of improvement was noted in 27% of those receiving fluoxetine but in none of those receiving placebo. Physician and patient evaluations as determined by the improvement measure of the CGI were closely correlated.     

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.     

Treatment outcome validation of DSM-III depressive subtypes. Clinical usefulness in outpatients with mild to moderate depression

An algorithm for transcribing Research Diagnostic Criteria diagnoses for depressive disorders to similar categories in the DSM-III was applied to 103 depressed outpatients previously diagnosed by Research Diagnostic Criteria. All had Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores of 18 or less. Among 64 patients completing a six-week, double-blind study comparing desipramine hydrochloride with placebo, desipramine was significantly more effective than placebo in patients with DSM-III major depression but not in those with dysthymic disorder. Among patients with major depression, a significant drug-placebo response difference was demonstrated even in those without melancholia. These findings support the clinical usefulness of the DSM-III in the treatment of depressed outpatients. Independent of DSM-III diagnosis, however, evidence of panic attacks seemed to identify patients who benefited from desipramine therapy. This suggests that the DSM-III hierarchy, which excludes consideration of panic in patients with major depression, may require revision.     

Randomized double-blind study of fluvoxamine and maprotiline in treatment of depression

In a six-week double-blind randomized trial, preceded by a one-week period of single-blind placebo treatment, the efficacy and the side-effects of fluvoxamine (100-300 mg/d) (n = 24) and maprotiline (50-150 mg/d) (n = 24) were compared in moderately depressed outpatients with DSM-III Major Depression (n = 22) or Dysthymic Disorder (n = 26). Efficacy was measured by means of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Zung Depression Selfrating Scale, and a Clinical Global Impression of Severity Scale. Side-effects were evaluated by an Adverse Event Inventory and a Psychosomatic Symptom Scale. A statistically significant improvement was achieved in both treatment groups but success rates were modest: in both groups, 29% of the patients achieved a clinically significant improvement after six weeks of treatment. After six weeks of treatment, no difference in efficacy was found between fluvoxamine and maprotiline. Nausea was the most common complaint in the fluvoxamine group, while in the maprotiline group, it was dry mouth and constipation. One maprotiline-treated patient developed a convulsive attack.     

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

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

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.     

Depression in idiopathic Parkinson's disease treated with citalopram: A placebo-controlled trial

The antidepressive effect of citalopram in depressed patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD) was evaluated in a placebo-controlled trial. Before treatment the patients had a mean Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) score around 17. In the acute 6-week phase a statistically significant decrease in HAM-D was obtained in both groups of patients but without difference between the groups. End-point HAM-D scores were around 10. In the continuation phase many patients dropped out because of the lack of response. The dose of citalopram was rather low, and the drug was well tolerated. Thus, no exacerbation of PD was seen when citalopram was compared with placebo. During the trial the applicability of the HAM-D in patients with PD was questioned because around 56% of the patients had recurrent brief depression of 2-3 days' duration, which might explain the negative results of the present study.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of fluoxetine in depressed patients with Alzheimer's disease

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of fluoxetine in the treatment of depression in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: This double-blind, parallel-design study included a consecutive series of 41 AD subjects meeting DSM-IV criteria for major or minor depression who were randomized to receive fluoxetine (up to 40 mg/day) or identical-appearing placebo. All patients received biweekly evaluations consisting of the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) and the Clinical Global Impression as primary efficacy measures, and the Mini-Mental State Exam, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, and the Functional Independence Measure as secondary efficacy measures. RESULTS: Complete remission of depression was found in 47% of subjects treated with fluoxetine and in 33% of subjects treated with placebo. Both the fluoxetine and the placebo groups showed a significant decline in HAM-D scores over time, but the magnitude of mood improvement was similar for both groups. Fluoxetine was well tolerated, and most side effects were mild. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine treatment for depression in AD did not differ significantly from treatment with placebo. Our study also confirms the presence of a placebo effect in the treatment of depression in AD.     

Topiramate augmentation in patients with resistant major depressive disorder: a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial

Background

Despite evolution of new antidepressant treatment, clinicians still encounter challenges in the treatment of depressed patients. Looking for new medications that can potentiate the effects of current antidepressants seems to be necessary. Our objective is to survey the efficacy of topiramate augmentation in resistant major depressive disorder (MDD).

Method

This augmentation trial was designed as an 8-week randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Fifty three patients with DSM-IV diagnosis of MDD who had failed to respond to at least 8 weeks of treatment with an adequate dose of one of the SSRIs (fluoxetine, citalopram or serteraline) were included in the study. Patients were randomized to receive a flexible dose of topiramate (100-200 mg/day) or placebo beside their current antidepressant medication for a period of eight weeks. Outcome measures were Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI).

Results

42 patients completed the study and there were 6 and 5 dropouts in topiramate and placebo groups, respectively. The topiramate group demonstrated significant improvement over the study period based on mean HAM-D score at week 8 compared to baseline (P = .000, Z = 3.699). Those receiving topiramate demonstrated to have a mean decrease of 32.0% in HAM-D score, compared to only 5.5% for those receiving placebo. Depressed mood, suicidality, insomnia (early, middle and late), agitation and anxiety symptoms were significantly improved in the topiramate group.

Conclusion

Our double-blind placebo-controlled study demonstrated that topiramate augmentation potentiate the efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in treatment of resistant major depressive disorder. Of note is that our study is preliminary and larger double-blind studies are needed to confirm the results.     

Once-Daily Venlafaxine Extended Release (XR) and Venlafaxine Immediate Release (IR) in Outpatients with Major Depression

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) and venlafaxine immediate release (IR). Outpatients with DSM-III-R major depression were randomly assigned to venlafaxine XR, 75 mg once daily, venlafaxine IR, 37.5 mg twice daily, or placebo for a maximum of 12 weeks. If the response was inadequate after 2 weeks of treatment, the dosage of venlafaxine XR or IR could be increased to 150 mg daily. The primary efficacy variables were the 21-item Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) Rating Scale total score and depressed mood item, the Montgomery–Asberg Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores, and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) severity scale. Two hundred seventy-eight patients were evaluated for efficacy. Venlafaxine XR was significantly superior (p < 0.05) to placebo beginning at week 2 for the HAM-D, week 3 for the MADRS, and week 4 for the CGI severity. Similarly, venlafaxine IR was significantly superior (p < 0.05) to placebo beginning at week 2 on the HAM-D total and depressed mood item, week 3 on the MADRS total, and week 6 on the CGI severity scales. Venlafaxine XR exhibited superiority (p < 0.05) over venlafaxine IR at week 12 for all efficacy variables. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with venlafaxine XR was nausea. The incidence of nausea was highest during the first 2 weeks with a low likelihood of developing nausea thereafter. The results of this study indicate that venlafaxine XR is safe, effective, and well tolerated for the treatment of major depression at once-daily doses ranging from 75 to 150 mg.     

Comparison of pramipexole, fluoxetine, and placebo in patients with major depression

Pramipexole, a dopamine D2 receptor agonist, was tested in 174 patients with major depression, with or without melancholia and without psychotic features. Three daily dose levels (0.375 mg, 1.0 mg, and 5.0 mg) were compared to fluoxetine (Prozac) at 20 mg and placebo in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. After a 1 week placebo run-in period, patients were treated for 8 weeks, had a post-study follow-up (week 9), and were evaluated primarily with the Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinician's Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-SI). All patients who received one dose of study medication were included in the observed-case analysis (no missing data were replaced). Results indicated that by endpoint (week 8), patients receiving pramipexole at the 1.0 mg per day dose had significant improvement over baseline compared to the placebo group by measure of the HAM-D, MADRS, and CGI-SI. Significant improvement in this dose group was seen at other timepoints as well. The most obvious improvement was seen in the pramipexole 5.0 mg group, although a substantial dropout rate for this group precluded statistical tests vs. placebo late in the study. Patients taking fluoxetine also showed significant improvements at endpoint on the MADRS and earlier in the study on the HAM-D. No new or unusual safety concerns were generated during this study. Pramipexole helped safely alleviate the symptoms of depression at 1.0 mg per day and especially in those patients who could tolerate the escalation to 5 mg per day.     

Patients with severe depression may benefit from buspirone augmentation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: results from a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, placebo wash-in study

BACKGROUND: Although case reports and open studies have reported augmentation with buspirone to be beneficial in the treatment of depression refractory to treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), a recently published randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study failed to show superiority of buspirone over placebo in this respect. METHOD: One hundred two outpatients who fulfilled DSM-IV criteria for a major depressive episode and who had failed to respond to a minimum of 6 weeks of treatment with either fluoxetine or citalopram were included in this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. After a single-blind placebo wash-in period of 2 weeks while continuing their SSRI, the patients were randomly assigned to adjunctive treatment with either buspirone, 10 to 30 mg b.i.d., or placebo for 6 weeks. Patients were assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI), and visual analogue scales. RESULTS: After the first week of double-blind treatment, there was a significantly greater reduction in MADRS score (p = .034) in the buspirone group as compared with placebo. At endpoint, there was no significant difference between treatment groups as a whole, although patients with initially high MADRS scores (> 30) showed a significantly greater reduction in MADRS score (p = .026) in the buspirone group as compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe depressive symptoms may benefit from augmentation with buspirone. It cannot be excluded that augmentation with buspirone may speed up the antidepressive response of patients refractory to treatment with fluoxetine or citalopram.     

Methylphenidate-enhanced antidepressant response to citalopram in the elderly: a double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial.

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the potential of methylphenidate to accelerate and enhance antidepressant response to citalopram in elderly depressed patients. METHODS: Sixteen outpatients with major depression were treated in a 10-week double-blind trial. Response was defined as a score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (24-item) of less than 10. RESULTS: An accelerated response was observed by week 3 in five subjects receiving citalopram (CIT)+methylphenidate (MPH) and in none of those receiving CIT+placebo (PBO). Subjects receiving citalopram and methylphenidate showed a significant improvement in depressive symptoms compared with those on citalopram and placebo. CONCLUSION: Combined treatment with citalopram and methylphenidate appears to be a viable strategy for accelerating and enhancing antidepressant response in elderly depressed patients limited by tolerability and safety.     

Self rated depression in relation to DSM-III classification: a statistical isolinear multiple components analysis

The Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) was presented to 99 depressed inpatients. The patients were categorized according to DSM-III as suffering from minor depression, major depression without melancholia and major depression with melancholia and/or with psychotic features. Differences in self-reported symptoms between these categories were studied with multivariate statistical techniques including linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and statistical isolinear multiple components analysis (SIMCA). Patients with minor depression rate themselves significantly less depressed than those with major depression. Patients with major depression without melancholia are less depressed than those with melancholia and/or psychotic features. The three DSM-III depressive categories can be regarded as belonging to a clinical continuum in which they form relevant levels with quantitative differences in self-reported symptoms. These differences are not only defined by gradual shiftings in the overall severity of illness, but also by quantitative differences in the severity of some target symptoms, i.e. agitation, retardation, diurnal variation, loss of libido, fatiguability, insomnia, anorexia, sadness and anhedonia.     

Citalopram treatment of fluoxetine-intolerant depressed patients

BACKGROUND: We assessed the tolerability of and response to citalopram in depressed patients who had discontinued fluoxetine treatment due to adverse events. METHOD: Fifty-five outpatients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder and a confirmed history of intolerance to fluoxetine (mean final dose = 24.6 mg/day) were switched to citalopram (20 mg/day) after a 2- to 4-week single-blind placebo washout period. During a 6-week, open-label treatment protocol, citalopram could be titrated up to 40 mg/day. Safety and tolerability, including reemergence of symptoms that previously had been associated with fluoxetine, were assessed by recording all spontaneously reported or observed adverse events. Efficacy was evaluated using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale, and several other measures. Response was defined as a CGI-Improvement score at endpoint of 1 or 2 (i.e., very much or much improved). RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of patients (N = 52) completed the citalopram trial. The only adverse events reported by more than 5 patients (>or= 10%) were pharyngitis (15%) and constipation (11%), and none of the 3 early terminations were attributed to adverse events. The rate of recurrence of the fluoxetine-associated adverse events was low, with headache (3 [27%] of 11 cases), nausea (2 [22%] of 9 cases), and decreased libido (5 [18%] of 28 cases) being the most common. Significant improvement from baseline HAM-D (p <.001) was observed by the first week of citalopram therapy and continued until study end. The intent-to-treat CGI response rate was 65% (36 of 55 patients) at study endpoint; 69% (36 of 52 patients) of the completers responded. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that fluoxetine-intolerant patients can be treated effectively with citalopram.     

A comparative meta-analysis of Clinical Global Impressions change in antidepressant trials

Two scales of the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Scale are frequently used in antidepressant trials. No research has systematically addressed how CGI change compares to change on established measures such as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, or Beck Depression Inventory. The current meta-analysis examined 75 antidepressant trials in which the CGI was used along with at least one other popular depression measure. The CGI-Severity scale was significantly more conservative than the HAM-D in rating change in double-blind trials, but not in open trials. The Beck Depression Inventory was significantly more conservative than the CGI-Severity. The CGI-Improvement scale was significantly more liberal than the HAM-D or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Rater bias or scale content may explain differences between measures. Given the often substantial differences between instruments, researchers should use a variety of measures rather than relying on any single tool in assessing treatment response.     

西酞普兰与阿米替林治疗抑郁症的对照研究

目的　探讨选择性五羟色胺再摄取抑制剂西酞普兰治疗抑郁症的疗效及安全性。方法　将 6 0例符合CCMD 3诊断标准的抑郁症患者随机分为两组 ,分别给予西酞普兰和阿米替林治疗 ,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 ,采用副反应量表 (TESS)评定副反应。结果　西酞普兰组显效率 80 % ,阿米替林组显效率 76 .6 7% ,差异无显著性 ,各因子分中西酞普兰组认知障碍减分多于阿米替林组 ,差异有显著性。HAMA减分西酞普兰组少于阿米替林组 ,差异无显著性。西酞普兰常见副反应有恶心、口干、头痛等 ,但比较轻微。结论　西酞普兰见效快 ,疗效肯定 ,副反应发生率少而轻微。     

Melancholic/endogenous depression and response to somatic treatment and placebo.

OBJECTIVE: The authors' goals were to examine the effects of somatic treatment and placebo in patients with and without endogenous/melancholic depression. METHOD: Before entry into one of four trials of antidepressant drugs versus placebo, 231 patients were assessed as to whether they met Research Diagnostic Criteria for definite endogenous depression and/or DSM-III criteria for major depressive episode with melancholia. These patients were prospectively assessed for subsequent response to antidepressant treatment or placebo. Previous studies of the effect of endogenous/melancholic depression on treatment response were also reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 76 patients with DSM-III melancholia given active medication, 41 (54%) had a complete or partial response, but only 10 (23%) of the 44 patients with melancholia given placebo had a complete or partial response. Of the 76 depressed patients without melancholia given active medication, 46 (61%) had a complete or partial response, and 15 (43%) of the 35 depressed patients without melancholia given placebo had a complete or partial response. Moderately depressed patients with DSM-III melancholia had a significantly better response to active medication than did severely depressed patients with melancholia and showed the greatest difference between response to active medication and response to placebo. The results of the review of previous studies of the effect of endogenous/melancholic depression on treatment response were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Depressed patients with melancholia were not particularly different from depressed patients without melancholia in their responses to antidepressant medication but did differ from patients without melancholia in their responses to active medication versus placebo, particularly if their depression was moderate and not severe. This suggests that patients with DSM-III melancholia may be unresponsive to nonsomatic treatments.