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.     

Treatment of major depression with nortriptyline and paroxetine in patients with ischemic heart disease.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of paroxetine and nortriptyline in depressed patients with ischemic heart disease. METHOD: After a 2-week, single-blind placebo lead-in phase, 81 outpatients with DSM-III-R-defined nonpsychotic unipolar major depression and ischemic heart disease were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with paroxetine or nortriptyline for 6 weeks. Paroxetine was administered at a fixed-flexible dose of 20-30 mg/day. Nortriptyline dose was adjusted with the use of blood-level monitoring to reach a plasma concentration of 50-150 ng/ml. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of the 41 patients who started treatment with paroxetine and 29 of the 40 patients who started treatment with nortriptyline had an improvement of at least 50% in their Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores. Significantly more patients taking nortriptyline discontinued treatment prematurely (35% versus 10%), and more patients taking nortriptyline had adverse events resulting in termination (25% versus 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments were efficacious. Sixty-three percent of all patients improved at least 50%, and of these, 90% met the criteria for remission. Paroxetine was better tolerated than nortriptyline and less likely to produce cardiovascular side effects.     

Paroxetine versus nortriptyline in the continuation and maintenance treatment of depression in the elderly

Elderly depressed patients are vulnerable to recurrence of depression and benefit from long-term antidepressant therapy. Physicians increasingly use selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as maintenance therapy, although in the absence of data showing that SSRIs are as efficacious as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in the prevention of depression relapse and recurrence. Our objective was to evaluate, in an open trial, the efficacy of paroxetine versus nortriptyline for preventing recurrence of depression in the elderly. Elderly patients with major depression were randomly assigned in a double-blinded fashion to receive either paroxetine or nortriptyline for the acute treatment of depression. Patients who did not respond or tolerate their assigned medications were crossed over openly to the comparator agent. Patients whose depression remitted continued antidepressant medication (paroxetine n = 38; nortriptyline n = 21) during an open 18-month follow-up study. We examined the rates of and times to relapse and to termination of treatment for any reason. Paroxetine (PX) and nortriptyline (NT) patients had similar rates of relapse (16% vs. 10%, respectively) and time to relapse (60.3 weeks vs. 58.8 weeks, respectively) over 18 months. A lower burden of residual depressive symptoms and side effects during continuation and maintenance treatment was evident in nortriptyline-treated patients. Paroxetine and nortriptyline demonstrated similar efficacy in relapse and recurrence prevention in elderly depressed patients over an 18-month period.     

Cerebral glucose metabolic response to combined total sleep deprivation and antidepressant treatment in geriatric depression: A randomized,placebo-controlled study

A randomized, placebo-controlled study was performed to evaluate whether the onset of the glucose metabolic effects of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (paroxetine) would be accelerated by total sleep deprivation (TSD). Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: TSD and paroxetine treatment, TSD and 2 weeks of placebo followed by paroxetine treatment, or 2 weeks of paroxetine treatment. Sixteen elderly depressed patients who met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder and nine age-matched comparison subjects underwent positron emission tomography (PET) studies of cerebral glucose metabolism at baseline, post-TSD (or a normal night's sleep for the paroxetine- only group), post-recovery sleep and 2 weeks post-paroxetine or placebo treatment (patients only). TSD was not consistently associated with a decrease in depressive symptoms between groups nor with decreases in cerebral metabolism in cortical regions that have been associated with rapid and sustained clinical improvement (e.g. anterior cingulate gyrus). The observation of a synergistic antidepressant effect of combined TSD and paroxetine treatment that was observed in a previous “open label” pilot study was not observed in the present randomized study, consistent with lack of a cerebral metabolic effect in brains regions previously shown to be associated with improvement of depressive symptoms.     

Accelerating symptom-reduction in late-life depression: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of sleep deprivation.

OBJECTIVE: Authors tested the hypothesis that one night of total sleep deprivation (TSD) would accelerate antidepressant response to paroxetine, as compared with TSD+placebo (PBO) and paroxetine-alone, in late-life major depression. METHODS: Eighty elderly outpatients with current episodes of non-psychotic, non-bipolar major depression were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions: TSD+paroxetine (N = 27), TSD + PBO (N = 27), and paroxetine-only (N = 26). Primary outcome was percentage of subjects in each condition who demonstrated early response (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores [Ham-D: 17-item] of < or = 10) or remission (score of < or = 7) on Day 14. RESULTS: Response rates after 14 days were 22% in subjects randomly assigned to the TSD + paroxetine condition, 41% in TSD + PBO, and 46% in paroxetine alone. Remission rates after 14 days were 11% in TSD+paroxetine, 22% in TSD + PBO, and 38% in paroxetine. After adjusting for baseline depression severity, there were no statistically significant differences in response or remission rates. CONCLUSION: Contrary to the study hypothesis, one night of total sleep deprivation did not accelerate onset of antidepressant response to paroxetine pharmacotherapy of late-life depression. The data suggest, rather, that the two interventions might have counteracted each other.     

An international, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial of paroxetine in adolescents with major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of paroxetine in adolescents with unipolar major depression. METHOD: Two hundred eighty-six (286) adolescents with unipolar major depression were randomly assigned to receive either paroxetine or placebo for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The proportion of Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) responders (at least 50% reduction from baseline) for paroxetine and placebo were similar and not statistically different at endpoint (p = 0.702). A similar result was obtained for change from baseline on the Kiddie-Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School- Age Children (K-SADS-L) depression subscale. Among secondary endpoints, only a significantly higher Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) response rate was reported in paroxetine-treated patients versus placebo (69.2% versus 57.3%; p = 0.045). In general, results differed by age, with patients older than 16 years demonstrating a greater response to active treatment. This age group also reported more adverse experiences (AEs) relative to placebo than younger adolescents. Overall, paroxetine was generally well tolerated (11% discontinued owing to an AE versus 7% of placebo-treated patients). A post hoc analysis of AEs related to suicidal behavior suggested a greater incidence of these events for paroxetine than for placebo (4.4% versus 2.1%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 2.15, 95% Confidence Interval 0.45, 10.33; p = 0.502). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were observed for paroxetine compared with placebo on the two prospectively defined primary efficacy variables. Paroxetine at 20-40 mg/day administered over a period of up to 12 weeks was generally well tolerated.     

Efficacy of controlled-release paroxetine in the treatment of late-life depression

BACKGROUND: Depression is the second most common neuropsychiatric disorder in older Americans, with significant clinical and public health costs. Despite advances in treatment, late-life depression remains a clinical challenge. Although the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most common pharmacologic intervention for late-life depression, few placebo-controlled trials have assessed the efficacy of SSRIs for this condition. METHOD: In this 12-week, multicenter, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose, double-blind, randomized trial, 319 elderly patients (mean age = 70 years) were treated with controlled-release paroxetine (paroxetine CR) up to 50 mg/day (N = 104), immediate-release paroxetine (paroxetine IR) up to 40 mg/day (N = 106), or placebo (N = 109). Patients met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder and had a total score of 18 or more on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to endpoint in HAM-D total score. RESULTS: The primary efficacy analysis showed an adjusted difference between change from baseline in HAM-D score for paroxetine CR and placebo of -2.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -4.47 to -0.73, p = .007) at the week 12 last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) endpoint. The adjusted difference between paroxetine IR and placebo was -2.8 (95% CI = -4.65 to -0.99, p = .003) at week 12. Paroxetine CR and IR were more effective than placebo, with mean +/- SD endpoint HAM-D total scores of 10.0 +/- 7.41 and 10.0 +/- 7.10, respectively, for the active treatments compared with 12.6 +/- 7.34 for placebo. Response, defined as a score of 1 or 2 on the Clinical Global Impressions-global improvement scale, was achieved by 72% of paroxetine CR patients (LOCF; p < .002 vs. placebo), 65% of paroxetine IR patients (p = .06 vs. placebo), and 52% of placebo patients. Remission, defined as a HAM-D total score < or = 7, was achieved by 43% of paroxetine CR patients (LOCF; p = .009 vs. placebo), 44% of paroxetine IR patients (p = .01 vs. placebo), and 26% of placebo patients. In a post hoc analysis, mean HAM-D improvement for paroxetine CR and paroxetine IR was greater than for placebo in both chronically depressed patients (duration > 2 years) and those with short-term (< or = 2 years) depression. Dropout rates due to adverse events were 12.5% for paroxetine CR, 16.0% for paroxetine IR, and 8.3% for placebo. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine CR and paroxetine IR are effective and well tolerated treatments for major depressive disorder in elderly patients, including those with chronic depression.     

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.     

A randomized double-blind trial of paroxetine and/or dextroamphetamine and problem-focused therapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of psychotherapy, dextroamphetamine, and/or paroxetine on attention-deficit/hyperactivity-disorder (ADHD) in adults. METHOD: Ninety-eight adults with DSM-IV ADHD were randomly assigned to receive psychotherapy and dextroamphetamine, paroxetine, both, or placebo for 20 weeks. A 2 x 2 factorial design compared patients who received dextroamphetamine versus no dextroamphetamine with patients who received paroxetine versus no paroxetine. Data were collected from August 2000 until May 2002. RESULTS: One half of the 98 enrolled subjects were found to have at least 1 lifetime mood or anxiety disorder on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. Sixty percent of patients who received medication and 80% of those who received placebo completed the 5-month trial. ADHD symptoms were significantly (p = .012) lower in patients in the completer group who received dextroamphetamine. Paroxetine had no effect on ADHD. Hamilton Rating Scales for Anxiety (HAM-A) and Depression (HAM-D) scores were low to start, and no treatment differences were evident at endpoint. Significantly (p < .001) more patients in the completer group were rated by clinicians as ADHD responders if they received dextroamphetamine (85.7%) or combined treatment (66.7%) versus paroxetine (20.0%) or placebo (21.1%). Significantly (p = .003) more patients in the completer group were rated by clinicians as mood/anxiety responders if they received paroxetine (100%) or combined treatment (73.3%) versus those receiving dextroamphetamine (57.15%) or placebo (47.4%). Clinicians rated any patient who received medication and psychological therapy as significantly more improved overall than those who received placebo and psychological therapy (intent to treat: p = .033; completers: p = .001). CONCLUSION: ADHD symptoms improved with dextroamphetamine. Mood and internalizing symptoms were seen as improved with paroxetine by clinicians, despite absence of response on the HAM-A and HAM-D. The presence of a lifetime internalizing disorder attenuated the response to dextroamphetamine. Patients who received both dextroamphetamine and paroxetine had more severe adverse events but did not show greater improvement overall than patients treated with 1 medication. Clinical Trials Registry #GSK707.     

Persistence of cognitive impairment in geriatric patients following antidepressant treatment: a randomized,double-blind clinical trial with nortriptyline and paroxetine

Cognitive dysfunction is common in older persons suffering from a major depression. However, the degree to which this dysfunction is reversible with successful treatment of the depression remains uncertain. The present study examined the effects that treatment (randomized double-blind design) with either an SSRI (paroxetine) or a tricyclic antidepressant (nortriptyline) had on cognition in older depressed patients. The patients' performance was compared to that of a group of normal controls of similar age and education. Patients and controls were administered measures of working memory, information-processing speed, episodic memory and attention five times over the course of a 12 week trial. At baseline, the patients performed more poorly than the elderly controls on all cognitive measures. While the patients' performance did improve over the course of their treatment, the magnitude of this improvement did not exceed that produced in the elderly controls by practice alone. The same pattern of results was evident in both intent-to-treat and responder analyses. Thus, there was no evidence that the depressed patients' cognitive performance normalized after response to antidepressant therapy. Neither the patients' age at onset nor their baseline level of cognitive functioning influenced the amount by which their performance improved over the 12 week trial. There was no difference between paroxetine and nortriptyline in the amount of cognitive change associated with treatment. The present results suggest that cognitive dysfunction persists in older depressed patients even after their mood disorder has responded to antidepressant medications.     

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

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

A controlled trial of paroxetine for chronic PTSD, dissociation, and interpersonal problems in mostly minority adults

This study evaluated the efficacy of paroxetine for symptoms and associated features of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), interpersonal problems, and dissociative symptoms in an urban population of mostly minority adults. Adult outpatients with a primary DSM-IV diagnosis of chronic PTSD received 1 week of single-blind placebo (N = 70). Those not rated as significantly improved were then randomly assigned to placebo (N = 27) or paroxetine (N = 25) for 10 weeks, with a flexible dosage design (maximum 60 mg by week 7). Significantly more patients treated with paroxetine were rated as responders (14/21, 66.7%) on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Scale (CGI-I) compared to patients treated with placebo (6/22, 27.3%). Mixed effects models showed greater reductions on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) total score (primary plus associated features of PTSD) in the paroxetine versus placebo groups. Paroxetine was also superior to placebo on reduction of dissociative symptoms [Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) score] and reduction in self-reported interpersonal problems [Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) score]. In a 12-week maintenance phase, paroxetine response continued to improve, but placebo response did not. Paroxetine was well tolerated and superior to placebo in ameliorating the symptoms of chronic PTSD, associated features of PTSD, dissociative symptoms, and interpersonal problems in the first trial conducted primarily in minority adults.     

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   

Efficacy and tolerability of controlled-release and immediate-release paroxetine in the treatment of depression

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant efficacy may be compromised by early discontinuation of treatment secondary to common, treatment-emergent side effects, including nausea, agitation, and somnolence. Paroxetine controlled-release (CR) was developed to improve general tolerability and, in particular, gastrointestinal tolerability. OBJECTIVE: To determine the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine CR in adult patients 18 to 65 years of age with DSM-IV major depressive disorder. METHOD: Paroxetine CR (25-62.5 mg/day; N = 212) and paroxetine immediate-release (IR; 20-50 mg/day; N = 217) were compared with placebo (N = 211) in the pooled dataset from 2 identical, double-blind, 12-week clinical trials. RESULTS: Both paroxetine CR and paroxetine IR exhibited efficacy in major depressive disorder as assessed by the reduction in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score compared with placebo. Moreover, depressed mood and psychic anxiety symptoms improved as early as treatment week 1 in the paroxetine CR group compared with the placebo group. After 6 weeks of treatment, response and remission rates were 41.5% and 20.5% for placebo, 52.8% and 29.6% for paroxetine IR, and 58.9% and 34.4% for paroxetine CR, respectively. After 12 weeks of treatment, response and remission rates were 61.2% and 44.0% for placebo, 72.9% and 52.5% for paroxetine IR, and 73.7% and 56.2% for paroxetine CR, respectively. Rates of nausea were significantly lower for paroxetine CR (14%) than for paroxetine IR (23%; p < or = .05) during week 1. Rates of dropout due to adverse events were comparable between paroxetine CR and placebo, while significantly (p = .0008) more patients treated with paroxetine IR withdrew from the study prematurely compared with those treated with placebo. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine CR is an effective and well-tolerated antidepressant exhibiting symptomatic improvement as early as week 1. Paroxetine CR is associated with low rates of early-onset nausea and dropout rates due to adverse events comparable to those of placebo. The clinical improvement seen with paroxetine CR, coupled with its favorable adverse event profile, suggests a benefit for therapeutic outcome with paroxetine CR.     

A placebo-controlled comparison of nortriptyline and phenelzine in maintenance therapy of elderly depressed patients

Fifty-one elderly depressed outpatients who had responded to antidepressants and completed continuation therapy were observed under double-blind conditions for 1 year. Twenty-three had been switched to placebo, while 13 and 15 took nortriptyline hydrochloride and phenelzine sulfate, respectively. Patients administered phenelzine did significantly better with 13.3% recurrences than patients administered either nortriptyline (53.8% recurrences) or placebo (65.2% recurrences). In addition, patients who had higher Hamilton scores and who had an earlier age of onset of the first depressive episode were significantly more likely to have recurrences.     

Controlled-release paroxetine in the treatment of patients with social anxiety disorder

BACKGROUND: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of the controlled-release (CR) formulation of paroxetine in adults with social anxiety disorder. METHOD: Outpatients with a primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder according to DSM-IV criteria entered a 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive paroxetine CR (flexible dose of 12.5-37.5 mg/day) or placebo for 12 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy measures were the change from baseline in Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) score and the proportion of responders based on Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-Global Improvement scale score. Data were gathered from September 2001 to July 2002. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population consisted of 186 patients randomly assigned to paroxetine CR and 184 patients randomly assigned to placebo. Statistically significant differences in favor of paroxetine CR compared with placebo were observed in the change from baseline to week 12 last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) dataset in LSAS total score (difference = -13.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -18.25 to -8.41, p <.001). In the CGI-Global Improvement responder analysis, 57.0% of patients treated with paroxetine CR achieved response (very much improved or much improved), compared with 30.4% of patients treated with placebo at week 12 LOCF (odds ratio = 3.12, 95% CI = 2.01 to 4.83, p <.001). Dropout rates due to adverse events were low and comparable in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine CR effectively treated the symptoms associated with social anxiety disorder and was well tolerated, with few patients stopping treatment due to adverse events. This favorable tolerability profile may enable more patients to experience the benefits of effective therapy.     

Effectiveness of low doses of paroxetine controlled release in the treatment of major depressive disorder

CONTEXT: Paroxetine controlled release (CR) is approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in the dosage range of 25 to 62.5 mg daily. However, lower daily doses (12.5 mg and 25 mg) of this formulation have not been investigated in the treatment of MDD. If the 12.5-mg and 25-mg doses are found to be efficacious, these lower doses may well convey a superior tolerability profile for paroxetine CR in the treatment of MDD. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability profile of daily doses of paroxetine CR 12.5 mg and 25 mg versus placebo in the treatment of MDD. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 40 clinical investigation centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 447 adult (> or = 18 years of age) outpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for MDD and with a baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of at least 20 comprised the intent-to-treat study population (mean age = 38.8 years; 58.4% female; 75.6% white). INTERVENTION: Eligible patients completing a 1-week single-blind placebo run-in period were randomly assigned to receive once-a-day study medication (paroxetine CR 12.5 mg [N = 156], paroxetine CR 25 mg [N = 154], or placebo [N = 149]) in an 8-week, double-blind, parallel cell comparison. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to study endpoint (week 8) as measured by the HAM-D. Secondary efficacy measures included change from baseline to study endpoint as assessed by both the depressed mood item on the HAM-D and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S). The proportion of patients considered at study endpoint to be in response (CGI-Improvement score of 1 or 2) or in remission (HAM-D < or = 7) in the 3 treatment groups was also compared. Quality of life was assessed by the change from baseline in total score of the short form of the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q). Safety observations were made by assessing the proportion of patients who had adverse experiences, including laboratory and electrocardiographic abnormalities, during the treatment period. RESULTS: The primary efficacy analysis revealed that both the 12.5-mg and the 25-mg paroxetine CR treatment groups were associated with significant therapeutic effects (change in HAM-D score) from baseline to study endpoint (LOCF: p = .038, 95% CI = -3.38 to -0.09 and p = .005, 95% CI = -4.06 to -0.74, respectively). Results from the Wilcoxon rank sum test of the depressed mood item of the HAM-D (p = .011, 95% CI = -0.57 to -0.07) demonstrated significant efficacy in the 25-mg treatment group but not in the 12.5-mg group. However, LOCF analysis of the CGI-S revealed significant therapeutic effects for both the 12.5-mg (p = .018, 95% CI = -0.61 to -0.06) and 25-mg (p < .001, 95% CI = -0.78 to -0.22) treatment groups. Significantly more patients in the 25-mg paroxetine CR-treated group than in the placebo-treated group met criteria for response (CGI-Improvement score of 1 or 2, p = .035, OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.04 to 2.73) as well as for remission (HAM-D score 相似文献   

A double-blind,comparative, multicentre study comparing paroxetine with fluoxetine in depressed patients

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 6-week study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of once or twice daily administration of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors paroxetine and fluoxetine. After a 1-week placebo wash-out, patients suffering from DSM-III major depression and with a score of 18 or more on the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) received either paroxetine or fluoxetine. The patients were assessed for efficacy using the HRSD, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression; for tolerability, adverse events were elicited by the use of a non-leading question and a side effects checklist. The groups of patients were comparable on entry to the study. One hundred patients were recruited into the study, of whom 78 were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. Paroxetine and fluoxetine showed comparable efficacy at the end of the 6-week treatment period, but a statistically significant difference in the number of responders at week 3 in favour of paroxetine was observed. This could suggest an earlier onset of action with paroxetine. Also, associated anxiety symptoms were significantly reduced on paroxetine compared with fluoxetine at week 3. Patients on paroxetine reported fewer adverse events than those on fluoxetine. The most commonly reported adverse events were nausea and vomiting in both groups.     

Time course of response to paroxetine: influence of plasma level

Early improvement of depression severity is considered an important therapeutic goal, predictive of later remission. The present study aimed at testing the hypothesis that plasma concentration might influence the time course of response to paroxetine. Eighty-four patients with a severe depressive episode started paroxetine 20 mg/day, with a possible dose adjustment to 30 mg/day after 2 weeks. Severity of depression (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) was assessed at weeks 0, 2 and 4 for all patients, and every 2 weeks thereafter until discontinuation. Median duration on paroxetine was 6 weeks (range 4-18 weeks). Plasma concentration was measured at steady-state after 2 weeks at 20 mg/day. In a first stage, pattern analysis led to distinguish patients with non-response, non-persistent response, early persistent response (obtained at week 2) and delayed persistent response (week 4 or later). Comparison of patients with (n=29, 34.5%) and without persistent response (n=55, 65.5%) did not reveal any significant difference, whereas focus on patients with persistent response indicated that shorter time to response was significantly associated with shorter duration of current episode (r(S)=0.54, p=0.003) and higher plasma level (r(S)=-0.47, p=0.011). In a second stage, a sigmoid mixed effects model was developed that adequately fitted depression severity versus time profiles among patients with persistent response (n=157 data for 29 patients). Estimated median time to response was 3.2 weeks (range 0.9-6.6). Higher paroxetine concentration, younger age and shorter episode duration were confirmed as significant determinants of a shorter time to response (likelihood ratio tests, p<0.005). The present study supports the hypothesis that higher paroxetine concentration might contribute to hasten relief of depressive symptoms in severely depressed patients.     

Brain kinetics of paroxetine and fluoxetine on the third day of placebo substitution: a fluorine MRS study

OBJECTIVE: This study tested whether a relationship exists between concentration and response following discontinuation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. METHOD: Eight patients with remitted major depression who were taking 20 mg/day of either fluoxetine or paroxetine underwent placebo substitution for 3 days. Serum drug and brain fluorine levels were obtained before and after placebo substitution. RESULTS: With placebo substitution, a mean of 88% (SD=13%) of brain fluorine signal from fluoxetine (plus fluorinated metabolites) remained, compared with a mean of 38% (SD=17%) of the brain fluorine signal from paroxetine (plus fluorinated metabolites). Among patients taking paroxetine, adverse events during placebo substitution correlated highly with steady-state brain drug levels. CONCLUSIONS: The correlation of clinical effects with brain drug levels in the paroxetine group suggests that relationships between drug response and brain drug concentrations merit further investigation.