A double-blind placebo-controlled study of lamotrigine monotherapy in outpatients with bipolar I depression. Lamictal 602 Study Group

BACKGROUND: More treatment options for bipolar depression are needed. Currently available antidepressants may increase the risk of mania and rapid cycling, and mood stabilizers appear to be less effective in treating depression than mania. Preliminary data suggest that lamotrigine, an established antiepileptic drug, may be effective for both the depression and mania associated with bipolar disorder. This is the first controlled multicenter study evaluating lamotrigine monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar I depression. METHODS: Outpatients with bipolar I disorder experiencing a major depressive episode (DSM-IV, N = 195) received lamotrigine (50 or 200 mg/day) or placebo as monotherapy for 7 weeks. Psychiatric evaluations, including the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Mania Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impressions scale for Severity (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) were completed at each weekly visit. RESULTS: Lamotrigine 200 mg/day demonstrated significant antidepressant efficacy on the 17-item HAM-D, HAM-D Item 1, MADRS, CGI-S, and CGI-I compared with placebo. Improvements were seen as early as week 3. Lamotrigine 50 mg/day also demonstrated efficacy compared with placebo on several measures. The proportions of patients exhibiting a response on CGI-I were 51%, 41%, and 26% for lamotrigine 200 mg/day, lamotrigine 50 mg/day, and placebo groups, respectively. Adverse events and other safety results were similar across treatment groups, except for a higher rate of headache in the lamotrigine groups. CONCLUSION: Lamotrigine monotherapy is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for bipolar depression.     

Lamotrigine as adjunct to paroxetine in acute depression: a placebo-controlled,double-blind study

BACKGROUND: Mood stabilizers appear to be more potent in treating mania than depression. The anticonvulsant lamotrigine has been shown to be effective for bipolar depression. This study examines putative antidepressive properties of lamotrigine in a mainly unipolar routine clinical patient population. METHOD: Forty patients with a depressive episode (DSM-IV criteria) requiring psychiatric intervention received lamotrigine or placebo using a fixed dose escalation scheme with a target dose of 200 mg/day for 9 weeks. Additionally, all patients were treated with paroxetine. Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI) ratings were used to monitor therapeutic efficacy. RESULTS: Adjunctive treatment with lamotrigine did not result in a significant difference in HAM-D total score at the endpoint of the study when compared with paroxetine alone. However, lamotrigine demonstrated significant efficacy on core depressive symptoms as reflected by HAM-D items 1 (depressed mood; p = .0019), 2 (guilt feelings; p = .0011), and 7 (work and interest; p = .049) and the CGI-Severity of Illness scale (p < .0001). Patients receiving lamotrigine had fewer days on treatment with benzodiazepines and fewer withdrawals for treatment failure. Lamotrigine appeared to accelerate the onset of action of the antidepressant. Two patients on lamotrigine treatment developed neutropenia, and 1 developed a benign rash. There was no detectable pharmacokinetic interaction between lamotrigine and paroxetine. CONCLUSION: Lamotrigine might have antidepressive properties in unipolar patients and may accelerate onset of action when given in combination with typical antidepressants.     

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.     

Lamotrigine in the acute treatment of bipolar depression: results of five double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of lamotrigine as maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder (BD), particularly for delaying depressive episodes, is well established, but its efficacy in the acute treatment of bipolar depression is less clear. This paper reports the results of five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of lamotrigine monotherapy for the acute treatment of bipolar depression. METHODS: Adult subjects with bipolar I or II disorder experiencing a depressive episode were randomized to placebo or lamotrigine monotherapy (after titration, at a fixed dose of 50 mg or 200 mg daily in Study 1; a flexible dose of 100-400 mg daily in Study 2; or a fixed dose of 200 mg daily in Studies 3, 4 and 5) for 7-10 weeks. RESULTS: Lamotrigine did not differ significantly from placebo on primary efficacy endpoints [17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in Studies 1 and 2; Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in Studies 3, 4 and 5]. In Study 1, lamotrigine significantly separated from placebo on some secondary measures of efficacy, including the MADRS, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I), but seldom differed on secondary efficacy endpoints for the other studies. CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine monotherapy did not demonstrate efficacy in the acute treatment of bipolar depression in four out of five placebo-controlled clinical studies. Lamotrigine was well tolerated in the acute treatment of bipolar depression.     

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.     

拉莫三嗪与丙戊酸钠治疗双相抑郁的对照研究

目的评价拉莫三嗪治疗双相障碍抑郁发作的效果和安全性。方法对107例双相障碍抑郁发作患者采用随机、平行分组、对照的方法分别以拉莫三嗪和丙戊酸钠治疗,疗程8周,以汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、临床疗效总评量表(CGI)在治疗前和治疗后第1、2、4、6、8周末评价疗效,同时采用治疗时出现的症状量表(TESS)进行安全性评估,在第1、2、4、6、8周末及需要时用Bech-Rafaelsen躁狂量表(BRMS)评定躁狂症状。结果拉莫三嗪组和丙戊酸钠组比较,两组有效率分别为75.5%和51.9%,治疗第6周和第8周末HAMD总分和减分率差异有统计学意义。治疗组不良反应明显较对照组发生率低。结论拉莫三嗪治疗双相障碍抑郁发作疗效优于丙戊酸钠,且前者不良反应较少,安全性高。     

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.     

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine for acute treatment of minor depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE: Minor depressive disorder is both common and associated with significant psychosocial impairment. This study examined antidepressant treatment efficacy in a large group of patients with minor depressive disorder. METHOD: One hundred sixty-two patients with minor depressive disorder were randomly assigned to receive fluoxetine or placebo in a 12-week, double-blind study; 73% (59 of 81) of the patients in each treatment group completed the study. Patients were evaluated weekly with standard depression rating instruments and measures of psychosocial impairment. Hypotheses were tested by last-observation-carried-forward analysis of variance (ANOVA) and confirmed by mixed (random-effects) regression analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, minor depressive disorder patients were mildly to moderately depressed, with a corresponding degree of functional impairment. Over 12 weeks of treatment, both ANOVA and mixed regression showed fluoxetine to be superior to placebo as indicated by significantly greater improvement of fluoxetine-treated patients in scores on the 30-item clinician-rated Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, the 17-item and 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Clinical Global Impression severity scale. Improvement in Global Assessment of Functioning Scale score was significantly greater for the fluoxetine group in mixed regression analysis only. Patients in both treatment groups reported a similar number and severity of adverse events during the 12-week treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians frequently encounter minor depressive disorder either as a prodromal or residual phase of illness in major depressive disorder or as de novo minor depressive disorder episodes. Fluoxetine is significantly superior to placebo in reducing minor depressive disorder symptoms within a 12-week period. Improvement in psychosocial function with fluoxetine may take longer than 12 weeks.     

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.     

A Prospective Open‐Label Trial of Lamotrigine Monotherapy in Children and Adolescents with Bipolar Disorder

Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of lamotrigine monotherapy as an acute treatment of bipolar mood elevation in children with bipolar spectrum disorders. Method: This was a 12‐week, open‐label, prospective trial of lamotrigine monotherapy to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of this compound in treating pediatric bipolar disorder. Assessments included the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Clinical Global Impressions‐Improvement scale (CGI‐I), Children's Depression Rating Scale (CDRS), and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Adverse events were assessed through spontaneous self‐reports, vital signs weight monitoring, and laboratory analysis. Results: Thirty‐nine children with bipolar disorder (YMRS at entry: 31.6 ± 5.5) were enrolled in the study and 22 (56%) completed the 12‐week trial. Lamotrigine was slowly titrated to an average endpoint dose of 160.7 ± 128.3 in subjects <12 years of age (N = 22) and 219.1 ± 172.2 mg/day in children 12–17 years of age (N = 17). Treatment with lamotrigine was associated with statistically significant levels of improvement in mean YMRS scores (?14.9 ± 9.7, P < 0.001) at endpoint. Lamotrigine treatment also resulted in significant improvement in the severity of depressive, attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and psychotic symptoms. Lamotrigine was generally well tolerated with marginal increase in body weight (47.0 ± 18.0 kg vs. 47.2 ± 17.9 kg, P= 0.6) and was not associated with abnormal changes in laboratory parameters. Several participants were discontinued due to skin rash; in all cases, the rash resolved shortly after discontinuation of treatment. No patient developed Steven Johnson syndrome. Conclusions: Open‐label lamotrigine treatment appears to be beneficial in the treatment of bipolar disorder and associated conditions in children. Future placebo‐controlled, double‐blind studies are warranted to confirm these findings.     

A comparative trial of fluoxetine versus trazodone in outpatients with major depression

The effectiveness of fluoxetine as an antidepressant was contrasted with trazodone in a 6-week double-blind trial in 40 patients. The total score on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the global improvement score on the Clinical Global Impressions scale favored trazodone at the end of 3 weeks of treatment. However, that difference was no longer apparent during the remainder of the study. The authors hypothesize that fluoxetine 20 mg/day may be an ineffective dosage of the drug or that fluoxetine has a slower onset of antidepressant action than does trazodone.     

Fluoxetine versus placebo in preventing relapse of major depression in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared fluoxetine and placebo in continuation treatment to prevent relapse of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. METHOD: After a detailed evaluation, children and adolescents 7-18 years of age with major depressive disorder were treated openly with fluoxetine. Those who had an adequate response after 12 weeks, as indicated by a Clinical Global Impression improvement score of 1 or 2 and a decrease of at least 50% in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised score, were randomly assigned to receive fluoxetine or placebo for an additional 6 months. The primary outcome measures were relapse and time to relapse. Relapse was defined as either a score of 40 or higher on the Children's Depression Rating Scale with a history of 2 weeks of clinical deterioration, or clinical deterioration as judged by the clinician. Additional analyses were conducted with relapse defined only as a score of 40 or higher on the Children's Depression Rating Scale. RESULTS: Of 168 participants enrolled in acute fluoxetine treatment, 102 were randomly assigned to continuation treatment with fluoxetine (N=50) or placebo (N=52). Of these, 21 participants (42.0%) in the fluoxetine group relapsed, compared with 36 (69.2%) in the placebo group, a significant difference. Similarly, under the stricter definition of relapse, fewer participants in the fluoxetine group relapsed (N=11; 22.0%) than in the placebo group (N=25; 48.1%). Time to relapse was significantly shorter in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Continuation treatment with fluoxetine was superior to placebo in preventing relapse and in increasing time to relapse in children and adolescents with major depression.     

Duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine hydrochloride, a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine, was evaluated for therapeutic efficacy and safety/tolerability in the treatment of major depression. METHOD: In an 8-week multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 173 patients (aged 18-65 years) with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly allocated to receive placebo (N = 70), duloxetine (N = 70), or fluoxetine, 20 mg q.d. (N = 33). Duloxetine dose was titrated in the first 3 weeks in a forced-titration regimen from 40 mg (20 mg b.i.d.) to 120 mg/day (60 mg b.i.d.). Patients were required to have a Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-Severity of Illness scale score of at least moderate severity (> or = 4) and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) total score of at least 15. Patients could not have had any current primary DSM-IV Axis I diagnosis other than major depressive disorder, or any anxiety disorder as a primary diagnosis within the past year, excluding specific phobias. The primary efficacy measurement was the HAM-D-17 total score, and secondary measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, CGI-Severity of Illness and CGI-Improvement, and Patient Global Impression of Improvement. Safety was evaluated by recording the occurrence of discontinuation rates and treatment-emergent adverse events and by measurement of vital signs and laboratory analytes. RESULTS: Duloxetine was superior to placebo in change on the HAM-D-17 (p = .009). Estimated probabilities of response and remission were 64% and 56%, respectively, for duloxetine, compared with 52% and 30% for fluoxetine and 48% and 32% for placebo. Duloxetine was numerically superior to fluoxetine on the primary and most of the secondary outcome measures. In general, duloxetine was well tolerated; 76% of patients achieved the maximum dose, and insomnia and asthenia were the only adverse events reported statistically significantly (p < .05) more frequently by duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that duloxetine is efficacious for the treatment of major depressive disorder and is well tolerated and safe.     

Efficacy and safety of morning versus evening fluoxetine administration

A total of 120 patients who met DSM-III criteria for unipolar major depressive episode were equally randomized to fluoxetine a.m. or fluoxetine p.m. treatment groups, such that 30 patients were in each group at each of two sites. Patients received 20 to 80 mg of fluoxetine every day for 5 weeks; the dose was based on clinical response. Highly significant within-treatment improvement was reflected by changes in mean scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (total score and factors), the Raskin Depression Scale, the Covi Anxiety Scale, the Clinical Global Impressions Scale for Severity, and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale for Improvement. No significant differences occurred between the a.m. and p.m. groups for any efficacy variable. Evaluation of adverse events and vital signs indicated no clinically significant differences between the two treatment groups. The data indicate that fluoxetine is equally efficacious and well tolerated regardless of the time of day it is administered and suggest that fluoxetine may be administered at either time of day without affecting clinical course.     

Triiodothyronine augmentation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in posttraumatic stress disorder

BACKGROUND: There is considerable comorbidity of major depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and antidepressants have been reported to be effective in treating PTSD. Addition of triiodothyronine (T3) to ongoing antidepressant treatment is considered an effective augmentation strategy in refractory depression. We report the effect of T3 augmentation of antidepressants in patients with PTSD. METHOD: T3 (25 microg/day) was added to treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (paroxetine or fluoxetine, 20 mg/day for at least 4 weeks and 40 mg/day for a further 4 weeks) of 5 patients who fulfilled DSM-IV criteria for PTSD but not for major depressive disorder (although all patients had significant depressive symptoms). The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale were administered every 2 weeks, and self-assessments were performed with a 100 mm visual analog mood scale. RESULTS: In 4 of the 5 patients, partial clinical improvement was observed with SSRI treatment at a daily dose of 20 mg with little further improvement when the dose was raised to 40 mg/day. This improvement was substantially enhanced by the addition of T3. Improvement was most striking on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. CONCLUSION: T3 augmentation of SSRI treatment may be of therapeutic benefit in patients with PTSD, particularly those with depressive symptoms. Larger samples and controlled studies are needed in order to confirm this observation.     

Early antidepressant effect of memantine during augmentation of lamotrigine inadequate response in bipolar depression: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Anand A, Gunn AD, Barkay G, Karne HS, Nurnberger JI, Mathew SJ, Ghosh S. Early antidepressant effect of memantine during augmentation of lamotrigine inadequate response in bipolar depression: a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial.
Bipolar Disord 2012: 14: 64–70. © 2012 The Authors.
Journal compilation © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Background: Recent studies indicate that modulation of glutamate neurotransmission is associated with antidepressant response. Lamotrigine, an anticonvulsant which decreases presynaptic glutamate release, has been shown to be effective in the depressive phase of bipolar disorder (BD‐D); however, only 40–50% of patients have a full response. This pilot study investigated whether memantine, a low‐affinity N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist approved for Alzheimer’s disease, can augment the effects of lamotrigine. Methods: BD‐D outpatients in a major depressive episode on a stable dose of lamotrigine (100 mg or more) were randomized to either memantine (starting dose of 5 mg increased up to 20 mg over four weeks, then 20 mg stable dose from four to eight weeks) or matching pill placebo for eight weeks. Patients were rated on the 17‐item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and other behavioral measures weekly. Results: The eight‐week repeated‐measures mixed‐effect model for HDRS was not significant for memantine (n = 14) versus placebo (n = 15). Exploratory mixed‐effect analyses for the first four weeks, while the memantine dose was being titrated up every week, revealed a significant decrease in HDRS scores from baseline (p = 0.007). Conclusion: This proof‐of‐concept study failed to show a statistically significant benefit of memantine augmentation of lamotrigine for patients with BD‐D over eight weeks. However, memantine had an antidepressant effect early on in the treatment while its dose was being titrated up. Larger placebo‐controlled studies are needed to ascertain optimal timing and dosing for memantine augmentation of lamotrigine in BD‐D.     

Transdermal selegiline in major depression: a double-blind,placebo-controlled,parallel-group study in outpatients

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated the efficacy and safety of transdermal selegiline in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder. METHOD: Following a 1-week placebo lead-in, 177 adult outpatients with major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to receive transdermal selegiline (20 mg applied once daily by means of a 20-cm(2) patch) (N=89) or placebo (N=88) for 6 weeks. The patients followed a tyramine-restricted diet during the medication trial and for 2 weeks after completion of treatment. Response to medication or placebo was measured by using the 17-item and 28-item versions of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity and improvement measures. RESULTS: Greater improvement was observed after 6 weeks in patients treated with transdermal selegiline than in those given placebo according to all measures. A statistically significant difference between drug and placebo was seen in Hamilton depression scale and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores as early as week 1 of treatment. There were no differences in the adverse event profile of the patients given selegiline and those given placebo with the exception of application-site reactions, which were more common with the selegiline transdermal system. No orthostatic hypotensive or hypertensive reactions were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Transdermal selegiline (20 mg applied once daily by means of a 20-cm(2) patch) administered for 6 weeks was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for adult outpatients with major depression. The typical side effects commonly seen with traditional monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants were not observed.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of quetiapine in the treatment of bipolar I or II depression

OBJECTIVE: There is a major unmet need for effective options in the treatment of bipolar depression. METHOD: Five hundred forty-two outpatients with bipolar I (N=360) or II (N=182) disorder experiencing a major depressive episode (DSM-IV) were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of quetiapine (600 or 300 mg/day) or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was mean change from baseline to week 8 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score. Additional efficacy assessments included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression of severity and improvement, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire. RESULTS: Quetiapine at either dose demonstrated statistically significant improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total scores compared with placebo from week 1 onward. The proportions of patients meeting response criteria (> or =50% Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score improvement) at the final assessment in the groups taking 600 and 300 mg/day of quetiapine were 58.2% and 57.6%, respectively, versus 36.1% for placebo. The proportions of patients meeting remission criteria (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale < or =12) were 52.9% in the groups taking 600 and 300 mg/day of quetiapine versus 28.4% for placebo. Quetiapine at 600 and 300 mg/day significantly improved 9 of 10 and 8 of 10 Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale items, respectively, compared to placebo, including the core symptoms of depression. Treatment-emergent mania rates were low and similar for the quetiapine and placebo groups (3.2% and 3.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine monotherapy is efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of bipolar depression.     

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

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