Recent placebo-controlled acute trials in bipolar depression: focus on methodology

The completion of three recent large-scale, double-blind controlled acute trials in bipolar I depression has improved our understanding of the management of major depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder. In contrast to the cross-over designs used in the early studies of lithium in bipolar depression, the designs utilized in these recent studies have employed random assignment to parallel arms including the use of placebo as a monotherapy in one study. The analyses of recent studies have all been conducted on intent-to-treat data, and included two types, change from baseline analyses and responder analyses. Lamotrigine monotherapy was shown to be superior to placebo with both types of analyses on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales, but not the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) (n=195). The percentage of patients responding to placebo as a monotherapy were 29, 26 and 37%, respectively; there were no differences in switch rates (5% vs. 5%). Paroxetine augmentation was no better than placebo augmentation overall with both types analyses on the CGI and HAMD (n=117); the MADRS was not used. In patients with lithium levels < or =0.8 mequiv./l, the change from baseline analysis showed paroxetine to be superior to placebo, but responder analyses were negative; switch rates with paroxetine, imipramine, and placebo were 0, 8 and 2%. Moclobemide monotherapy was similar in efficacy to imipramine (n=156), but had a lower rate of switching (4% vs. 11%).     

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.     

A randomized, single-blind, comparison of venlafaxine with paroxetine in elderly patients suffering from resistant depression

It is estimated that up to 45% of patients with depression do not have an adequate response to a first trial of antidepressant therapy with even higher reported rates for the elderly patients. To compare the efficacy and the tolerability of venlafaxine vs. paroxetine in elderly patients suffering from resistant major depression, who did not respond to at least two previous adequate trials of antidepressants. Patients entered an 8-week single-blind study. Patients were rated using the Clinical Global Impression Scale, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Geriatric Depression Scale. Assessments were performed at baseline and on days 7, 14, 21, 28, 42 and 56. Side effects were recorded in a systemic manner. Thirty patients were included in the study, (17 women, 13 men; mean age=75.9 years, range: 68-83) and all had completed the 6-week trial. Mean dose of venlafaxine used was 165 mg/day (SD=73.8; range 75-300 mg). Mean dose of paroxetine used was 26 mg/day (SD=15.04; range 10-60 mg). Nine patients treated with venlafaxine (60%) and five patients treated with paroxetine (33%) remitted after 8 weeks of treatment. Four patients treated with venlafaxine and eight patients treated with paroxetine failed to respond. Significant improvement in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores between baseline and endpoint were observed in both groups of patients. The mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression change for paroxetine was -12.5 and for venlafaxine -19.1 (P<0.05). The mean Geriatric Depression Scale change for paroxetine was -3.2 and for venlafaxine -6.0 (P<0.3). The mean Clinical Global Impression Scale change was -2.3 for paroxetine and -3.5 for venlafaxine (P<0.05). Venlafaxine was significantly superior to paroxetine on Clinical Global Impression Scale and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression measures. Side effects were transient and did not differ between treatment groups. Elderly depressed patients resistant to previous treatments had responded to a trial of paroxetine or venlafaxine. Remission rates were higher for venlafaxine and tolerability was acceptable for both compounds.     

Duloxetine in the treatment of depression: a double-blind placebo-controlled comparison with paroxetine

CONTEXT: Major depressive disorder causes significant morbidity and mortality. Current therapies fail to fully treat both emotional and physical symptoms of major depressive disorder. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate duloxetine, a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine, on improvement of emotional and painful physical symptoms. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, evaluation of duloxetine at 40 mg/d (20 mg twice daily) and 80 mg/d (40 mg twice daily) versus placebo and paroxetine 20 mg/d in depressed outpatients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy measure was the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Visual Analog Scales for pain, Clinical Global Impression of Severity, Patient's Global Impression of Improvement, and Quality of Life in Depression Scale were also used. Safety was evaluated by assessing discontinuation rates, adverse event rates, vital signs, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: Duloxetine 80 mg/d was superior to placebo on mean 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total change by 3.62 points (95% CI 1.38, 5.86; P = 0.002). Duloxetine at 40 mg/d was also significantly superior to placebo by 2.43 points (95% CI 0.19, 4.66; P = 0.034), while paroxetine was not (1.51 points; 95% CI -0.55, 3.56; P = 0.150). Duloxetine 80 mg/d was superior to placebo for most other measures, including overall pain severity, and was superior to paroxetine on 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale improvement (by 2.39 points; 95% CI 0.14, 4.65; P = 0.037) and estimated probability of remission (57% for duloxetine 80 mg/d, 34% for paroxetine; P = 0.022). The only adverse event reported significantly more frequently for duloxetine 80 mg/d than for paroxetine was insomnia (19.8% for duloxetine 80 mg/d, 8.0% for paroxetine; P = 0.031). Hypertension incidence was not affected by any treatment. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine therapy was efficacious for emotional and physical symptoms of depression, with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-like profile of side effects.     

A randomized, double-blind controlled comparison of nefazodone and paroxetine in the treatment of depression: safety, tolerability and efficacy in continuation phase treatment

We investigated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of nefazodone and paroxetine in the continuation phase of treatment of depression. The study comprised a double-blind, parallel-group comparison over 4 months, of patients who had previously improved following random allocation to nefazodone or paroxetine during an 8-week acute treatment study. Assessments included Clinical Global Impression Scales, Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and Anxiety, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Patient Global Assessment Scale, in addition to a review of reported adverse events, vital sign measurements, electrocardiograms and clinical laboratory tests. One hundred and eight patients participated in the continuation study (53 received paroxetine, 55 nefazodone) and 73 completed treatment. No clinically relevant differences in antidepressant efficacy were seen. Headache and somnolence were the most common reported adverse events in both treatment groups. Both nefazodone and paroxetine maintain their efficacy in continuation treatment, and both are generally well tolerated.     

艾司西酞普兰治疗女性更年期首发抑郁症的研究

目的观察艾司西酞普兰对女性更年期首发抑郁症的治疗效果和药物不良反应。方法将符合入组标准的70例患者采用随机数字表分成2组各35例,艾司西酞普兰组患者每天20：00服用艾司西酞普兰10mg／d,1次／d;帕罗西汀组患者每天20：00服用帕罗西汀20mg／d,1次／d。睡眠困难者可合并服用阿普唑仑0．8mg,禁用其他抗抑郁药、抗精神病药和电休克等治疗。分别于治疗前和治疗后1、2、3、4、6、8周采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD－17）和汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）评定严重程度和疗效,采用药物不良反应量表评定药物不良反应。结果艾司西酞普兰组痊愈23例,好转7例,无效4例,因药物不良反应脱失1例,有效30例（88．23％）,帕罗西汀组痊愈18例,好转9例,无效7例,因药物不良反应脱失1例,有效27例（79．41％）。2组总疗效差异无统计学意义（χ^2=1．48,P〉0．05）。于治疗第1、2周末评定艾司西酞普兰组HAMD-17总分明显低于帕罗西汀组（P〈0．05或P〈0．01）,从第3周末评定至第8周末评定2组显差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。HAMA总分第1周末艾司西酞普兰组明显低于帕罗西汀组（P〈0．05）,从第2周后差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。艾司西酞普兰组的嗜睡、口干、震颤等药物不良反应明显低于帕罗西汀组（P〈0．05）。结论艾司西酞普兰起效快、作用强、药物不良反应少,对更年期妇女抑郁症有较好的疗效和安全性。     

A comparative, randomised, double-blind study of trazodone prolonged-release and paroxetine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of trazodone prolonged release compared with paroxetine in the treatment of patients with major depression. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 108 patients aged 20-68 years were enrolled in this multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, paroxetine-controlled study. Each patient received 3 days single-blind placebo treatment followed by 6 weeks double-blind treatment with either trazodone prolonged release 150-450 mg/day (n = 55) or paroxetine 20-40 mg/day (n = 53). OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy was evaluated by the rate of patients responding to each treatment and considered to be in remission, and by mean changes from baseline in the Hamilton Depression Rating scale scores (HAM-D), Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores (MADRS), and Clinical Global Impression (CGI)--Severity and Global Improvement scores. Time to onset of efficacy and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Trazodone and paroxetine were equally effective at reducing symptoms of depression and promoting remission. Onset of efficacy was slightly faster for patients treated with paroxetine. Overall, there were no significant differences between the groups at endpoint in efficacy measures, and in percentage of responders (> 85%) or patients in remission (> 65%). Sleep disorders (HAM-D subset) were significantly less evident for patients in the trazodone group at the end of the study (p < 0.05). Adverse drug reactions were reported by 35% of trazodone-treated patients (mainly of the nervous system) and 26% of paroxetine-treated patients (mainly gastrointestinal), although none was considered to be serious. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that after a 6-week period trazodone and paroxetine are not different in reducing the symptoms of depression and, in many patients, in producing the remission of the illness. The known divergence in tolerability profile of the two medications, related to their differing pharmacological properties, was also confirmed. Trazodone may be of advantage in depressed patients with sleep difficulties.     

Duloxetine in the acute and long-term treatment of major depressive disorder: a placebo- and paroxetine-controlled trial

Background: Duloxetine is a balanced and potent dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) that has previously been shown to be effective in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). This placebo-controlled study assesses the safety and efficacy of duloxetine (80 or 120 mg/day) and paroxetine (20 mg QD) during an initial 8-week acute phase and subsequent 6-month continuation phase treatment of MDD. Method: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adult outpatients (age ≥18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD received placebo (n=93), duloxetine 80 mg/day (40 mg BID; n=95), duloxetine 120 mg/day (60 mg BID; n=93), or paroxetine (20 mg QD; n=86) for 8 weeks. Patients who had a ≥30% reduction from baseline in HAMD₁₇ total score during the acute phase were allowed to continue on the same (blinded) treatment for a 6-month continuation phase. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD₁₇) total score, HAMD₁₇ subscales, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scales, the 28-item Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI), and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Safety and tolerability were assessed using treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, vital signs, ECGs, laboratory tests, and the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX). Results: During the acute phase, patients receiving duloxetine 80 mg/day, duloxetine 120 mg/day, or paroxetine 20 mg QD had significantly greater reductions in HAMD₁₇ total score compared with placebo. Both duloxetine (80 and 120 mg/day) and paroxetine treatment groups had significantly greater improvement, compared with placebo, in MADRS, HAMA, CGI-S, and PGI-I scales. Estimated probabilities of remission at week 8 for patients receiving duloxetine 80 mg/day (51%), duloxetine 120 mg/day (58%), and paroxetine (47%) were significantly greater compared with those receiving placebo (30%). The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events among duloxetine-treated patients (80 and 120 mg/day) did not differ significantly from the rate in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported significantly more frequently by duloxetine-treated patients than by patients receiving placebo were constipation (80 and 120 mg/day), increased sweating (120 mg/day), and somnolence (120 mg/day). The incidence of acute treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction in duloxetine- and paroxetine-treated patients was 46.5% and 62.8%, respectively. During the 6-month continuation phase, duloxetine (80 and 120 mg/day) and paroxetine treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement in HAMD₁₇ total score. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring most frequently in each active treatment group during the continuation phase were viral infection (duloxetine 80 mg/day), diarrhea (duloxetine 120 mg/day), and headache (paroxetine 20 mg QD). Conclusion: These data support previous findings that duloxetine is safe, efficacious, and well tolerated in the acute treatment of MDD. Furthermore, these data provide the first demonstration under double-blind, placebo-controlled conditions that the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine are maintained during chronic treatment.     

A pilot trial of gepirone vs. placebo in the treatment of cocaine dependency.

An interim analysis of 41 evaluable patients compared gepirone to placebo treatment in a randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of cocaine dependence without opiate abuse. The response to gepirone at a mean dose of 16.25 mg/day did not differ from placebo by measures of time in study, positive urine cocaine screens (greater than 6 weeks), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Global Improvements Scale, Cocaine Craving Scale (CCS), Quantitative Cocaine Inventory (QCI), Addiction Severity Index (ASI), Global Assessment Scale (GAS), Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A). Both treatment groups showed similar modest, average improvements during the study in all treatment measures. Adverse events were not treatment limiting. The following demographic and study measures suggested favorable trends for study outcomes: older age, divorced status, higher pre-treatment cocaine use, lower CCS scores, and lower self-reports of cocaine use according to QCI.     

A randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial of quetiapine augmentation of fluoxetine in major depressive disorder

The objective of this study was to investigate whether quetiapine, when compared with placebo, can speed the onset of action and improve the quality of response to fluoxetine treatment in patients suffering from major depressive disorder. A total of 114 patients with major depressive disorder were enrolled in an 8-week treatment study. Patients were initiated on a course of fluoxetine treatment and randomized to quetiapine or placebo. Quetiapine was flexibly dosed starting at 25 mg to a maximum of 100 mg daily. Mixed-effects regression showed that quetiapine plus fluoxetine did not achieve 50% reduction in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score or improvement in Hamilton Anxiety Scale, Clinical Global Improvement (CGI)-Severity, and CGI-Improvement scores sooner than the fluoxetine plus placebo group; however both groups improved in all scores over time. Mixed-effects linear regression of insomnia scores showed that the quetiapine plus fluoxetine group improved significantly more rapidly compared with the fluoxetine plus placebo group. The study indicates that quetiapine plus fluoxetine did not achieve a reduction in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score or improvement in Hamilton Anxiety Scale or CGI scores from baseline sooner than the fluoxetine plus placebo group. The combination of quetiapine and fluoxetine, however, improved sleep over fluoxetine alone over the first few weeks of treatment.     

Two 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of ziprasidone in outpatients with bipolar I depression: did baseline characteristics impact trial outcome?

Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week studies comparing ziprasidone versus placebo for treatment of bipolar depression (BPD) failed to meet their primary study objectives, indicating that either ziprasidone is ineffective in the treatment of BPD or the study failed. Adult outpatients with bipolar I depression with 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score more than 20 at screening and baseline received either ziprasidone 40 to 80 mg/d, 120 to 160 mg/d, or placebo (study 1), or ziprasidone 40 to 160 mg/d or placebo (study 2). Primary efficacy measure in both studies was change from baseline in Montgomery-?sberg Depression Rating Scale total scores at week 6 (end of the study). Mixed-model repeated-measures methodology was used to analyze the primary efficacy measure in both studies. Secondary efficacy measures in both studies included Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score. Post hoc analyses were conducted for both studies to examine potential reasons for study failure. In both, ziprasidone treatment groups failed to separate statistically from placebo for change from baseline Montgomery-?sberg Depression Rating Scale score at week 6. Response rates were 49%, 53%, and 46% for placebo, ziprasidone 40 to 80 mg/d, and ziprasidone 120 to 160 mg/d, respectively (study 1), and 51% and 53% for placebo and ziprasidone 40 to 160 mg/d, respectively (study 2). Ziprasidone 40 to 160 mg/d did not show superiority over placebo at week 6 in the treatment of BPD. Post hoc analyses revealed serious inconsistencies in subject rating that may have limited the ability to detect a difference between drug and placebo response. Rating reliability warrants further investigation to improve clinical trial methodology in psychiatry.     

米安色林与丙咪嗪治疗抑郁症的临床对照研究

目的 评价米安色林与丙咪嗪治疗抑郁症的临床疗效和安全性。方法 将51例符合CCMD-3抑郁症诊断标准的抑郁症患者随机分为两组，分别给予米安色林和丙咪嗪治疗，于治疗前和治疗后1，2，4，6周末分别采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD量表）、临床疗效总体评定量表及不良反应量表评定。结果 米安色林与丙咪嗪总体疗效相似（P〉0．05）；米安色林组治疗第1周就起效；治疗前与治疗后比较，HAMD评分两组均有显著性差异（P〈0．01），两组之间则无显著性差异（P〉0．05），米安色林组的不良反应少于丙咪嗪组。结论米安色林是一种安全有效的新一代抗抑郁药物，适用于伴有失眠症状的老年抑郁症患者。     

Imipramine and buspirone in patients with panic disorder who are discontinuing long-term benzodiazepine therapy

Pretreatment with imipramine, buspirone, or placebo was compared in 40 patients meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition criteria for panic disorder and in patients who were discontinuing long-term benzodiazepine use. The average duration of benzodiazepine use was 75 +/- 64 months, and the average benzodiazepine intake expressed as diazepam equivalents was 25.7 +/- 19 mg/d. We hypothesized that pretreatment with either imipramine or buspirone, in contrast to pretreatment with placebo, would lead to a significant decrease of symptoms of anxiety and depression before tapering benzodiazepines, thus making the taper process easier to complete. All 3 treatments (imipramine, buspirone, and placebo) caused a reduction in anxiety and depression symptoms as measured by changes in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Neither discontinuation severity nor taper-free status 12 weeks posttaper differed between the 3 treatment groups.     

Treatment of depression with comorbid anxiety disorders: differential efficacy of paroxetine versus moclobemide

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of moclobemide versus paroxetine for the treatment of depression with comorbid anxiety disorders. Outpatients fulfilling DSM-III-R criteria for major depression or dysthymia and for a co-occurring comorbid anxiety disorder (panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder) after a 1-week run-in phase were randomly assigned to open-label moclobemide (300-600 mg/day) or paroxetine (20-40 mg/day) for 4 months. Primary criterion for response was a 50% score reduction from baseline on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores. Mean changes in Clinical Global Impressions Severity of Illness and Improvement Scales (CGI-I) were also used to evaluate treatment response. Of the 123 patients included in the study, 65 were randomly assigned to moclobemide and 58 to paroxetine. At study end, the two treatment groups did not differ significantly in terms of proportion of responders. Treatment group differences emerged when comorbid anxiety diagnoses were considered. In patients with comorbid panic disorder, paroxetine was superior to moclobemide in improving both anxiety and depression (five patients out of 18 in the moclobemide group and nine out of 14 in the paroxetine group were rated as responders according to CGI-I, P = 0.04). Neither medication was superior in treating comorbid generalized anxiety disorder. These findings indicate that both moclobemide and paroxetine are effective for treatment of depression with comorbid anxiety disorders. However, in the subgroup with comorbid panic disorder, paroxetine is more effective than moclobemide in reducing both depressive and anxiety symptoms.     

A pilot study of the efficacy and safety of paroxetine augmented with risperidone, valproate, buspirone, trazodone, or thyroid hormone in adult Chinese patients with treatment-resistant major depression

To compare the efficacy and safety of augmenting paroxetine with risperidone, buspirone, valproate, trazodone, or thyroid hormone in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), 225 patients with retrospectively and/or prospectively identified stage II TRD were randomly assigned to receive an 8-week treatment of paroxetine 20 mg/d augmented with risperidone 2 mg/d (n = 45), sodium valproate 600 mg/d (n = 39), buspirone 30 mg/d (n = 46), trazodone 100 mg/d (n = 47), or thyroid hormone 80 mg/d (n = 48). The primary outcome was the remission rate defined as the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of 7 or less at the end of study. Secondary outcomes included remission rate based on the Self-rating Depression Scale score of 50 or less at the end of study, response rate based on 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score of 50% improvement or greater from baseline, and the change in scores of Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale, the Short Form 36 Health Survey, and the Life Satisfaction Rating Scale. The remission rates were 26.7% for risperidone, 48.7% for valproate, 32.6% for buspirone, 42.6% for trazodone, and 37.5% for thyroid hormone. There was no statistical significance among treatment arms in remission rates, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events. Risperidone, valproate, buspirone, trazodone, or thyroid hormone augmentation to paroxetine 20 mg/d was effective and well tolerated in Chinese patients with TRD. Large-sample studies are warranted to support or refute these findings.     

Treatment of depressive outpatients with lorazepam,alprazolam, amytriptyline and placebo

This randomized double-blind study in 342 mildly to moderately depressive outpatients investigated the antidepressant effectiveness and speed of action of lorazepam, alprazolam and amitriptyline versus placebo. Six weeks of drug treatment were followed by a drug taper period, a control period with placebo and a control period without placebo, of 2 weeks duration each. Clinical improvement was assessed by rating scales (Clinical Global Impressions, Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and Anxiety) and patient's self-ratings (Patient's Global Impressions, Self-rating Depression Scale and Visual Analogue Scale). At the end of week 6 all active drugs showed similar efficacy which was significantly superior to placebo. Compared to placebo, onset of efficacy was earlier on benzodiazepines than on amitriptyline. While tapering by decreasing the dosage, replacing drug with placebo and finally discontinuing placebo, clear withdrawal phenomena were not seen, but 20% of patients, equally distributed to all treatment groups, did not want to stop taking tablets after replacing drug with placebo. Drop-out rate during the treatment period was very low (9%). Significantly interfering adverse effects were seen in 27 patients, without predominance in one of the active drug groups.     

卡马西平单用及其与逍遥散合用治疗双相情感障碍随机双盲安慰剂对照临床研究

目的 评估卡马西平单用及其与逍遥散合用治疗双相情感障碍的疗效和安全性。方法 用随机双盲安慰剂对照方法，双相躁狂82例，双相抑郁76例，各随机分为3组。双相躁狂疗程8周，双相抑郁疗程12周。用Young与Bech—Rafaelsen躁狂量表、Hamilton与Montgomery—Asberg抑郁量表和临床总体印象量表评定疗效，用副反应量表观察药物不良反应。结果 双相躁狂患者3组药物临床有效率分别为：逍遥散合用卡马西平为79％，卡马西平单用为64％，安慰剂为45％，3组比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。双相抑郁患者3组药物临床有效率分别为：逍遥散合用卡马西平为75％，卡马西平单用为59％，安慰剂为33％，3组比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。逍遥散合用卡马西平较卡马西平单用，在头昏、视力模糊、皮疹、恶心发生率增加。结论 逍遥散作为辅助药物治疗双相障碍有效，但能增加卡马西平药物不良反应发生率。     

A comparative study of the efficacy of long-term treatment with escitalopram and paroxetine in severely depressed patients

OBJECTIVE: This randomised, double-blind, fixed-dose study evaluated the efficacy of escitalopram and paroxetine in the long-term treatment of severely depressed patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with a primary diagnosis of MDD and baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) >or= 30 were randomised to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with fixed doses of either escitalopram (20 mg) (n = 232) or paroxetine (40 mg) (n = 227). The primary analysis of efficacy was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 24) in MADRS total score (last observation carried forward, LOCF). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES; RESULTS: At endpoint (24 weeks), the mean change from baseline in MADRS total score was -25.2 for patients treated with escitalopram (n = 228) and -23.1 for patients with paroxetine (n = 223), resulting in a difference of 2.1 points (p < 0.05). The difference in the change in the MADRS total score (LOCF) was significantly in favour of escitalopram from Week 8 onwards. The proportion of remitters (MADRS or= 35), there was a difference of 3.4 points at endpoint in the MADRS total score in favour of escitalopram (p < 0.05). The overall withdrawal rate for patients treated with escitalopram (19%) was significantly lower than with paroxetine (32%) (p < 0.01). The withdrawal rate due to adverse events was significantly lower for escitalopram (8%) compared to paroxetine (16%) (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of individual adverse events during treatment. CONCLUSION: Escitalopram is significantly more effective than paroxetine in the long-term treatment of severely depressed patients.     

Escitalopram in the treatment of multisomatoform disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Despite the prevalence of multisomatoform disorder (MSD), there are few controlled trials of its pharmacotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) with that of placebo in treating patients with MSD over a 12-week period. Fifty-one outpatients aged from 18 to 65 years, with multiple medically unexplained symptoms, were recruited. The primary efficacy measure was a change on the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 scores from baseline to endpoint. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score, the psychic and somatic subscales of the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Visual Analogue Pain Rating Scale, the Scale for the Assessment of Illness Behaviour and the Sheehan Disability Scale. On the primary analysis of covariance, escitalopram-treated patients had significantly greater reductions in Patient Health Questionnaire scores (P<0.0001) compared with placebo at week 12. Significant separation from placebo occurred from week 6 onwards. Escitalopram was superior to placebo on all secondary outcome endpoints, with the exception of the Scale for the Assessment of Illness Behaviour. The medication was well tolerated. In conclusion, in this 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study, escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) was both effective and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with MSD. Compared with placebo, escitalopram was associated with lower symptom scores, increased response and remission rates, and improved functioning.     

The efficacy and safety of aripiprazole as adjunctive therapy in major depressive disorder: a second multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Nonresponse to one or more antidepressants is common and an important public health problem. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole or placebo to standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) in patients with major depressive disorder who showed an inadequate response to at least 1 and up to 3 historical and 1 additional prospective ADT. The study comprised a 7-28-day screening, an 8-week prospective treatment, and a 6-week randomization phase. During prospective treatment, patients experiencing a major depressive episode (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score > or = 18) received single-blind adjunctive placebo plus clinicians' choice of ADT (escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine controlled-release, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended-release). Subjects with inadequate response were randomized to adjunctive placebo (n = 190) or adjunctive aripiprazole (n = 191) (starting dose 5 mg/d, dose adjustments 2-20 mg/d, mean end-point dose of 11.0 mg/d). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score from end of prospective treatment phase to end of randomized treatment phase (last observation carried forward). Mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score was significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than placebo (-8.5 vs -5.7; P = 0.001). Remission rates were significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than placebo (25.4% vs 15.2%; P = 0.016) as were response rates (32.4% vs 17.4%; P < 0.001). Adverse events occurring in 10% of patients or more with adjunctive placebo or aripiprazole were akathisia (4.2% vs 25.9%), headache (10.5% vs 9.0%), and fatigue (3.7% vs 10.1%). Incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation was low (adjunctive placebo [1.1%] vs adjunctive aripiprazole [3.7%]). Aripiprazole is an effective and safe adjunctive therapy as demonstrated in this short-term study for patients who are nonresponsive to standard ADT.