Intramuscular testosterone supplementation to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in treatment-resistant depressed men: randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Treatment-resistant depression is a persistent clinical problem. Exogenous testosterone therapy has psychotropic effects and has been proposed as an antidepressant supplement, although this strategy has received limited systematic study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to examine the mood effects of testosterone supplementation to a serotonergic antidepressant in men with treatment-resistant depression. METHOD: Twenty-six healthy adult men with major depressive disorder, partial or nonresponse to 2 adequate antidepressant trials during the current episode, and currently using a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor were randomized under double-blind conditions to receive intramuscular injections of escalating doses of testosterone or placebo, in addition to their existing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor regimen, for 6 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score. RESULTS: The mean age was 46.4 +/- 10.8 years; mean total testosterone level, 417.5 +/- 197 ng/dL; mean baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score, 22.2 +/- 5.2; and median duration of the current depressive episode, 6.3 +/- 10.6 years. Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores decreased significantly in both testosterone (8.4) and placebo (7.4) groups. Antidepressant response, defined as a 50% decline in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score, was achieved by 53.8% (7/13) in the testosterone group and 23.1% (3/13) in the placebo group (P = 0.226). CONCLUSION: Both injectable testosterone and placebo supplementation to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor were associated with improvement in mood; group differences were not distinguishable in this small sample of predominantly eugonadal men with treatment-resistant depression.     

Desipramine treatment of cocaine-dependent patients with depression: a placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that desipramine would be an effective treatment in cocaine abusers with current depressive disorders. METHOD: This was a randomized, 12-week, double-blind, 'placebo-controlled trial of outpatients (N = 111) meeting DSM-III-R criteria for cocaine dependence and major depression or dysthymia (by SCID interview). Participants were treated with desipramine, up to 300 mg per day, or matching placebo. All patients received weekly individual manual-guided relapse prevention therapy. Weekly outcome measures included the Clinical Global Impression Scale, self-reported cocaine use and craving, urine toxicology, and the Hamilton Depression Scale (biweekly). Summary measures of mood and cocaine use outcome were compared between treatment groups with chi2- or t-tests. Dichotomous summary measures of depression response and cocaine response were the primary outcomes. Mixed effect models were also fit to explore the relationship of cocaine use to mood improvement and treatment over weeks in the trial. RESULTS: Desipramine was associated with a higher rate of depression response (51%, 28/55) than placebo (32%, 18/56) (p < 0.05), but treatment groups did not differ in rate of cocaine response. Depression improvement was associated with improvement in cocaine use. Desipramine was associated with more dropouts due to side effects and medical adverse events, while placebo was associated with more dropouts due to psychiatric worsening. CONCLUSIONS: Desipramine was an effective treatment for depression among cocaine-dependent patients. Improvement in mood was associated with improvement in cocaine abuse, but a direct effect of medication on cocaine outcome was not clearly established and rates of sustained abstinence were low. Future research should examine newer antidepressant medications with more benign side effect profiles and combinations of behavioral and pharmacological treatments to maximize effects on cocaine use.     

A double-blind, randomized study of olanzapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for major depression with psychotic features

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine (OLZ) monotherapy and an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) with placebo (PLA) for unipolar major depression with psychotic features. Under a single protocol, two 8-week, double-blind trials were conducted at 27 sites. Patients (n = 124 trial 1, n = 125 trial 2) were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: OLZ (5 to 20 mg/d), PLA, or OFC (olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/d + fluoxetine 20 to 80 mg/d). The primary outcome measure was the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score. For trial 1, endpoint improvement for the OLZ group (-14.9) was not significantly different from the PLA or OFC groups. The OFC group had significantly greater endpoint improvement (-20.9) than the PLA group (-10.4, P = 0.001); this significant difference was present within 7 days of therapy and maintained at every subsequent visit. The OFC group also had significantly higher response rate (63.6%) than the PLA (28.0%, P = 0.004) or OLZ (34.9%, P = 0.027) groups. For trial 2, there were no significant differences among treatment groups on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores or response rates. The combination exhibited a comparable safety profile with OLZ monotherapy and no significant increases in extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. Patients with major depression with psychotic features treated with OLZ monotherapy did not demonstrate significant depressive symptom improvement compared with placebo in either trial; however, an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination was associated with significant improvement compared with placebo in one trial and was well tolerated.     

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.     

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.     

Short-term testosterone augmentation in male schizophrenics: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Although there are few studies on the treatment of schizophrenia with testosterone, several indirect findings have suggested testosterone as a possible treatment modality for schizophrenia. To explore the therapeutic effect of testosterone augmentation of antipsychotic medication on symptoms in male patients with schizophrenia, the authors performed a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial on 30 schizophrenic men, using either 5 g of 1% testosterone gel (Testogel; Besins Iscovesco, Paris, France) or a placebo added to a fixed dosage of antipsychotic medication over a period of 4 weeks with a 2-week washout period. In addition, to get additional information about the involvement of these reproductive hormones after testosterone augmentation, the authors evaluated several hormones such as total testosterone, free testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, estradiol, and prolactin. Results indicated a significant improvement of negative symptoms in both the last observation carried forward and the completer analyses and a nonsignificant trend for the improvement of depressive symptoms in completers. There were no significant changes in serum hormone levels except total and free testosterone. The findings of this study suggest that testosterone augmentation may be a potential therapeutic strategy in patients with schizophrenia.     

Failed efficacy of fluoxetine in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: results of a fixed-dose, placebo-controlled study

A multicenter, double-blind, 12-week, placebo-controlled trial of 411 randomized patients, predominantly women diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, failed to show a difference between either dose of fluoxetine treatment and placebo. The mean changes from baseline (SD) measured by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale scores were -42.9 (23.1), -42.8 (27.9), and -36.6 (25.7) in the 20-mg fluoxetine, 40-mg fluoxetine, and placebo arms, respectively. Placebo response rate was substantially higher in this study than in a previously published fluoxetine trial of posttraumatic stress disorder.     

High-dose fluoxetine: efficacy and activating-sedating effects in agitated and retarded depression

The effects of high-dose fluoxetine (median 80 mg/day), standard-dose imipramine (median 200 mg/day), and placebo were studied in 706 outpatients meeting DSM-III criteria for major depressive disorder. Baseline psychomotor activity of each patient was prospectively categorized as agitated, retarded, or neither. Rates of occurrence of total and significant (leading to discontinuation) activating adverse events (insomnia, agitation, anxiety, nervousness) and sedating events (somnolence, asthenia) were compared between treatments on an overall basis and within categories of baseline psychomotor activity. Additionally, these rates were compared across baseline psychomotor activity for each treatment. Efficacy was evaluated on an overall basis and with respect to baseline psychomotor activity. There was more total activation with fluoxetine than placebo (p = 0.008), but total activation with fluoxetine (28%) showed only a trend (p = 0.092) for being greater than with imipramine (21%). Discontinuations for activation with fluoxetine (5%) did not differ from imipramine (5%). Sedation and discontinuations for sedation with both fluoxetine and imipramine significantly exceeded placebo. The only drug-drug difference in discontinuations was for sedation where imipramine (11%) exceeded fluoxetine (5%; p = 0.008). Only for the occurrence of sedation with imipramine (47% among patients retarded at baseline) was there a significant association with baseline psychomotor activity (p = 0.021). Both fluoxetine and imipramine were superior to placebo and equal in efficacy in decreasing total Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the sleep disturbance HAM-D factor, and the anxiety/somatization HAM-D factor scores. These improvements were independent of baseline psychomotor activity.     

Long-term treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder after an acute response: a comparison of fluoxetine versus placebo

Few controlled studies have evaluated the long-term continuation of pharmacotherapy for relapse prevention in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). This study assessed efficacy and safety of fluoxetine versus placebo in preventing relapse of OCD during a 52-week period in responders to short-term administration of fluoxetine. Patients who met DSM-IV criteria for OCD and had a Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score > or = 19 were treated with single-blind fluoxetine 20, 40, or 60 mg/day (based on physician assessment of response and tolerability). After 20 weeks, responders were randomly assigned to receive continued treatment with fluoxetine or placebo and were monitored for relapse for up to 52 weeks. Of 130 patients who entered the study, 71 (55%) were randomly assigned to receive fluoxetine (N = 36) or placebo (N = 35). Patients who received fluoxetine had numerically lower relapse rates compared with those who received placebo, although the difference was not significant (Kaplan-Meier 1-year relapse rates: fluoxetine, 20.6%; placebo, 31.9%; one-tailed p value = 0.137). In additional analyses evaluating patients on the basis of fluoxetine dose at randomization, patients who continued treatment with fluoxetine 60 mg/day (N = 52) had significantly lower rates of relapse than those who were switched to placebo (Kaplan-Meier 1-year relapse rates: fluoxetine, 17.5%; placebo, 38.0%; one-tailed p value = 0.041). Those who responded to the acute treatment phase with 40 (N = 18) or 20 (N = 1) mg/day had low overall rates of relapse, and the difference between continued fluoxetine and placebo treatment for these patients was not significant. For responders to the 60 mg/day dosage, those patients who continued treatment with fluoxetine were provided greater protection against relapse than those patients switched to placebo.     

St John's wort extract (LI 160) in somatoform disorders: results of a placebo-controlled trial

Abstract Rationale and objective. Preliminary data have shown that St John's wort might possess some specific efficacy in patients with somatoform complaints. Therefore, the efficacy of the Hypericum extract LI 160 in patients with somatoform disorders should be studied in a double-blind placebo-controlled fashion. Methods. This was a multicentre, randomised, placebo controlled, 6-week trial comparing the efficacy of LI 160 (600 mg/day) and placebo in 151 out-patients suffering from somatization disorder (ICD-10: F45.0), undifferentiated somatoform disorder (F45.1), or somatoform autonomic dysfunctions (F45.3). The primary outcome measure was the decrease of the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, subfactor somatic anxiety (HAMA-SOM), during the trial period. Results. LI 160 was superior effective concerning the primary outcome criterion HAMA-SOM [decrease from 15.39 (SD 2.68) to 6.64 (4.32) in the Hypericum group and from 15.55 (2.94) to 11.97 (5.58) in the placebo group (statistically significant difference, P=0.001)]. This was corroborated by the result of a statistically significant superior efficacy in the outcome criteria additionally used such as Clinical Global Impression, HAMA-total score, HAMA, subscore psychic anxiety, Hamilton Depression Scale, Self-Report Symptom Inventory 90 items – revised (SCL-90-R), and SCL-90-R, subscore somatic anxiety. The efficacy of LI 160 was preserved after splitting the population in those with mild and those with severe depressive symptoms. Tolerability of LI 160 was excellent. Conclusion. The data from this trial show excellent efficacy and tolerability for LI 160 in somatoform disorders. The efficacy is independent of an existing depressive mood. This is the first study showing the efficacy of a drug in patients with somatisation disorder independent of depressive symptomatology. Electronic Publication     

New statistical proposals to evaluate the benefit/risk ratio of long-term treatment of depression: application to a one-year double-blind study comparing medifoxamine with fluoxetine

The aim of this study was to determine the benefit/risk ratio of long-term treatment with medifoxamine, a non-tricyclic, non-monoamine oxidase inhibitor agent, and fluoxetine in patients with acute depressive episode and at high risk of relapse and/or recurrence. The study involved a 12-month double-blind, randomised, parallel-group design with a multicentric trial setting conducted by 64 participating physicians. 155 and 158 patients of either gender, aged between 18 and 70 years, were allocated to fluoxetine and medifoxamine, respectively. All patients had an acute depressive episode defined by the presence of at least five of the DSM III-R criteria with a minimal score of 25 on the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). All subjects had at least one previous documented depressive episode in their medical history. The main outcome criterion consisted of good therapeutic response defined by a sustained 50% reduction of the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) score combined with the absence of any serious or troublesome (i.e. intensity motivating study discontinuation) events. In the fluoxetine and medifoxamine groups, respectively, 45.2% and 43% of the randomised patients completed the 12-month follow-up period with no major differences between groups regarding the reasons for treatment withdrawal. With each treatment 58% of the patients reached at least a 50% decrease in their CGI score, with no differences on the evolution of the MADRS, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), the Self Rating Depression Scale of Zung (Zung scale) and Scott depression visual analogue scale (VAS) scores on average. According to the main efficacy criterion, 26% of the patients in the fluoxetine group were considered as responders compared with 36% in the medifoxamine group (p = 0.047). When only serious adverse effects were considered in combination with CGI scores to define response rates, the respective percentages were in favour of medifoxamine but the difference (45 vs 53%) was not significant. Results with medifoxamine were better in the elderly whereas, with fluoxetine, best responses were observed in younger patients. In conclusion, medifoxamine was an active and well tolerated drug in the continuation and maintenance treatment of depression. Its benefit/risk ratio appeared to be superior to fluoxetine, but this difference was mainly based on the occurrence of less minor adverse effects, a potential advantage not sufficient to favour better compliance with long-term therapy. Nevertheless, efficacy and tolerance of medifoxamine merits further evaluation in specific elderly populations.     

Venlafaxine XR demonstrates higher rates of sustained remission compared to fluoxetine, paroxetine or placebo

The combined serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, venlafaxine XR, has demonstrated significant response and remission in patients diagnosed with depression when measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). This pooled analysis of data from five studies compared the sustained remission of depressive symptoms in patients treated with venlafaxine XR, the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fluoxetine or paroxetine, or placebo. Data from 1391 subjects enrolled in five active and placebo-controlled studies who met the DSM-III-R or DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder were analysed. Three treatment groups were compared: venlafaxine XR (n = 560), fluoxetine/paroxetine (n = 298) and placebo (n = 496). Mean treatment duration was 8 weeks. Responders were defined as those patients whose HAM-D-21 score decreased by > or = 50% from baseline. Remission was defined as a HAM-D-17 score < or = 7. Sustained remission was defined as maintenance of remission through week 8 or the end of treatment (if before week 8) and for > or = 2 weeks. Between-group rate comparisons in outcome measures were carried out using Fisher's exact and log-rank tests. Venlafaxine XR produced significantly higher rates of sustained remission in depressed patients compared to fluoxetine/paroxetine or placebo over this 8-week treatment period. As early as week 2, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with venlafaxine achieved improved depression scores (remission and response). A significantly greater rate of remission and sustained remission occurred with venlafaxine compared to placebo. Remission was achieved earlier with venlafaxine and lasted throughout the remainder of the study. These results demonstrate that venlafaxine XR is more effective than fluoxetine/paroxetine for sustaining remission of depressive symptoms.     

Limited efficacy of ketoconazole in treatment-refractory major depression.

The authors examined the efficacy of ketoconazole in 16 adults with treatment-refractory major depressive disorder. Subjects participated in a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Assessments of mood were made using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI). Results showed that none of eight patients randomly assigned to receive placebo and two of eight patients randomly assigned to receive ketoconazole met criteria for response. As a group, patients assigned to receive ketoconazole showed no significant reductions in HAM-D, BDI, or CGI scores during the 6-week trial compared with those receiving placebo. These findings suggest a limited efficacy for ketoconazole in patients with treatment-refractory major depression.     

Sertraline treatment of co-occurring alcohol dependence and major depression

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder occurs commonly in association with alcohol dependence, both in clinical samples and in the community. Efforts to treat major depressive disorder in alcoholics with antidepressants have yielded mixed results. This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sertraline was designed to address many of the potential methodological shortcomings of studies of co-occurring disorders. METHOD: Following a 1-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, 328 patients with co-occurring major depressive disorder and alcohol dependence were randomly assigned to receive 10 weeks of treatment with sertraline (at a maximum dose of 200 mg/d) or matching placebo. Randomization was stratified, based on whether initially elevated scores on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale declined with cessation of heavy drinking, resulting in a sample of 189 patients with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores > or =17 (group A) and 139 patients with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores < or =16 (group B). RESULTS: Both depressive symptoms and alcohol consumption decreased substantially over time in both groups. There were no reliable medication group differences on depressive symptoms or drinking behavior in either group A or B patients. CONCLUSION: Despite careful attention to methodological considerations, this study does not provide consistent support for the use of sertraline to treat co-occurring major depressive disorder and alcohol dependence. The high rate of response among placebo-treated patients may help to explain these findings. Further research is needed to identify efficacious treatments for patients with these commonly co-occurring disorders.     

Reboxetine,a new noradrenaline selective antidepressant,is at least as effective as fluoxetine in the treatment of depression

The clinical profile of reboxetine, a selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, was compared with that of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine and placebo in a double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial of patients with major depression. Among the 381 patients treated with reboxetine 8 to 10 mg/day, fluoxetine 20 to 40 mg/day, or placebo for up to 8 weeks, a statistically significant greater reduction in the mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (21-item HAM-D) total score (the primary efficacy variable) was seen for both active treatment groups compared with placebo (p < 0.024). A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with either reboxetine or fluoxetine also achieved a response (>or=50% reduction in HAM-D) or remission (HAM-D 相似文献   

Combined fluvoxamine and extended-release methylphenidate improved treatment response compared to fluvoxamine alone in patients with treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: A randomized double-blind,placebo-controlled study

More effective, tolerable interventions for treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are needed. Preliminary findings encourage optimism that methylphenidate augmentation may be of benefit in the treatment of OCD. To test modulator methylphenidate (MPH) of extended-release formulations (MPH-ER) a safe and effective add-on therapy for refractory OCD, a pilot randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was conducted at an outpatient, single-center academic setting. Participants included 44 adults with serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) treatment-refractory OCD and receiving a stable fluvoxamine pharmacotherapy with Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores higher than 20. Data were analyzed in the intention-to-treat sample. All subjects were randomized into two parallel groups to receive fluvoxamine (250 mg daily) plus MPH-ER (36 mg daily) or fluvoxamine (250 mg daily) plus identical placebo tablets under double-blind conditions and followed for 8 weeks. Forty-four patients (29 [66%] men), with a mean (SD) age of 24.7 (6) years participated; with a mean (SD) duration of episode 5.7 (3) were randomized and forty-one finished the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the improvement in the Y-BOCS total score and Y-BOCS obsession subscale score was more prominent in the fluvoxamine and MPH-ER group compared with those receiving placebo (P < .001). Additionally, cumulative response rates were higher in the MPH-ER vs placebo groups (59% vs 5%; P < .001). MPH-ER was well tolerated; No subjects dropped out due to side effects. In summary, combined treatment with MPH-ER demonstrated an enhanced clinical rate of response compared to placebo. Further trials should examine MPH-ER efficacy in a larger sample     

Acute dysphoric mania: treatment response to olanzapine versus placebo

A substantial number of patients with mania have significant concomitant depressive features, and they may respond differently to mood stabilizers than patients with pure mania. This post-hoc analysis explored the response characteristics of olanzapine versus placebo in bipolar I manic patients with dysphoric and nondysphoric mania (differentiated by baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score of >20). Two similar, double-blind, randomized trials comparing olanzapine, 5-20 mg, to placebo were pooled for these analyses (N = 246). Mean changes in Young-Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) and HAM-D scores during 3 weeks of treatment were examined. Twenty-eight percent of patients had dysphoric mania (olanzapine, n = 33; placebo, n = 35). Among these patients, olanzapine-treated patients had greater improvement within 1 week than did placebo-treated patients on both mania ratings (Y-MRS: -9.7 vs. -3.0 points; = 0.011) and depressive symptom ratings (HAM-D: -9.9 vs. -5.4 points; = 0.025). Among those manic subjects without prominent depressive symptoms (olanzapine, n = 91; placebo, n = 87), mean Y-MRS improvement from baseline to endpoint with olanzapine (-11.5 points) versus placebo (-6.13 points) was comparable to the improvement seen with olanzapine versus placebo in the dysphoric mania subgroup ( = 0.476, test of interaction). In acutely ill manic patients with significant depressive symptoms, olanzapine demonstrated a broad spectrum of efficacy, effectively treating both manic and depressive symptoms. The magnitude of the antimanic response appears similar, regardless of baseline depressive features. Additional experience with putative mood stabilizers and atypical agents in mixed mania should include an exploration of their efficacy in treating both manic and depressive mood symptoms.     

Comparison of equivalence between the St. John's wort extract LoHyp-57 and fluoxetine.

In a randomised double-blind comparative trial, the antidepressant efficacy of a daily dose of 800 mg of the St. John's wort extract LoHyp-57 (dry extract of St. John's wort, drug extrakt ratio 5-7:1, solvent, ethanol 60% [w/w]) was shown to be equivalent to that of 20 mg fluoxetine (CAS 54910-89-3) in elderly patients with mild or moderate depressive episodes according to ICD 10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems). Treatment was given for six weeks. 149 out-patients (129 females and 20 males) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 72 of these patients were assigned to the ICD 10 diagnostic criterion F32.0 (mild depressive episode), while 77 patients were suffering from moderate depressive episodes, corresponding to F32.1. The principal target criterion was the patient's global score on the HAMILTON Depression Scale (items 1-17). During the six-week course of treatment with LoHyp-57, the HAMILTON global score fell from 16.60 points at entry to 7.91 points, and in the fluoxetine sample it fell from 17.18 to 8.11 points. In the group of patients with mild depressive episodes, the score showed a mean fall from 14.21 to 6.21 points on LoHyp-57, and from 15.21 to 7.46 points on fluoxetine. In patients with moderate depressive episodes, the score showed a mean fall from 18.73 to 9.43 points on LoHyp-57 and from 19.10 to 8.75 points on fluoxetine. The efficacy of both medications was found to be equivalent both in mild and moderate depressive episodes. Both treatment groups showed adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Twelve ADRs with a possible relationship to the study medication were reported during treatment with LoHyp-57. Six patients were prematurely withdrawn from treatment with the study medication for this reason. On fluoxetine 17 ADRs occurred with a possible relationship to the study medication. These led to abandonment of treatment and therefore premature withdrawal from the study in 8 cases.     

Fluoxetine in social phobia: a double-blind,placebo-controlled pilot study

The objective of the study was to examine the efficacy of fluoxetine in social phobia. Sixty subjects were randomly assigned to 14 weeks of double-blind therapy with either fluoxetine or placebo. Dose was fixed at 20 mg for fluoxetine during the first 8 weeks of double-blind treatment; during the final 6 weeks, the dose could be increased every two weeks by 20 mg to a maximum of 60 mg/day. An intentto-treat analysis was used. A significant change from baseline to endpoint was found for both fluoxetine and placebo on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. However, no significant difference was found between fluoxetine and placebo. The change for fluoxetine was somewhat lower than that found with other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, whereas the placebo response was greater. Fluoxetine failed to separate from placebo in this trial. It is unknown whether a larger dose for longer duration would have yielded separation from placebo. A higher than usual placebo response rate was found.     

Fluoxetine response: endpoint vs pattern analysis

A 6-week double-blind trial of fluoxetine treatment of unipolar major depressive disorder in 49 patients was evaluated in terms of improvement in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and Clinical Global Improvement (CGI) scores. A relationship was found between change in HDRS (absolute and percentage decrease from baseline) and final CGI ratings. However, because of a few placebo-responders, endpoint analysis with both the HDRS and CGI showed no differences between active drug and placebo. Pattern analysis of persistent response did successively separate active drug from placebo (less than 0.05).