A double-blind multicentre comparison of mirtazapine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients

Hnyberg OJ, Maragakis B, Mullin J, Norum D, Stordall E, Ekdahl P, Ose E, Moksnes KM, Sennef C. A double-blind multicentre comparison of mirtazapine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1996: 93: 184–190. © Munksgaard 1996. A total of 115 elderly patients (60–85 years of age) with DSM III diagnosis of major depressive episode were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of treatment with either mirtazapine, 15–45 mg/day, or amitriptyline, 30–90 mg/day. Efficacy was assessed biweekly, using tbe Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) as primary outcome variables. The treatment with both drugs resulted in a similar reduction of total HRDS and MADRS scores, with no statistically significant differences between treatment groups at any assessment point or at endpoint. Statistically significant differences favouring amitriptyline were present according to CGI-Global Improvement Scale at endpoint, HRDS cognitive disturbance factor at weeks 2, 4 and 6 and endpoint and retardation factor at week 6. Adverse events were reported by a similar number of patients in both treatment groups. Additional research is needed to assess further the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine among elderly depressed patients.     

A twelve-week, double-blind, randomized comparison of nortriptyline and paroxetine in older depressed inpatients and outpatients.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may be less efficacious than tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of severe depression in older patients. The authors compared the 12-week clinical outcome of older depressed patients treated with nortriptyline or paroxetine in a double-blind randomized comparison in 116 psychiatric inpatients and outpatients (mean age: 72+/-8 years) who presented with a major depressive episode or melancholic depression. Discontinuation and response rates were compared in patients who began or who completed treatment. The discontinuation rate due to side effects was significantly higher with nortriptyline than with paroxetine (33% vs. 16%). There were no significant differences between the rates of response in the Intent-to-Treat analysis (nortriptyline: 57% vs. paroxetine: 55% ), or the Completer analysis (nortriptyline: 78% vs. paroxetine: 84%). Although paroxetine appears to be better tolerated than nortriptyline, the efficacy of these two drugs does not appear to differ in the acute treatment of older depressed patients, including hospitalized patients and those with melancholic features.     

Effects of nortriptyline and paroxetine on postural sway in depressed elderly patients.

Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) have previously been found to be related to an increased incidence of falls in elderly persons. Recent pharmacoepidemiologic and nursing home studies have suggested that the risk of falls and fractures in elderly patients receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is not different from that of patients receiving TCAs. The authors therefore evaluated postural sway in an older population of depressed patients randomly assigned to treatment with either nortriptyline or paroxetine and did not find any change in postural sway after 6 weeks' treatment with either antidepressant. Further studies with other SSRIs are needed.     

Double-blind comparison of amoxapine and imipramine in the treatment of depressed patients

A 5-week double-blind study compared amoxapine to imipramine (2:1 dosage ratio) in the treatment of depressed outpatients. The two agents were similar in anti-depressant efficacy and rapidity of action. The most common adverse reactions to both drugs were anticholinergic effects and sedation; cardiovascular effects were minimal. A few amoxapine-treated patients developed adverse effects typical of neuroleptic drugs: some experienced extrapyramidal signs, one developed galactorrhea, and most showed elevated plasma prolactin concentrations. Amoxapine was associated with significant neuroleptic activity in plasma. No correlation was found between blood levels of either drug and therapeutic response.     

A comparison of paroxetine and placebo in depressed outpatients

To compare the safety and efficacy of paroxetine (n= 167) and placebo (n= 169), data from 4 centres using the same protocol were pooled. A double-blind parallel group design was used, with therapy lasting 6 weeks. Significant differences between paroxetine- and placebo-treated patients were found on the major efficacy outcome variables by week 2 and on all efficacy variables by week 4 of the study. Improvement on the sleep factor of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was found after 7 d. Observer and patient global efficacy ratings were in agreement by week 4. No serious adverse events occurred, and paroxetine had no clinically significant effects on vital signs or laboratory safety data. Side effects were more common on paroxetine and were similar to other serotonin reuptake inhibitors. In general, these were well tolerated and did not lead to dropout. Symptoms of increased arousal were not seen during early therapy.     

Double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of imipramine and paroxetine in the treatment of bipolar depression

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and safety of paroxetine and imipramine with that of placebo in the treatment of bipolar depression in adult outpatients stabilized on a regimen of lithium. METHOD: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 117 outpatients with DSM-III-R bipolar disorder, depressive phase, were randomly assigned to treatment with paroxetine (N=35), imipramine (N=39), or placebo (N=43) for 10 weeks. In addition to lithium monotherapy, patients may have received either carbamazepine or valproate in combination with lithium for control of manic symptoms. Patients were stratified on the basis of trough serum lithium levels determined at the screening visit (high: >0.8 meq/liter; low: 相似文献   

Influence of mirtazapine on salivary cortisol in depressed patients

Unlike other antidepressants, mirtazapine does not inhibit the reuptake of norepinephrine or serotonin but acts as an antagonist at presynaptic alpha(2)-receptors, at postsynaptic 5-HT2 and 5-HT3 receptors, and at histaminergic H1 receptors. Furthermore, mirtazapine has been shown to acutely inhibit cortisol secretion in healthy subjects. In the present study, the impact of mirtazapine treatment on salivary cortisol secretion was investigated in 12 patients (4 men, 8 women) suffering from major depression according to DSM-IV criteria. Patients were treated with mirtazapine for 3 weeks, receiving 15 mg mirtazapine on day 0, 30 mg on day 1 and 45 mg per day from day 2 up to the end of the study (day 21). Response to mirtazapine treatment was defined by a reduction of at least 50% in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression after 3 weeks of therapy. Salivary cortisol concentrations were measured before treatment (day -1), at the beginning of treatment (day 0), after 1 week (day 7) and after 3 weeks (day 21) of treatment with mirtazapine. Saliva samples were collected hourly from 08.00 until 20.00 h. The area under the curve values served as parameter for the salivary cortisol secretion. Following analysis of variance with a repeated measures design, tests with contrasts revealed a significant reduction of cortisol concentrations already after 1 day of mirtazapine treatment that was comparable in responders and nonresponders. In addition to new pharmacological approaches such as CRH1 receptor antagonists, mirtazapine therefore appears to be an effective strategy to decrease hypercortisolism and restore HPA system dysregulation in depression. However, the importance of the acute inhibitory effects of mirtazapine on cortisol secretion for its antidepressant efficacy has to be further clarified.     

Double-blind comparative study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed patients of a university psychiatric outpatient clinic (pilot study)

21 depressed patients of the Basle University Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic were treated in a double-blind study with paroxetine and amitriptyline. 11 of these patients did not continue the trial until the end of the 7th week. There was a significant difference in the number of dropouts between the two groups: 80% of the amitriptyline group did not continue until the end, while in the paroxetine group we found only 30% dropouts. The patients of both groups showed a gradual decrease of the median total scores on the Hamilton and the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scales. Although the number of patients who stayed in the trial for at least 4 weeks (8 with paroxetine, 6 with amitriptyline) is quite small, we see from the results of the clinical global impression that the members of the paroxetine group improved most of all in the somatic symptoms, while considering their moods we found no differences between the groups. Patients of both groups complained about side effects, most of all about dry mouth and tiredness. From the high rate of dropouts under amitriptyline we found that the side effects under this drug were more severe and therefore led to the dropouts.     

Double-blind comparison of citalopram and placebo in depressed outpatients with melancholia

This multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of citalopram and placebo in a population of moderately to severely depressed patients with melancholia. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study compared citalopram (flexible dose; 20-80 mg/day) with placebo in 180 psychiatric outpatients with a DSM-III diagnosis of major depression or bipolar disorder, depressed, who also met DSM-III criteria for melancholia. Following a 1-week placebo washout period, patients meeting study entry criteria were randomized to 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with either citalopram or placebo. Efficacy measures included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Scale, and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale. Patients treated with citalopram showed significantly greater improvement at endpoint than placebo patients on the HAM-D, CGI, and Zung scales. On the HAM-D, citalopram patients exhibited significantly greater improvement than placebo patients after 1 week of double-blind treatment and at all subsequent study visits. Endpoint analyses of the HAM-D subscales demonstrated that citalopram produced significant improvement of the psychomotor retardation, cognitive disturbance, sleep disturbance, and melancholia symptom clusters. Nausea, dry mouth, somnolence, dizziness, and increased sweating were reported at higher rates by citalopram-treated patients than by placebo-treated patients, but there were no significant citalopram-placebo differences in the incidence of activation (e.g., anxiety, nervousness, insomnia) or sexual dysfunction. Analysis of electrocardiograms, vital signs, and laboratory tests did not reveal any clinically significant effects of citalopram treatment. The results of this study indicate that citalopram is safe and effective in the treatment of depressed patients with melancholia, and is associated with a favorable side effect profile and a potentially rapid onset of action.     

Weight change in older depressed patients during acute pharmacotherapy with paroxetine and nortriptyline: a double-blind randomized trial.

The authors examined weight change in 32 elderly patients treated for 12 weeks with either nortriptyline or paroxetine during acute-phase pharmacotherapy. Random assignment to treatment and double-blind assessment of weight change were performed, including ascertainment of premorbid (i.e., pre-depression) weight. Pretreatment severity of depression was correlated with weight loss during the depressive episode and depression-related weight loss, in turn, correlated with weight regained during antidepressant treatment. There was no differential weight change associated with nortriptyline vs. paroxetine. Rather, subjects in both groups approximated their premorbid weights by 12 weeks of acute-phase pharmacotherapy with either agent. However, additional investigation of weight change during continuation and maintenance pharmacotherapy is necessary and would be clinically useful for the long-term management of elderly patients with depression.     

Platelet counts in depressed patients treated with amitriptyline or paroxetine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether therapy with two widely used antidepressants influences platelet counts. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In 90 patients hospitalized for treatment of a major depressive episode according to DSM-IV, platelet counts were performed after a 6 d antidepressant-free run-in period and again after 35 d of active standardized treatment with amitriptyline (n = 40) or paroxetine (n = 50). RESULTS: There was a trend for platelet counts to increase during treatment with amitriptyline (from 245.5 +/- 68.6 to 256.8 +/- 69 cells x 10(9) L(-1), P < 0.06); no change was observed during treatment with paroxetine (from 232.6 +/- 58.3 to 234.6 +/- 68.9 cells x 10(9) L(-1), n.s). CONCLUSION: Treatment with amitriptyline tends to be associated with elevated platelet counts. The cause for this increase is not known, but may be relevant in terms of patients' long-term thromboembolic risk.     

Sexual functioning in depressed outpatients taking mirtazapine.

OBJECTIVES: One-third of patients with untreated depression have sexual difficulties manifested by decreased libido, erectile dysfunction or delayed ejaculation. This dysfunction may be exacerbated by stimulation of post-synaptic serotonin 5HT2 receptors, a side-effect of most widely-used antidepressant medications, especially the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Mirtazapine is an atypical antidepressant with alpha 2 adrenergic antagonist and serotonin 5-HT2 and 5-HT3 receptor-blocking activity. In theory, it should not worsen and perhaps may improve sexual function. This pilot study investigated sexual functioning and antidepressant activity in depressed patients taking mirtazapine. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Twenty-five (F = 18, M = 7) sexually active adult outpatients with a DSM-IV-diagnosis of major depressive episode entered a 12-week, flexible-dosing, open-label pilot study. The Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX) assessed sexual functioning and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) assessed depressive symptoms on a bimonthly basis. PRINCIPAL OBSERVATIONS: Desire, arousal/lubrication, and ease/satisfaction of orgasm improved (by 41%, 52%, and 48%, respectively) in the depressed women. In men, desire, arousal/erection, and ease/satisfaction of orgasm also improved (by 10%, 23% and 14%, respectively) but much more modestly. HAM-D, Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90) scores improved in both groups. There was a 50% dropout rate among women before six weeks of treatment. However, the ASEX and HAM-D scores of the groups terminating before and after six weeks of treatment showed similar rates of improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Mirtazapine has a beneficial effect on sexual functioning in both depressed women and men. Longer-term double-blind research assessing sexual function during the administration of mirtazapine as well as other antidepressants is recommended.     

A randomized trial comparing paroxetine and venlafaxine in the treatment of bipolar depressed patients taking mood stabilizers

BACKGROUND: The treatment of depressive episodes occurring in bipolar patients taking mood stabilizers is an understudied area of research with outstanding clinical consequences. This study was aimed to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of 2 different antidepressant drugs, paroxetine and venlafaxine, in this indication. METHOD: Sixty DSM-IV bipolar patients. each presenting with a major depressive episode while receiving mood stabilizers, were randomly assigned to either paroxetine (N = 30) or venlafaxine (N = 30) for 6 weeks in a single-blind manner. They had to score higher than 17 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) and have their mood stabilizer blood levels within the therapeutic range. Efficacy was measured by the HAM-D. Reports of side effects were collected at each visit; switch to mania or hypomania was specifically assessed by the Young Mania Rating Scale at 5 of 7 visits. RESULTS: Significant improvements in HAM-D scores were observed in both paroxetine- and venlafaxine-treated patients (Wilcoxon p < .0001). There were no significant differences in either efficacy or safety measures between the 2 drugs. By intention-to-treat analysis, 43% (N = 13) of patients taking paroxetine and 48% (N = 14) taking venlafaxine were considered to be responders. Only 3% (N = 1) of patients switched to hypomania or mania in the paroxetine group, whereas 13% (N = 4) switched in the venlafaxine group. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine and venlafaxine are both effective and safe in the treatment of depressive breakthrough episodes in bipolar disorder. There was a suggestion of a slightly higher risk for switch to mania or hypomania with venlafaxine.     

Effect of nortriptyline and paroxetine on extrapyramidal signs and symptoms: A prospective double-blind study in depressed elderly patients.

Selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) have been reported to induce extrapyramidal signs and symptoms (EPS). The authors examined the change from baseline EPS, measured by an objective rating scale, in a group of elderly depressed patients participating in an ongoing randomized, double-blind comparison of nortriptyline and paroxetine. Mild baseline EPS were present in both groups. After 6 weeks of antidepressant treatment, patients in the nortriptyline group showed a significant decrease in total EPS scores. Patients in the paroxetine group showed a similar decrease in EPS from baseline, which did not reach statistical significance. There was no significant difference between nortriptyline and paroxetine in the change in EPS.     

Nortriptyline response in elderly depressed patients.

1. Depressed geriatric patients were treated with nortriptyline (NT) for 6 weeks. The authors measured serum levels of NT and 10-hydroxynortriptyline (10-OH-NT) using a column-switching HPLC method, and examined aging effects on NT steady-state levels to NT doses (doses/kg) ratios and NT levels to 10-OH-NT levels ratios as well as clinical response and propensity for side effects. 2. There was no significant relationship between the ages and the NT serum levels to NT doses (doses/kg) ratios, the ages and the 10-OH-NT levels to NT levels ratios, or the ages and the clinical response or the %improvement of Hamilton Scores. 3. Then the authors divided the subjects into two groups: a younger group and an elderly group with the cut off age of 60. The elderly group received significantly smaller doses of NT and had significantly lower serum levels of NT. The elderly group had tendency to have lower serum levels of 10-OH-NT. However, no significant difference was found in the improvement scores or the %improvement of depression. The elderly patients did not have higher propensity for unnegligible side effects.     

Platelet paroxetine binding in depressed and nondepressed chronic pain patients

Analysis of ³H-paroxetine binding was used to determine the number of serotonin transporters in platelet membranes of chronic pain patients and controls. The pain patients who also suffered from depression in addition to the pain had significantly more serotonin transporters than the controls.     

A double-blind,randomized, group-comparative study of the tolerability and efficacy of 6 weeks' treatment with mirtazapine or fluoxetine in depressed Chinese patients

AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and fluoxetine treatment in a sample population consisting of Chinese patients suffering moderate-to-severe depression. METHOD: 133 patients with a diagnosis of major depressive episode (DSM-IV) and scoring 15 or more on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) were randomly assigned to receive 6 weeks of treatment with either mirtazapine (15-45 mg/day) or fluoxetine (20-40 mg/day). Efficacy was assessed using the HAM-D and Clinical Global Impressions scale, with analyses performed on the intent-to-treat sample using the last-observation-carried-forward method. Safety analysis was based on the all-subjects-treated group. RESULTS: Mean daily doses were 34.1 mg for mirtazapine (N = 66) and 30.7 mg for fluoxetine (N = 66). Thirty patients in the mirtazapine group and 22 in the fluoxetine group dropped out. Both drugs proved equally effective for reduction of the overall symptoms of depression throughout the treatment period. At day 42, the mean reductions in HAM-D total score (compared with baseline) were 11.8 and 10.6 for the mirtazapine and fluoxetine groups, respectively; however, the changes were not statistically significant. Both treatments were well tolerated, with more nausea and influenza-like symptoms observed for the fluoxetine group, and greater weight increase and somnolence for the mirtazapine analog. CONCLUSION: Both mirtazapine and fluoxetine were indistinguishable in effectiveness for treatment of depressive symptoms, and both were well tolerated by our population of depressed Chinese patients. In line with analogous Western reports, the safety of mirtazapine and fluoxetine was comparable for our depressed Chinese patients; however, slightly different side effect profiles were noted for the 2 drugs in our study.     

Effects of mirtazapine on dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate and cortisol plasma concentrations in depressed patients

Background

Among the neuroactive steroids, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S) is at least in part produced in the adrenal gland and is therefore under the control of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA)-system. In the present study, the impact of mirtazapine on DHEA-S and cortisol (COR) levels was investigated in relation to clinical response in depressed patients.

Methods

A total of 23 inpatients suffering from a major depressive episode (DSM-IV criteria) underwent 5-week treatment with mirtazapine (45 mg/day). Plasma samples were taken weekly at 0800 h and quantified for COR and DHEA-S levels.

Results

Mirtazapine significantly reduced both COR and DHEA-S concentrations, but had no impact on the COR/DHEA-S ratio. The percentage decrease of DHEA-S, but not that of COR was significantly and positively correlated with the percentage reduction in the sum score of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 5, suggesting a relationship between DHEA-S reduction and clinical efficacy of mirtazapine. There was a significant positive correlation between the decline in COR and DHEA-S levels.

Conclusions

Apparently, the decrease in COR and DHEA-S concentrations conjointly reflects an attenuating impact of mirtazapine on HPA axis activity, thereby decreasing the adrenal secretion of COR and DHEA-S.     

Influence of mirtazapine on urinary free cortisol excretion in depressed patients

Mirtazapine has been shown to acutely inhibit cortisol secretion in healthy subjects. In the present study, the impact of mirtazapine treatment on urinary free cortisol (UFC) excretion was investigated in depression. Twenty patients (six men, 14 women) suffering from major depression according to DSM-IV criteria were treated with mirtazapine for 3 weeks. The patients received 15 mg mirtazapine on day 0; 30 mg mirtazapine on day 1; and 45 mg mirtazapine per day from day 2 to the end of the study (day 21). UFC excretion was measured before treatment (day 1), at the beginning (day 0), after 1 week (day 7) and after 3 weeks (day 21) of treatment with mirtazapine. Urine samples were collected from 08:00 to 08:00 h the following day. On the days of urine sampling, the severity of depressive symptoms was assessed using the 21-item version of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (21-HAMD). There was a significant reduction of UFC excretion during 3-week mirtazapine therapy, which was already obvious after the first day of treatment (day 0). However, there were no significant across-subjects correlations between UFC reduction and decrease in 21-HAMD sum scores. Apparently, the mirtazapine-induced rapid reduction of cortisol secretion in depressed patients is not necessarily correlated with a favorable therapeutic response.