Reboxetine,a new noradrenaline selective antidepressant,is at least as effective as fluoxetine in the treatment of depression

The clinical profile of reboxetine, a selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, was compared with that of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine and placebo in a double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial of patients with major depression. Among the 381 patients treated with reboxetine 8 to 10 mg/day, fluoxetine 20 to 40 mg/day, or placebo for up to 8 weeks, a statistically significant greater reduction in the mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (21-item HAM-D) total score (the primary efficacy variable) was seen for both active treatment groups compared with placebo (p < 0.024). A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with either reboxetine or fluoxetine also achieved a response (>or=50% reduction in HAM-D) or remission (HAM-D 相似文献   

The antidepressant efficacy of reboxetine in patients with severe depression

We examined the effectiveness of reboxetine, a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI), compared with placebo for the treatment of patients with severe major depression (defined as a score on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] >/=25). Data were obtained from four prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of the efficacy of reboxetine (8 to 10 mg/d) over 4 to 8 weeks in patients with major depression. In three of the trials, reboxetine produced a significantly greater reduction than placebo in mean HAM-D scores from baseline to the last clinical assessment (p < 0.001). There were significantly more responders to treatment (defined as a reduction in HAM-D score >50% between baseline and the last follow-up observation) treated with reboxetine than placebo in three trials. The overall mean responder rate with reboxetine was 63% (range: 56-74%) compared with 36% (range: 20-52%) with placebo. These results demonstrate that reboxetine is significantly more effective than placebo in a subgroup of patients with severe depression.     

A placebo- and imipramine-controlled study of paroxetine

The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of paroxetine with imipramine and placebo in depressed outpatients. Following a 4- to 14-day placebo washout, patients were randomized into treatment groups and received study compound for up to 42 days. At Day 42, paroxetine was significantly more effective than placebo (p less than .05) in several observer- and patient-rated scales: the Retardation and Anxiety/Somatization factors of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Raskin Depression Scale, the Covi Anxiety Scale, the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Improvement Scale, the Symptom Checklist-56 (SCL-56) Total, and the Patient's Global Evaluation (PGE). There were no significant differences between paroxetine and imipramine. Significantly more imipramine (75%) than paroxetine (35%) or placebo (23%) patients reported anticholinergic side effects, including blurred vision (5%, 0%, and 0%, respectively), constipation (35%, 8%, and 15%, respectively), and dry mouth (63%, 25%, and 15%, respectively). The data from this study indicated that paroxetine is a safe, well-tolerated, effective treatment for major depressive disorder.     

Reboxetine: a double-blind comparison with fluoxetine in major depressive disorder

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine, a uniquely selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, fluoxetine. A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre design was employed. One hundred and sixty-eight patients with acute major depressive episodes were randomized to receive oral reboxetine (8-10 mg/day) or oral fluoxetine (20-40 mg/day). The treatment period was 8 weeks. Reboxetine and fluoxetine were similarly effective as assessed by the mean reduction in total Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score, the percentage of responders and patients in remission, Clinical Global Impression severity of illness and global improvement scores and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. A sub-analysis of patients with severe depression indicated that reboxetine had superior efficacy compared with fluoxetine. Both treatments resulted in some improvement in Social Adaptation Self-evaluation Scale total scores and this was more evident for those patients treated with reboxetine who achieved remission. Both treatments were well tolerated. The results indicate that reboxetine is an effective and well tolerated antidepressant, being more effective than fluoxetine in patients with severe depression, and more effective in terms of social functioning in those patients who achieved remission.     

Resolution of sexual dysfunction during double-blind treatment of major depression with reboxetine or paroxetine

The selective noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor reboxetine may have advantages over the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors fluoxetine and citalopram, in effects on sexual function and satisfaction. The effects of reboxetine and paroxetine on sexual function were compared by examining data from the UK centres in an international double-blind flexible-dose parallel-group multi-centre randomized controlled trial of acute treatment of patients with DSM-IV major depression. Patients were randomly assigned to receive reboxetine (4 mg b.d.) or paroxetine (20 mg mane) using a double-dummy technique to preserve the blind. The dosage could be increased at day 28 (to reboxetine 4 mg mane, 6 mg nocte; or paroxetine 20 mg b.d.). Antidepressant efficacy was assessed by the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and Clinical Global Impression Scale for Severity (CGI-S) at all study visits, and the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) at each visit after randomization. Sexual function and satisfaction was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) items of the Rush Sexual Inventory completed at baseline and days 28 and 56.There were no significant differences between groups in demographic or clinical features at baseline. There was a gradual reduction in severity of depressive symptoms (reboxetine, 14.3; paroxetine, 12.0: observed case analysis), with no significant differences between groups. There were significant differences (p 0.05), with advantages for reboxetine, at Week 4 and Week 8 on the VAS item assessing ability to become sexually excited, and non-significant trends with advantages for reboxetine, in frequency of sexual thoughts at Week 4 (p 0.05) and Week 8 (p 0.08); and in desire to initiate sexual activity at Week 4 (p 0.09). Exclusion of patients who had ever experienced sexual dysfunction with any medication prior to participation in this study (n 10) reduced the statistical significance of the findings, although there were still numerical advantages for reboxetine.Sexual function and satisfaction in depressed patients improves during double-blind acute treatment with reboxetine or paroxetine, but this improvement is greater and more rapid with reboxetine.     

Limited efficacy of ketoconazole in treatment-refractory major depression.

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

Effects of reboxetine on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale factors from randomized, placebo-controlled trials in major depression

Reboxetine is the first selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI) approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Although reboxetine has demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of depression, its effects on specific depressive symptoms have not been reported. We evaluated the effects of reboxetine on four Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) factors: psychomotor retardation, anxiety, cognitive disturbance and insomnia. Data were obtained from four short-term (4-8-week), randomized, placebo-controlled trials of reboxetine for the treatment of MDD. For each study, mean changes in HAM-D symptom factor scores from randomization to the study endpoint were compared between reboxetine and placebo. In addition, data from all four studies were pooled to determine the proportions of patients who either improved or worsened with treatment were compared between placebo (n = 353) and reboxetine (n = 350) treatment groups. Compared to placebo, reboxetine significantly improved psychomotor retardation in all four trials. Cognitive disturbance and anxiety were improved in three of four trials, and insomnia was improved in one trial with a positive trend in the second trial. Reboxetine, a selective NRI, improves symptoms of psychomotor retardation, anxiety and cognitive disturbance during treatment of MDD.     

Efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine compared with citalopram: a double-blind study in patients with major depressive disorder

The objective of this study was to compare efficacy and tolerability of the selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor reboxetine with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram, in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In total, 357 outpatients with MDD were randomized to treatment with reboxetine 8-10 mg or citalopram 20-40 mg per day during 24 weeks. Primary end-point was change from baseline in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D, 21 items). Sexual function/dysfunction was measured by the Sexual Function scale (SF). Observed case analysis showed that both treatments yielded a gradual reduction of HAM-D scores: reboxetine with -21.4 and citalopram with -22.1 points (NS). LOCF analysis showed a greater reduction of the HAM-D scores with citalopram compared with reboxetine (-19.6 vs. -17.8; P = 0.034). The response rate was 90.3% for reboxetine and 92.7% for citalopram (NS). The most common side effect in the reboxetine group was dry mouth, and in the citalopram group sexual dysfunction. At week 24, anorgasmia was reported by 5.9% of the sexually active women in the reboxetine group vs 39% in the citalopram group. The dropout number was 91 in the reboxetine group, and 54 in the citalopram group. To summarize, both treatments gave a satisfactory antidepressant effect. The side effect profile differed between the groups, with a notably high prevalence of sexual dysfunctions in the citalopram group. The high number of dropouts in the reboxetine group, is considered as a result of the non-titration starting dose of 8 mg reboxetine per day, which gave a high incidence of early side-effects.     

A double-blind,placebo-controlled trial of sertraline for depressive symptoms in patients with stable,chronic schizophrenia

There have been no studies specifically examining the efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants for the symptoms of depression in schizophrenia. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of sertraline as a treatment for depressive symptoms in patients with stable, chronic schizophrenia. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was used as the principal outcome measure and other measures of depressive symptoms as secondary outcome measures. Twenty-six patients were entered into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial of sertraline and were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis (13 in each group). Eight patients in the sertraline group and 12 in the placebo group completed at least four weeks in the study and were considered to have had adequate treatment. On the ITT analysis, the mean score on the BDI fell 14.5% for the sertraline group and 5.6% for the placebo group (p > 0.05); the mean score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) fell 16.99% for the sertraline group and 8.3% for the placebo group (p > 0.05). When the analysis was repeated for those who had received adequate treatment, the mean BDI score fell by 28% for the sertraline group and 6% for the placebo group (p = 0.1); the mean HDRS score fell 31% for the sertraline group and 8.6% for the placebo group (p = 0.02). On the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Scale, 10 of the 13 patients on sertraline improved against four of the 13 in the placebo group (p = 0.05). Sertraline-treated patients showed a significant improvement on the anxiety/ depression subscale of the BPRS on ITT analysis (F = 10.1, p = 0.004). There was no significant effect on negative or positive symptoms. Sertraline was well tolerated. The results suggest that sertraline is useful as a treatment for depressive symptoms in schizophrenia.     

A controlled study of mianserin in moderately to severely depressed outpatients

Following a 1-week, single-blind placebo washout, 150 patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with daily doses of either mianserin, 30 mg to 150 mg; amitriptyline, 60 mg to 300 mg; or placebo, 1 to 5 capsules taken at bedtime (qhs). Mianserin and amitriptyline were found to be comparable in efficacy, and both significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of major depressive illness. Rating instruments, all of which showed significant improvement in the active drug groups over the placebo, included the 17- and 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) index, and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Severity of Illness and Improvement rating scales. Furthermore, for most efficacy parameters in the efficacy-evaluable group, the earliest statistically significant difference vs. placebo could be observed at Visit 1 for the mianserin patients and at Visit 3 for the amitriptyline patients. The safety profile for mianserin was comparable with placebo with respect to laboratory values, electrocardiogram changes, vital signs, ophthalmologic evaluations, and most adverse clinical experiences. Complaints of somnolence and weight gain were comparable in the amitriptyline and mianserin groups. Mianserin was superior to amitriptyline in terms of vital signs; anticholinergic effects; and complaints of dizziness, dyspepsia, and tremor.     

Placebo-controlled, multicenter study of sertraline treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder

The safety and efficacy of sertraline versus placebo were examined in a group of nondepressed outpatients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Patients with moderate-to-severe OCD were recruited at 10 sites. After a 1-week placebo lead-in, patients were treated in a double-blind fashion for 12 weeks with sertraline or placebo. Sertraline was administered at a starting dose of 50 mg/day, with flexible titration up to 200 mg/day. The efficacy measures were the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), the National Institute of Mental Health Global Obsessive Compulsive Scale (NIMH), and the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) Severity of Illness and Improvement subscales. One hundred sixty-seven patients were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of double-blind medication: 86 received sertraline and 81 received placebo. All efficacy measures showed significantly greater improvement in the sertraline group from the end of week 8 until the end of week 12. Significantly greater improvement (p < 0.05) in the sertraline group first became apparent by the end of week 3 on the Y-BOCS and the CGI Improvement scale, and by the end of weeks 6 and 8, respectively, on the NIMH and CGI Severity scale. Sertraline was well tolerated, without serious adverse effects. In conclusion, sertraline was safe and effective in the treatment of patients with OCD.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, duloxetine-referenced, fixed-dose study comparing the efficacy and safety of Lu AA21004 in elderly patients with major depressive disorder

The efficacy and tolerability of Lu AA21004 at 5 mg/day, a novel multimodal antidepressant, were assessed in elderly patients with recurrent major depressive disorder. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to Lu AA21004 5 mg/day, duloxetine 60 mg/day (reference) or to placebo in an 8-week double-blind study. The primary efficacy measure was the 24-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D(24)) total score (analysis of covariance, last observation carried forward). Patients (mean age 70.6 years) had a mean baseline HAM-D(24) score of 29.0. Lu AA21004 showed significantly (P = 0.0011) greater improvement on the primary efficacy endpoint compared with placebo at week 8 (3.3 points). Duloxetine also showed superiority to placebo at week 8, thereby validating the study. HAM-D(24) response (53.2 vs. 35.2%) and HAM-D(17) remission (29.2 vs. 19.3%) rates at endpoint were higher for Lu AA21004 than for placebo. Lu AA21004 showed superiority to placebo in cognition tests of speed of processing, verbal learning and memory. The withdrawal rate due to adverse events was 5.8% (Lu AA21004), 9.9% (duloxetine) and 2.8% (placebo). Whereas nausea was the only adverse event with a significantly higher incidence on treatment with Lu AA21004 (21.8%) compared with placebo (8.3%), the incidence of nausea, constipation, dry mouth, hyperhidrosis and somnolence was higher for duloxetine. In conclusion, Lu AA21004 was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of elderly patients with recurrent major depressive disorder.     

Mirtazapine versus venlafaxine in hospitalized severely depressed patients with melancholic features

The aim of this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 8-week study was to compare the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and venlafaxine in the treatment of hospitalized patients with DSM-IV diagnosis of severe depressive episode with melancholic features. Patients with a baseline score of > or = 25 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either mirtazapine (N = 78, 15-60 mg/day) or venlafaxine (N = 79, 75-375 mg/day, twice a day) in a rapid up-titration schedule. Efficacy was assessed with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), HAM-D-17, and Clinical Global Impression scale, and quality of life was assessed with the Quality of Life, Enjoyment, and Satisfaction Questionnaire and Quality of Life in Depression Scale. Tolerability was assessed with the Utvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser (UKU) side effect scale and by reporting adverse events. Both drugs were effective in reducing overall symptoms of depression, showing substantial reductions in group mean MADRS scores (-20.1 for mirtazapine and -17.5 for venlafaxine) and HAM-D-17 scores (-17.1 for mirtazapine and -14.6 for venlafaxine) at the end of the treatment. Although not statistically significant, at all assessment times higher percentages of patients treated with mirtazapine were classified as responders (> or =50% reduction) on the HAM-D (at endpoint, 62% vs. 52%) and MADRS (at endpoint: 64% vs. 58%). Likewise were the percentages of remitters (HAM-D score < or =7; MADRS score < or =12) also higher in the mirtazapine group. A statistically significant difference favoring mirtazapine was found on the HAM-D Sleep Disturbance factor at all assessment points (p < or = 0.03). Both treatments were well tolerated. Although slightly more subjects treated with mirtazapine reported at least one adverse event, a statistically significantly higher percentage of patients treated with venlafaxine (15.3%) than mirtazapine (5.1%) dropped out because of adverse events (p = 0.037). Quality of life improved in both treatment groups. In this study, treatment with mirtazapine resulted in a trend toward more responders and remitters than treatment with venlafaxine and in significantly fewer dropouts as a result of adverse events.     

Comparison of efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine and venlafaxine XR in major depression and major depression with anxiety features: an open label study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and MDD with anxiety features to venlafaxine XR. METHOD: Patients with MDD, aging 18 between 65 years, were randomly allocated to two groups receiving either open-label venlafaxine XR capsules (n = 50) or reboxetine tablets (n = 43). Subjects were administered Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) at baseline and 2, 4, 7, 10 weeks after the baseline visit. RESULTS: Response rates to antidepressant treatment were significantly higher in the venlafaxine XR group at 10th week. When patients having anxious depression were analysed separately; response rate for anxiety of reboxetine group was significantly higher at 7th week only. Mean number of side effects were significantly higher in reboxetine group. Only one subject in each group was dropped out due to side effect. CONCLUSION: We may suggest that reboxetine is as effective and tolerable as venlafaxine XR in the treatment of MDD and MDD with anxiety features, and it may be considered a treatment option to venlafaxine XR.     

The efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine and paroxetine in outpatients with depressive disorder or dysthymia

A 24-week, double-blind, randomized trial was performed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine and paroxetine in patients with major depression or dysthymia. Outpatients aged 18-70 years with a baseline score of 17 on the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to venlafaxine, 37.5 mg, in the morning and evening or paroxetine, 20 mg, in the morning and placebo in the evening, which could be increased to venlafaxine, 75 mg twice daily, or paroxetine, 20 mg twice daily, after 4 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with the 21-item HAM-D, the Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale. Forty-one patients were randomized to venlafaxine and 43 to paroxetine. At week 6, a response was observed in 55% of patients on venlafaxine and 29% on paroxetine (P = 0.03). At week 12, significantly (P = 0.011) more patients in the venlafaxine group had a HAM-D remission score of 8 or less (59% versus 31%). Discontinuation for any reason occurred in 16 (39%) patients on venlafaxine and 11 (26%) on paroxetine. The most common adverse events were nausea (28%), headache (18%) and dry mouth (15%) with venlafaxine and headache (40%) and constipation (16%) with paroxetine. Venlafaxine was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate depression or dysthymia. A consistently higher proportion of patients had a response or remission on venlafaxine than on paroxetine.     

Use of reboxetine in bulimia nervosa: a pilot study

The pharmacological approach to bulimia nervosa is mainly based (BN) on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but many elements suggest the possible involvement of the noradrenergic system in this disorder. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of reboxetine--a selective norepinephrine uptake inhibitor--in a sample of bulimic outpatients, after 3 months of treatment. Twenty-eight of 77 consecutively admitted patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of BN (without Axis I comorbidity) received reboxetine. All patients were assessed at baseline (T0), and after 1 month (T1) and 3 months (T3), respectively, of treatment with reboxetine 4 mg/day. The subjects were administered the following questionnaires: Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) and for Depression (HAM-D), Global Assessment Functioning (GAF), Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2) and Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ). Sixty percent of the patients were responsive to treatment(evaluated as a 50% decrease of bulimic behaviours). After 3 months of treatment, a significant reduction emerged in the scores of various EDI-2 subscales (Bulimia, Drive for Thinness, Body Dissatisfaction, Social Insecurity, Interpersonal Distrust, etc.) and in the BSQ total score. Moreover, depressive symptoms (HAM-D) and Global Functioning (GAF) scores showed a significant improvement. These data support a fast and favourable effect of reboxetine in the treatment of BN, both on symptoms and psychopathological features. Moreover, the specific and strong action of reboxetine on improvement of social functioning is also supported in this disorder.     

A randomized,double-blind, 24-week study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and paroxetine in depressed patients in primary care

Primary care patients with a major depressive disorder and 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (17-HAM-D) score >18 were randomized to 24 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine 30-45 mg/day (n=99) or paroxetine 20-30 mg/day (n=98). Both treatments were efficacious in improving depressive symptomatology, as assessed by group mean 17-HAM-D scores, percentages of HAM-D responders and remitters and Clinical Global Improvement responders. The mirtazapine group showed statistically significantly larger decreases from baseline in group mean 17-HAM-D scores at weeks 1, 2 and 4, and the difference with the paroxetine group reached the level of clinical relevance at weeks 2 and 4. Antidepressant efficacy was maintained throughout both the acute and continuation phase of treatment. Both treatments were well tolerated. The only adverse event with a statistically significantly higher incidence in the mirtazapine group was fatigue. Statistically significantly more paroxetine-treated patients complained of increased sweating, headache and nausea. The results demonstrate that both mirtazapine and paroxetine were efficacious and well tolerated when used for 24 weeks in depressed patients treated in primary care. An observed difference in efficacy favouring mirtazapine between weeks 1 and 4 indicates that mirtazapine patients had improved earlier compared to those on paroxetine, and corroborates similar findings in other comparisons of mirtazapine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.     

Acute dysphoric mania: treatment response to olanzapine versus placebo

A substantial number of patients with mania have significant concomitant depressive features, and they may respond differently to mood stabilizers than patients with pure mania. This post-hoc analysis explored the response characteristics of olanzapine versus placebo in bipolar I manic patients with dysphoric and nondysphoric mania (differentiated by baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score of >20). Two similar, double-blind, randomized trials comparing olanzapine, 5-20 mg, to placebo were pooled for these analyses (N = 246). Mean changes in Young-Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) and HAM-D scores during 3 weeks of treatment were examined. Twenty-eight percent of patients had dysphoric mania (olanzapine, n = 33; placebo, n = 35). Among these patients, olanzapine-treated patients had greater improvement within 1 week than did placebo-treated patients on both mania ratings (Y-MRS: -9.7 vs. -3.0 points; = 0.011) and depressive symptom ratings (HAM-D: -9.9 vs. -5.4 points; = 0.025). Among those manic subjects without prominent depressive symptoms (olanzapine, n = 91; placebo, n = 87), mean Y-MRS improvement from baseline to endpoint with olanzapine (-11.5 points) versus placebo (-6.13 points) was comparable to the improvement seen with olanzapine versus placebo in the dysphoric mania subgroup ( = 0.476, test of interaction). In acutely ill manic patients with significant depressive symptoms, olanzapine demonstrated a broad spectrum of efficacy, effectively treating both manic and depressive symptoms. The magnitude of the antimanic response appears similar, regardless of baseline depressive features. Additional experience with putative mood stabilizers and atypical agents in mixed mania should include an exploration of their efficacy in treating both manic and depressive mood symptoms.     

Mirtazapine vs. amitriptyline vs. placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder

Patients (n = 150) were randomized to a 6-week, double-blind study to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of mirtazapine, amitriptyline, and placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder symptoms. Average daily modal doses were mirtazapine, 18 mg; amitriptyline, 111 mg; and placebo, 4.6 capsules. Mirtazapine- and amitriptyline-treated patients had statistically significantly greater mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score reductions (weekly visits 1, 2, 4, and endpoint) compared to placebo. These findings were supported by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales. Somnolence and weight gain were the only adverse clinical experiences (ACEs) reported substantially more often by mirtazapine-treated patients than by those in the placebo group. However, more amitriptyline-treated patients reported decreased visual accommodation, dry mouth, dyspepsia, constipation, tachycardia, hypertension, hypotension, discoordination, dizziness, and tremor than mirtazapine- or placebo-treated patients. Results of this study indicate that mirtazapine is more effective than placebo in the treatment of these patients, and superior to amitriptyline in respect to anticholinergic and cardiovascular effects.