Simulated home treatment of depression with nortriptyline

1. Twenty-two patients hospitalized for treatment of depression were treated under conditions simulating those of home treatment. 2. Full doses of nortriptyline, from 100 to 150 mg/day, were started after baseline observations were made. 3. Two patients were dropped from the study, one for orthostatic hypotension, one for an aberrant response to nortriptyline. Two additional patients developed orthostasis which was easily managed. Otherwise no unusual side effects were noted. 4. After six days of treatment, 9 of 20 patients showed significant improvement with an overall reduction in scores on the Hamilton Depression Scale of 49% for the entire group. 5. Using the weight-adjusted dosage schedule, 18 of the 21 patients attained plasma concentrations of nortriptyline within the presumed therapeutic range; however, no clear relationship could be established between plasma concentrations and clinical response. 6. With proper selection of patients, it should be possible to treat at home some patients who currently are considered to require hospitalization.     

Heuristic comparison of sertraline with nortriptyline for the treatment of depression in frail elderly patients.

Studies have demonstrated that the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants have similar efficacy to other agents, such as tricyclic antidepressants. However, data are limited for direct comparisons with other antidepressants. The authors conducted a contemporaneous comparison of nursing home residents treated with open-label sertraline in doses up to 100 mg/day with nursing home residents treated in a double-blind randomized study of low vs. regular doses of nortriptyline. There were 97 patients enrolled in the study (28 treated with sertraline), with an average treatment duration of 55 days. There were no differences in the tolerability of sertraline vs. nortriptyline. However, in this group of frail older adults, sertraline was not as effective as nortriptyline for the treatment of depression.     

Nortriptyline pharmacokinetics and plasma levels: implications for clinical practice

The pharmacokinetics of TCAs are reviewed with particular emphasis on nortriptyline, the agent most extensively studied. The clinical uses of TCA plasma level-response studies are discussed in relationship to rational dosage adjustment to increase response rates and avoid iatrogenic toxicity. Other important topics discussed include the issue of active metabolites, single-dose prediction studies, and special considerations in treating the elderly and the medically ill.     

Nortriptyline versus fluoxetine in the treatment of depression and in short-term recovery after stroke: a placebo-controlled, double-blind study

OBJECTIVE: This study compared nortriptyline and fluoxetine with placebo in the treatment of depression and in recovery from physical and cognitive impairments after stroke. METHOD: A total of 104 patients with acute stroke enrolled between 1991 and 1997 entered a double-blind randomized study comparing nortriptyline, fluoxetine, and placebo over 12 weeks of treatment. The majority of patients were recruited from a rehabilitation hospital in Des Moines, Iowa, but other enrollment sites were also used. Both depressed and nondepressed patients were enrolled to determine whether improved recovery could be mediated by mechanisms unrelated to depression. Nortriptyline in doses of 25 mg/day gradually increased to 100 mg/day or fluoxetine in doses of 10 mg/day gradually increased to 40 mg/day or identical placebo were given over 12 weeks. Response to treatment of depression for individual patients was defined as a greater-than-50% reduction in scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and no longer fulfilling diagnostic criteria for major or minor depression. Improved recovery for a treatment group was defined as a significantly higher mean score from baseline to end of the treatment trial, compared with patients treated with placebo, on measures of impairment in activities of daily living and levels of cognitive and social functioning. RESULTS: Nortriptyline produced a significantly higher response rate than fluoxetine or placebo in treating poststroke depression, in improving anxiety symptoms, and in improving recovery of activities of daily living as measured by the Functional Independence Measure. There was no effect of nortriptyline or fluoxetine on recovery of cognitive or social functioning among depressed or nondepressed patients. Fluoxetine in increasing doses of 10-40 mg/day led to an average weight loss of 15. 1 pounds (8% of initial body weight) over 12 weeks of treatment that was not seen with nortriptyline or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Given the doses of medication used in this study, nortriptyline was superior to fluoxetine in the treatment of poststroke depression. Demonstrating a benefit of antidepressant treatment in recovery from stroke may require the identification of specific subgroups of patients, alternative measurement scales, or the optimal time of treatment.     

Relationship of free nortriptyline levels to therapeutic response

The relationship between the free plasma concentration of nortriptyline and therapeutic response was examined. Eighteen depressed inpatients were treated for 21 days with steady state total nortriptyline plasma concentrations between 50-150 ng/ml. Steady state free nortriptyline concentrations were measured. The therapeutic nortriptyline response was measured by administering the Hamilton and the Carroll Rating scales at day zero and day 21. Statistical relationships between free levels of drug and clinical response were found to be insignificant. Qualitative assessment of the data suggest that free serum levels of nortriptyline in excess of 10 ng/ml may have an inhibitory effect on clinical response.     

Clinical response and plasma levels: effect of dose, dosage schedules, and drug interactions on plasma chlorpromazine levels.

Plasma chlorpromazine (CPZ) levels of 50 psychotic inpatients were measured by gas liquid chromatography; the clinical progress of 29 of these patients with acute psychoses was also assessed. CPZ levels of 50-300 ng/ml were usually associated with clinical improvement; there was also a relationship between CPZ levels and increases in certain symptoms. The 50-300 ng/ml level was best attained by doses of 400-800 mg/day. Trihexyphenidyl decreased plasma CPZ by a mean of 44.7% in 12 of 15 patients. A single 400-800-mg dose of CPZ at bedtime produced steady states equal to or better than those achieved with multiple doses. Those patients who failed to attain CPZ levels of more than 70 ng/ml despite doses of 400-1000 mg/day were receiving lithium throughout the study and had discharge diagnoses of manic-depressive psychosis, manic type, and schizo-affective schizophrenia--a finding with implications for future research.     

Usefulness of plasma haloperidol levels for monitoring clinical efficacy and side effects in Alzheimer patients with psychosis and behavioral dyscontrol.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether measurement of plasma levels may be useful in monitoring clinical efficacy and side effects during oral haloperidol (HL) treatment of psychosis and behavioral dyscontrol in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: After a single-blind placebo period of 1 week, 71 outpatients with AD were randomized to a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of HL 2 mg-3 mg/day (standard dose), HL 0.5 mg-0.75 mg/day (low dose), or placebo, with plasma levels for HL drawn at the end of 6 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 40 patients who received active HL for 6 weeks, 35 had plasma levels drawn. Plasma levels were all below the lower limit of the postulated therapeutic range in schizophrenia. Nonetheless, HL plasma level significantly correlated with clinical efficacy as measured by reduction in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Total score, Psychosis factor, and Hostile-Suspiciousness factor, the Behavioral Syndromes Scale for Dementia Psychomotor Agitation scale, and with the severity of extrapyramidal side effects (EPS). Oral dose did not significantly correlate with any of these efficacy or side-effect measures. Plasma levels significantly correlated with HL dose. When both HL dose and HL plasma level were included as independent variables in linear-regression analyses, only HL plasma level was a significant predictor of efficacy and EPS. CONCLUSION: Measurement of HL plasma levels may have potential usefulness as an adjunct in monitoring treatment response to oral HL in AD patients with psychosis or disruptive behavior.     

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.     

Valpromide-amitriptyline interaction. Increase in the bioavailability of amitriptyline and nortriptyline caused by valpromide

Valpromide is largely used in the therapy of affective disorders for its presumed thymoregulating activity. So, it is often associated with tricyclic antidepressant treatment. Previous clinical studies lead us to consider the possibility of an interaction between valpromide and tricyclic antidepressants, interaction which could result in an increase of antidepressant plasma concentrations. But no pharmacokinetic study has been realized up to now in order to clearly demonstrate such a phenomenon. The authors studied amitriptyline and nortriptyline plasma levels in two groups of ten patients receiving 125 mg amitriptyline, once a day, during 20 days. In the second group, patients also received 600 mg valpromide daily after ten days on amitriptyline. In the first group amitriptyline and nortriptyline plasma concentrations remained stable between the tenth and the twentieth day. In the second group, addition of valpromide resulted in a significant increase of antidepressant plasma levels: from 70.5 +/- 35 to 105.5 +/- 49 ng/ml (p less than 0.0003) for amitriptyline, and from 61.0 +/- 34 to 100.5 +/- 65 ng/ml (p less than 0.01) for nortriptyline.     

Plasma levels, psychophysiological variables, and clinical response to amitriptyline

Hamilton depression scale ratings and physiological measurements were made for 37 patients with primary depression before treatment with amitriptyline (150 mg/day) and again after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment; plasma drug levels were determined weekly. Improvement was maximal at mean amitriptyline + nortriptyline concentrations of 125-200 ng/ml (14 patients), while at lower levels the outcome was significantly poorer (12 patients). Highly variable results were seen in 11 patients with levels between 200 and 301 ng/ml, with lesser improvement occurring in those patients who exhibited poor habituation of the skin resistance response before treatment. Other psychophysiological variables showed significant changes during treatment, but no correlation with clinical results or drug levels.     

Nortriptyline in geriatric depression resistant to serotonin reuptake inhibitors: case series

Research on treatment-resistant depression in the elderly has been limited, and recommendations for clinical management have often been extrapolated from studies using nongeriatric patients. This report describes a series of 10 elderly patients with refractory depression who were treated with nortriptyline after failing to respond to an adequate trial of a serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Seven (70%) of the patients responded to the addition or substitution of nortriptyline. All seven of the responders have remained on nortriptyline for maintenance therapy, none of whom have experienced recurrence of their depression after an average treatment duration of 1 year. Response to nortriptyline occurred in about 4 weeks in most patients. The mean daily dose of nortriptyline was 54 mg, and the mean plasma level was 97 ng/mL. Minor side effects occurred in three patients. No patients developed significant electrocardiogram changes. Nortriptyline, possibly due to its different mechanism of action, may be effective as either an adjunctive or replacement antidepressant in some cases of geriatric depression that are resistant to serotonin reuptake inhibitors.     

Patterns and predictors of remission,response and recovery in major depression treated with fluoxetine or nortriptyline

OBJECTIVE: The first objective of this paper was to describe the pattern of remission, response and recovery in patients with major depression who were randomised for treatment with fluoxetine ornortriptyline. The second objective was to report on the demographic and diagnostic predictors of the response and recovery in these depressed patients. METHOD: One hundred and ninety-five patients with major depression were recruited for this outpatient study. After a detailed clinical and neurobiological evaluation patients were randomized to receive either fluoxetine or nortiptyline as an initial antidepressant treatment. RESULTS: Of the 195 depressed patients randomised to treatment,154 completed an adequate 6-week trial of either fluoxetine or nortriptyline as their initial antidepressant. Of the 41 patients who did not complete an adequate trial the dropout rate was higher on those randomized to nortriptyline (p = 0.02). There was also an important interaction of drug and gender in determining dropouts in that women did not complete an adequate trial with nortriptyline and men did not complete an adequate trial with fluoxetine (p = 0.002).Of the 154 patients who completed an adequate 6-week antidepressant trial there were no significant differences in 6-week measures of depression severity or of percentage improvement. However, if we use an intention to treat analysis and dichotomise outcomes into response,remission or recovery; then recovery rates were significantly higher with fluoxetine than nortriptyline (p = 0.005).Using an intention to treat analysis fluoxetine was superior tonortriptyline in women, in those less than 25-years old, and in those with atypical depression. Independent of drug, those with chronic depressions had a poorer outcome. CONCLUSION: In this sample of depressed patients randomized tonortriptyline or fluoxetine the change in depressive symptoms over 6 weeks were comparable between fluoxetine and nortriptyline. However,when we look at the more clinically important variable of recovery then fluoxetine was superior to nortriptyline. Predictors of a poorer response to nortriptyline were gender, young age and atypical depression.The results challenge traditional beliefs that selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressant have comparable efficacy.     

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.     

Amitriptyline and nortriptyline plasma levels, urinary 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol and clinical response in depressed women

Thirty-eight depressed female inpatients, treated intramuscularly with 100 mg/day amitriptyline (AMT), were monitored to investigate the relationships between plasma levels of the drug and its metabolite nortriptyline (NT), the urinary excretion of 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol (MHPG), side effects and clinical response. Considering the whole group, the clinical improvement was better within an intermediate range of AMT plus NT plasma concentrations (100-200 ng/ml). A more favorable outcome was also observed at NT plasma levels below 55 ng/ml. No significantly different percent clinical response among the patient clinical subgroups was observed as well as no significant correlations between MHPG decrease and drug plasma levels.     

Are nursing home patients with dementia diagnosis at increased risk for inadequate pain treatment?

BACKGROUND: Mentally impaired and demented nursing home patients are at increased risk of undertreatment for pain. We wanted to examine pain assessment and complaints and pain treatment of nursing home patients according to mental state, and with special regard to treatment of patients with dementia diagnosis and cognitively impaired patients who did not have a dementia diagnosis. METHODS: Cross sectional study from three nursing homes in Bergen, Norway including 125 persons (median age 84 years), living permanently in a nursing home. Diagnoses and prescribed and administered analgesic drugs were recorded. An experienced nurse interviewed nurses in charge and patients regarding presence of pain during the last week. Patients who were able to answer whether they had experienced pain during the last week were categorised as communicative. Cognitive function was assessed by means of the Abbreviated Mental Test. RESULTS: Seventeen percent of the patients were cognitively intact, 30% cognitively impaired and 54% had a dementia diagnosis. Forty-seven percent of communicative patients complained of pain, nurses reported pain in 67% patients. Twenty-nine percent of the patients had received scheduled analgesics during the last week, cognitively intact patients 38%, cognitively impaired 30%, demented 25% (p = 0.53). Twenty percent were given analgesics PRN: cognitively intact patients 33%, cognitively impaired 27%, demented 12% (p = 0.05). Logistic regression analyses revealed that patients with dementia diagnosis were less likely to receive PRN medication [Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.22 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-0.76] compared to mentally impaired patients. Regarding scheduled medication there was no difference between the groups. Nurses' opinion of pain was a significant factor for receiving analgesic drugs, scheduled AOR 3.95 95% CI 1.48-10.5, PRN 3.80-95% CI 1.28-11.3). CONCLUSIONS: A label of dementia may bias the interpretation of pain cues of demented patients, while complaints from cognitively impaired patients may be taken for granted. This may contribute to lower use of PRN medication in demented patients compared to cognitively impaired patients.     

Risperidone, 2 mg/day vs. 4 mg/day,in first-episode,acutely psychotic patients: treatment efficacy and effects on fine motor functioning

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine differences in the improvement of clinical psychopathology and in fine motor functions at 2 doses of risperidone in first-episode, acutely psychotic patients. METHOD: In a double-blind, fixed-dose study, 49 acutely psychotic, neuroleptic-naive patients who were admitted for the first time and who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder were randomly assigned to 2 or 4 mg/day of risperidone. Treatment efficacy was measured using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, The Clinical Global Impressions scale, and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale. Fine motor functions were assessed using a computerized device (the Vienna Test System) and were compared with those of a control group of 20 healthy subjects who were matched for age, gender, and educational level. RESULTS: Treatment with doses of 2 and 4 mg of risperidone daily significantly reduced positive (p < .0001) and negative (p < .01) symptoms at 8 weeks. Although there were no significant differences in motor movements as measured using the Barnes Akathisia Scale and the Simpson-Angus Scale, computerized fine motor assessment showed significantly less motor dysfunction in the 2-mg/day group at 8 weeks. No significant correlations to plasma concentration of active moiety were found for data on psychopathology and fine motor functions. CONCLUSION: The 2 doses of risperidone did not differ in terms of clinical improvement, but the 2-mg/day dose produced fewer fine motor dysfunctions. These results suggest that a dose as low as 2 mg/day of risperidone may be effective for patients with first-episode psychosis.     

Olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for treatment-resistant depression: a controlled study of SSRI and nortriptyline resistance

BACKGROUND: This 8-week, double-blind, multicenter study was undertaken to replicate, in a larger sample of patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD; DSM-IV criteria), the results of a pilot study of the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination. METHOD: The study was begun in August 1999. The primary entry criterion was a history of failure to respond to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Patients (N = 500) who subsequently failed to respond to nortriptyline during an open-label lead-in phase were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: olanzapine (6-12 mg/day) plus fluoxetine (25-50 mg/day) combination, olanzapine (6-12 mg/day), fluoxetine (25-50 mg/day), or nortriptyline (25-175 mg/day). The primary outcome measure was baseline-to-endpoint mean change in score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). RESULTS: At the 8-week study endpoint, MADRS total scores decreased by a mean 8.7 points from baseline (28.5) with the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, 7.0 points from baseline (28.4) with olanzapine (p = .08), 8.5 points from baseline (28.4) with fluoxetine (p = .84), and 7.5 points from baseline (28.8) with nortriptyline (p = .30), with no significant differences among the therapies. The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination was associated with significantly (p < or = .05) greater improvement (decrease) in MADRS scores than olanzapine at weeks 2, 4, 6, and 7; than fluoxetine at weeks 2 through 5; and than nortriptyline at weeks 1 through 4. A post hoc analysis of a subgroup of patients who had an SSRI treatment failure during their current MDD episode (N = 314) revealed that the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination group had a significantly (p = .005) greater decrease in MADRS scores than the olanzapine group at endpoint. Safety data for the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination were similar to those for its component monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination did not differ significantly from the other therapies at endpoint, although it demonstrated a more rapid response that was sustained until the end of treatment. The results raised several methodological questions, and recommendations are made regarding the criteria for study entry and randomization.     

Lamotrigine versus valproate monotherapy-associated weight change in adolescents with epilepsy: results from a post hoc analysis of a randomized,double-blind clinical trial

Recent trends toward obesity and associated health risks in children highlight the significance of weight gain as a side effect with certain antiepilepsy drugs. No previous study has prospectively compared, in adolescents, weight effects for two commonly used antiepilepsy drugs. We report results from a post hoc subanalysis of adolescent data from a randomized, double-blind study comparing weight effects of lamotrigine and valproate. Patients were > or = 12 years of age with new-onset partial or generalized seizures who were randomized 1:1 to lamotrigine or valproate. Patients were escalated to a dose range of 100 to 500 mg/day for lamotrigine and 10 to 60 mg/kg/day for valproate based on clinical response, with target doses maintained for 24 weeks. Results are reported for adolescents aged 12 to 20 years. Weight changes during maintenance were higher (P < .05) in valproate (n = 20) patients than in lamotrigine (n = 18) patients, and change in body mass index was higher (P < .05) in valproate patients at the end of the study. At week 32, mean body mass index in the valproate group was above the 85th percentile representing "at risk for overweight." Whereas weight remained stable in adolescents treated with lamotrigine, weight increased in those treated with valproate by week 10 of this study and continued to increase at the end of the study.     

Comparison of sertraline and nortriptyline in the treatment of major depressive disorder in late life

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of sertraline and nortriptyline for the treatment of major depressive disorder in older adults. METHOD: A double-blind, parallel group design was used to compare 210 outpatients, 60 years of age and older, who met DSM-III-R criteria for major depressive episode and had a minimum Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of 18. The patients were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of treatment with either sertraline (50-150 mg/day) or nortriptyline (25-100 mg/day). RESULTS: The safety profiles of the two treatments were similar except that nortriptyline treatment was associated with a significant increase in pulse rate, whereas sertraline was associated with a nonsignificant decrease. Efficacy of both drugs was similar for both treatments at all time points, with 71.6% (N=53 of 74) of the sertraline-treated patients and 61.4% (N=43 of 70) of the nortriptyline-treated patients achieving responder status by week 12. Time to response was also similar, with more than 75% of the improvement in scores on the Hamilton depression scale having occurred by week 6. Secondary efficacy measures (posttreatment measures of cognitive function, memory, and quality of life) revealed a significant advantage for sertraline treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Primary efficacy measures showed sertraline and nortriptyline to be similarly effective. With secondary outcome measures there was consistent evidence of an advantage for the sertraline-treated group. The clinical impact of these measures on the long-term well-being of elderly depressed patients should be examined in a study of maintenance treatment.     

Multicenter investigation of the opioid antagonist nalmefene in the treatment of pathological gambling

OBJECTIVE: Pathological gambling is a disabling disorder experienced by approximately 1%-2% of adults and for which there are few empirically validated treatments. The authors examined the efficacy and tolerability of the opioid antagonist nalmefene in the treatment of adults with pathological gambling. METHOD: A 16-week, randomized, dose-ranging, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 15 outpatient treatment centers across the United States between March 2002 and April 2003. Two hundred seven persons with DSM-IV pathological gambling were randomly assigned to receive nalmefene (25 mg/day, 50 mg/day, or 100 mg/day) or placebo. Scores on the primary outcome measure (Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale Modified for Pathological Gambling) were analyzed by using a linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Estimated regression coefficients showed that the 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day nalmefene groups had significantly different scores on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale Modified for Pathological Gambling, compared to the placebo group. A total of 59.2% of the subjects who received 25 mg/day of nalmefene were rated as "much improved" or "very much improved" at the last evaluation, compared to 34.0% of those who received placebo. Adverse experiences included nausea, dizziness, and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects who received nalmefene had a statistically significant reduction in severity of pathological gambling. Low-dose nalmefene (25 mg/day) appeared efficacious and was associated with few adverse events. Higher doses (50 mg/day and 100 mg/day) resulted in intolerable side effects.