Efficacy of venlafaxine extended release in patients with major depressive disorder and comorbid generalized anxiety disorder

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients with comorbid major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) was examined from a double-blind. placebo-controlled study comparing the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended release (XR) and fluoxetine. METHOD: From a total of 368 patients, 92 patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder who also had comorbid GAD were identified. The comparison group comprised 276 evaluable noncomorbid patients. Patients received venlafaxine XR (75-225 mg/day), fluoxetine (20-60 mg/day), or placebo for 12 weeks. Efficacy evaluations included Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale. RESULTS: By the final assessment at week 12, comorbid patients in the venlafaxine XR group, but not in the fluoxetine group, showed a significantly greater decrease than those in the placebo group in the primary efficacy variables of mean HAM-D and HAM-A total scores (p < .05, pairwise comparison). In comorbid patients, significant pairwise differences were noted between venlafaxine XR and placebo at week 12 for the secondary variables of HAM-D anxiety-somatization and retardation factors, HAM-D depressed mood item. HAM-A psychic anxiety factor, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD) anxiety subscale score, and the Covi Anxiety Scale score. Fluoxetine was significantly different from placebo only on the HAD depression subscale score. Response, defined as > or = 50% decrease in symptoms score, was achieved in 66% and 59% of the comorbid patients for HAM-D and HAM-A, respectively, in the venlafaxine XR group at week 12. This response was higher than that seen with fluoxetine (52% and 45%) or placebo (36% and 24%). Onset of efficacy appeared to be slower in comorbid than in noncomorbid patients. CONCLUSION: This is the first evidence from a controlled study of the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in patients with comorbid major depressive disorder and GAD. The delayed improvement in comorbid patients compared with noncomorbid patients suggests that a longer treatment period may be necessary in comorbid patients.     

Residual symptoms in depressed patients after treatment with fluoxetine or reboxetine

BACKGROUND: Residual symptoms are common and have a variety of consequences in depressed patients who respond to treatment, but seldom have specific residual symptoms been assessed. We examined the frequency and severity of residual depressive symptoms in 2 studies comparing the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) fluoxetine with the norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI) reboxetine. METHOD: Data from two 8-week, previously published, double-blind, random-assignment studies comparing fluoxetine and reboxetine were obtained. Both studies included men and women who met DSM-III-R criteria for unipolar nonpsychotic major depression. Symptoms were assessed with the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). The frequency and severity of residual symptoms were determined in the patients who completed treatment and responded (had at least 50% improvement on the HAM-D). RESULTS: In study 1, 117 patients completed treatment and responded. In study 2, 113 patients completed treatment and responded. The most frequent symptoms present after treatment were psychic anxiety, lack of interest, somatic anxiety, and depressed mood. No residual symptom differed significantly between treatment groups in both samples. Ordinal logistic regression, used to control for baseline symptom severity, revealed no other differences between drug groups except that decreased libido was significantly greater with fluoxetine in study 1 and study 2. Three composite scores for residual anxiety, sleep disturbance, and reduced drive did not differ between drug groups. CONCLUSION: This study found no differences in residual symptoms in depressed patients who responded to treatment with the SSRI fluoxetine and the NRI reboxetine, with the exception that the fluoxetine group had a greater decrease in sexual interest, a likely side effect of that drug.     

Escitalopram in major depressive disorder: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, parallel trial in a Chinese population

Escitalopram, the S-enantiomer of citalopram and the most selective of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) has been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of major depression in white populations. Our aim in this study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in Chinese patients with moderate to severe major depression. Patients who met DSM-IV criteria for a major depressive episode were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose comparison trial. Patients were given escitalopram 10 mg/day or fluoxetine 20 mg/day for 8 weeks. All patients were assessed with the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Tolerability was assessed on the basis of adverse effects (measured with a locally developed checklist), regular biochemical tests, and electrocardiograph (ECG) assessments. Two hundred forty patients were enrolled and randomized to escitalopram (123 patients) or fluoxetine (117 patients). The HAM-D-17 total scores of both groups decreased significantly from baseline, but there was no significant difference at week 8 between the two groups (15.8 for escitalopram and 14.7 for fluoxetine; P >.05). There were no significant differences in response rates at all visits after treatment based on either HAM-D-17 or MADRS. A post hoc analysis indicated that escitalopram was superior to fluoxetine on two items of the HAM-D-17: "depressed mood" (P =.023) and "work and interest" (P =.024). The adverse events reported in the escitalopram and fluoxetine groups were comparable, and most were mild to moderate. Both drugs showed good compliance profiles. Escitalopram 10 mg/day is at least as efficacious as fluoxetine 20 mg/day and well tolerated in Chinese patients with major depression, with possible superiority in some core symptoms such as "depressed mood" and "work and interest."     

Comparative effects of mirtazapine and fluoxetine on sleep physiology measures in patients with major depression and insomnia

BACKGROUND: Sleep complaints are common in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Both MDD and antidepressant drugs characteristically alter objective sleep measures. This study compares the effects of mirtazapine and fluoxetine on sleep continuity measures in DSM-IV MDD patients with insomnia. METHOD: Patients (N = 19) received initial baseline polysomnography evaluations over 2 consecutive nights. Subjects were randomly assigned to either fluoxetine (20-40 mg/day) or mirtazapine (15-45 mg/day) treatment for an 8-week, double-blind, double-dummy treatment trial. Single-night polysomnograms were conducted at weeks 1, 2, and 8, with depression ratings assessed at baseline and weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. Statistical analysis was performed by repeated-measures analysis of variance followed by Dunnet's post hoc analyses. RESULTS: Patients receiving mirtazapine (N = 8) had significant improvement in objective sleep physiology measures at 8 weeks. Improvements in sleep latency, sleep efficiency, and wake after sleep onset were significant after only 2 weeks of mirtazapine treatment. No significant changes in sleep continuity measures were observed in the fluoxetine group (N = 11). Both groups improved clinically in mood and subjective sleep measures from baseline, with no differences between groups. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the differential effects of mirtazapine and fluoxetine, with significant improvement in favor of mirtazapine, on objective sleep parameters in MDD patients with insomnia.     

Residual symptoms in depressed patients who respond acutely to fluoxetine

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants have unequivocal efficacy as compared with placebo, but many patients have residual symptoms despite a robust response to antidepressant therapy. The purpose of this study is to assess residual symptoms in outpatients who respond acutely to fluoxetine. METHOD: Two hundred and fifteen outpatients with major depressive disorder as assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID-P) were treated openly with fluoxetine 20 mg/day for 8 weeks. One hundred and eight (50.2%) were considered full responders (final 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] score < or =7). Percentages of full responders who continued to have subthreshold or full major depressive disorder symptoms were calculated. The relationship between residual symptoms and Axis I and Axis II (assessed with SCID-II for personality disorders) comorbidity was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 108 responders, 19 (17.6%) had no subthreshold or threshold SCID-P major depressive disorder symptoms, while 28 (25.9%) had 1 symptom, and 61 (56.5%) had 2 or more symptoms. No statistically significant relationships were found between number of residual symptoms and selected Axis I comorbid conditions or total number of Axis II disorders. CONCLUSION: Less than 20% of full responders to fluoxetine by HAM-D criteria were free of all SCID-P subthreshold and threshold major depressive disorder symptoms after 8 weeks of treatment. While depressed patients benefit from antidepressants, most continue to have some symptoms of depression. The high prevalence of residual symptoms among antidepressant responders suggests the need for further study including whether residual symptoms abate with longer treatment or increased dose of fluoxetine. Other strategies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, may be needed to address residual symptoms.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in geriatric outpatients with major depression.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of depression in elderly patients, few well-designed, placebo-controlled studies of antidepressants have been conducted in this population. This masked, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in depressed patients older than 65 years. METHOD: Three hundred patients were randomly assigned to treatment with venlafaxine immediate release ([IR]; N = 104), fluoxetine (N = 100), or placebo (N = 96) in an eight-week trial. Venlafaxine doses were titrated from 37.5 to 225 mg per day and fluoxetine doses were titrated from 20 to 60 mg per day, as necessary, over 29 days. Efficacy variables included the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D21) total score, HAM-D21 depressed mood item score, scores on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales, and rates of response (based on change from baseline HAM-D or MADRS score or CGI-I score) and remission (HAM-D17 < or =7). For the purposes of this report, efficacy analyses are focused on the HAM-D21 total score. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs assessments, laboratory determinations, and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: In all three of the treatment groups, there was a significant reduction at week 8 compared with the baseline HAM-D21 total score. However, there were no significant differences among the three treatment groups on the change in HAM-D21, MADRS, or CGI scores from baseline to week 8. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of remitters at the last on-therapy visit. The incidence of individual AEs was higher in the venlafaxine group (27%) compared with patients taking fluoxetine (19%) or placebo (9%). CONCLUSION: In this study, there was no significant difference in efficacy among placebo, venlafaxine, and fluoxetine for the treatment of depression.     

Controlled double-blind trial of phenytoin vs. fluoxetine in major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Phenytoin was the first non-sedative anticonvulsant introduced and is still the anticonvulsant most widely used worldwide in neurology. Given the efficacy of the anticonvulsant lamotrigine in the depressed phase of bipolar disorder, a critical theoretical question is whether other anticonvulsants used in treating bipolar disorder might be similarly effective. We therefore undertook a controlled trial of phenytoin versus fluoxetine in major depressive disorder. METHOD: Data were collected from July 2001 to July 2003. Thirty-three subjects entered the study. All patients met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder and scored a minimum of 18 on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) at baseline. After a 3-day washout of any previous medications, patients were randomly assigned to fluoxetine or phenytoin in identical capsules. Each capsule contained phenytoin 100 mg or fluoxetine 7 mg plus cornstarch. Patients started with 1 tablet daily and increased every other day until they were taking 1 tablet 3 times daily with meals. Blood phenytoin levels were taken after 1 week, 3 weeks, and 6 weeks, and dosage was adjusted to achieve blood levels of 10 to 20 microg/mL, to a maximum dose of 4 capsules per day or a minimum dose of 2 capsules per day. Fluoxetine patients were assigned dummy blood phenytoin levels by the control psychiatrist such that the treating physician would raise the number of capsules to at least 3 per day (20 mg of fluoxetine). RESULTS: Thirty-three patients entered the study, and 28 (N = 14 in each treatment group) completed at least 3 weeks and were included in the data analysis. Patients who dropped out after week 3 (3 patients) were included in the study as last value carried forward. There was no difference between treatment groups in overall rate of response or speed of response. CONCLUSION: The absence of a placebo arm in our study allows for the possibility that neither treatment was more effective than placebo. However, the exclusion of past fluoxetine nonresponders and the minimum HAM-D score at baseline of 18 make this possibility unlikely.     

The pharmacotherapy of depressive illness in adolescents: an open-label comparison of fluoxetine with imipramine-treated historical controls

BACKGROUND: This open-label, 6-week clinical trial investigated the response to fluoxetine in medication-naive adolescents hospitalized for treatment of major depression. METHOD: A total of 52 consecutively admitted patients (mean age = 15.7 years) fulfilling Research Diagnostic Criteria for unipolar, nonpsychotic major depression received fluoxetine monotherapy (mean dose = 33.2 mg/day) in conjunction with psychosocial therapies. Outcome was assessed weekly using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI). Response in this cohort was compared with that observed in 28 historical controls treated with imipramine (mean dose = 217 mg/day) who were consecutively admitted patients to this same facility and assessed in an identical, standardized, open-label protocol. RESULTS: HAM-D scores decreased by a mean of 13.2 in the fluoxetine group compared with 10.2 in the group receiving imipramine (p<.002). The mean percentage decreases in HAM-D scores in the 2 groups were 54.3% and 41.4%, respectively (p<.003). The percentages of patients classified as responders based on a final CGI score of 2 or less were 48.1% and 17.9%, respectively (p = .009). Medications were generally well tolerated with only 5 patients failing to complete the full 6 weeks of their original treatment. CONCLUSION: In spite of the uncontrolled nature of these data, the findings add to recent evidence suggesting more favorable response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors than tricyclics in adolescents with depressive illness.     

Tiagabine for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized, open-label, clinical trial with paroxetine as a positive control

BACKGROUND: Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) plays a central role in the pathophysiology of anxiety. Tiagabine, a selective GABA reuptake inhibitor, enhances normal GABA tone. This 10-week, randomized, open-label trial evaluated tiagabine in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), with paroxetine serving as a positive control. METHOD: Adult patients with DSM-IV GAD were randomly assigned to receive either tiagabine or paroxetine. Tiagabine was initiated at 4 mg/day (2 mg morning and evening) during week 1. Between weeks 2 and 6, the dose was individually titrated in 2-mg increments (maximum increase of 4 mg/week) for optimal response to a maximum dose of 16 mg/day (8 mg morning and evening). During weeks 7 through 10, patients received the dosage determined during the titration period. Paroxetine was initiated at 20 mg nightly for the first week and similarly titrated in 10-mg increments to a maximum dose of 60 mg/day. Assessments included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled (tiagabine, N = 20; paroxetine, N = 20). Mean final doses were tiagabine 10 mg/day (range, 4-16 mg/day) or paroxetine 27 mg/day (range, 20-40 mg/day). Tiagabine and paroxetine significantly reduced anxiety (HAM-A and HADS total and anxiety subscales). Although patients were not diagnosed with a mood disorder, both tiagabine and paroxetine reduced comorbid depressive symptoms (HAM-D total and HADS total and depressive subscale). Tiagabine and paroxetine significantly improved sleep quality (PSQI) and functioning (SDS). Both tiagabine and paroxetine were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The selective GABA reuptake inhibitor tiagabine and the positive control paroxetine significantly reduced anxiety and comorbid depressive symptoms, improved sleep quality and functioning, and were well tolerated in patients with GAD. Tiagabine may be a therapeutic option for the treatment of anxiety disorders.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of fluoxetine in depressed patients with Alzheimer's disease

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of fluoxetine in the treatment of depression in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: This double-blind, parallel-design study included a consecutive series of 41 AD subjects meeting DSM-IV criteria for major or minor depression who were randomized to receive fluoxetine (up to 40 mg/day) or identical-appearing placebo. All patients received biweekly evaluations consisting of the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) and the Clinical Global Impression as primary efficacy measures, and the Mini-Mental State Exam, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, and the Functional Independence Measure as secondary efficacy measures. RESULTS: Complete remission of depression was found in 47% of subjects treated with fluoxetine and in 33% of subjects treated with placebo. Both the fluoxetine and the placebo groups showed a significant decline in HAM-D scores over time, but the magnitude of mood improvement was similar for both groups. Fluoxetine was well tolerated, and most side effects were mild. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine treatment for depression in AD did not differ significantly from treatment with placebo. Our study also confirms the presence of a placebo effect in the treatment of depression in AD.     

Mirtazapine monotherapy versus combination therapy with mirtazapine and aripiprazole in depressed patients without psychotic features: a 4-week open-label parallel-group study.

BACKGROUND: There is preliminary evidence that the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole, which is a partial agonist at D(2) and 5-HT(1A) receptors and a potent antagonist at 5-HT(2A) receptors, may be useful as an augmentation strategy in treatment-resistant depression. METHOD: In this 4-week open-label non-randomized parallel-group study, the safety and efficacy of aripiprazole as add-on treatment strategy in patients suffering from non-delusional depression was investigated. Forty drug-free depressed inpatients without psychotic symptoms (13 men, 27 women), suffering from a major depressive episode or bipolar disorder, depressive state (DSM-IV criteria), were included in the study. The patients were treated either with mirtazapine monotherapy (45 mg/day) or combination therapy (mirtazapine 45 mg/day plus aripiprazole 15 mg/day) for 4 weeks. Safety and efficacy were assessed weekly using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Simpson-Angus Scale and the Barnes Akathisia Scale. RESULTS: Mirtazapine monotherapy and combined treatment with mirtazapine and aripiprazole showed comparable antidepressant effects as assessed at the endpoint of the study period. However, additional administration of aripiprazole accelerated the onset of antidepressant action in patients suffering from treatment-resistant depression. Additive use of aripiprazole reduced the mirtazapine-induced increase in the body mass index. Moreover, mirtazapine had favourable effects on aripiprazole-induced akathisia. No other extrapyramidal side effects were seen in the combination therapy group. CONCLUSION: Combined therapy with mirtazapine and aripiprazole is a safe and well-tolerated treatment option which may be useful especially in treatment-resistant depression. Double-blind controlled studies are needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole in depressed patients.     

Tranylcypromine versus venlafaxine plus mirtazapine following three failed antidepressant medication trials for depression: a STAR*D report

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of tranylcypromine and combination treatment with extended-release venlafaxine and mirtazapine in patients with treatment-resistant major depression whose current depressive episode had not responded adequately to treatment in three prior prospective medication trials. METHOD: Adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had not achieved remission or had withdrawn from treatment because of intolerance in three previous prospective medication trials were randomly assigned to receive open-label treatment with either tranylcypromine (N=58) or extended-release venlafaxine plus mirtazapine (N=51). The primary outcome measure was whether patients achieved remission, which was defined as a score < or =7 at exit on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). The HAM-D was administered by telephone by raters to whom treatment was masked. RESULTS: Remission rates were not significantly different between the two treatment groups (6.9% for the tranylcypromine group and 13.7% for the venlafaxine plus mirtazapine group). The mean daily dose at exit for tranylcypromine was 36.9 mg (SD=18.5); for venlafaxine, 210.3 mg (SD=95.2); and for mirtazapine, 35.7 mg (SD=17.6). Tranylcypromine was associated with significantly less symptom reduction and greater attrition due to intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Remission rates were modest for both the tranylcypromine group and the extended-release venlafaxine plus mirtazapine group, and the rates were not statistically different between groups. The lower side effect burden, lack of dietary restrictions, and ease of use of venlafaxine and mirtazapine suggest that this combination may be preferred over tranylcypromine for patients with highly treatment-resistant depression who have not benefited adequately from several prior treatments.     

米氮平与氟西汀治疗老年抑郁症对照研究

目的:比较米氮平和氟西汀对老年抑郁症的疗效和不良反应. 方法:将60例老年抑郁症患者随机分为米氮平组和氟西汀组,分别给予米氮平和氟西汀治疗,疗程6周.采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)及副反应量表(TESS)评定疗效和不良反应. 结果:米氮平组和氟西汀组显效率分别为83.3%和76.7%,二者疗效相仿.HAMD评分米氮平组治疗1周即显著下降,氟西汀组治疗4周时显著下降.米氮平组嗜睡较多,而氟西汀组口干、失眠、兴奋或激越等发生率较高. 结论:米氮平是一种安全、有效的抗抑郁药物,能用于老年抑郁症患者.     

Reboxetine,the first selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor antidepressant: Efficacy and tolerability in 2613 patients

INTRODUCTION: Reboxetine is the first available selective noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor (selective NRI). This paper gives an overview of its antidepressant efficacy and tolerability in eight randomized double-blind, multicentre clinical trials. The clinical profile of reboxetine is also compared with that of the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) desipramine and imipramine and the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) fluoxetine. METHODS: Pooled data were analysed from seven short-term (4 &#45 8 weeks) and one long-term (up to 1 year) trials comparing reboxetine with placebo, imipramine, desipramine or fluoxetine. The tolerability of reboxetine was evaluated in 2613 patients with major depression or dysthymia. Data from 1959 patients with major depressive disorder were included to assess drug efficacy. Efficacy was principally assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). RESULTS: Reboxetine was more effective than placebo in three of four short-term trials, and it was as effective as fluoxetine, imipramine and desipramine. In long-term treatment, reboxetine was more effective than placebo in preventing relapse ( &#83 50% increase in HAM-D) and recurrence (HAM-D total score &#104 10). In a subset of severely depressed patients, reboxetine was as effective as imipramine and significantly more effective than fluoxetine. Reboxetine was as effective as imipramine in the elderly, but better tolerated. The most common adverse events among the 1503 patients (adults and elderly) who received reboxetine were dry mouth (22%), constipation (15%), sweating (12%) and insomnia (11%). Overall, reboxetine was well tolerated, as well as the SSRI fluoxetine and better than the TCAs imipramine and desipramine. CONCLUSIONS: Reboxetine is effective and well tolerated in the short and long-term treatment of depression. It is as well tolerated as fluoxetine and better than imipramine and desipramine. ( Int J Psych Clin Pract 2000; 4: 201 - 208)     

Multicenter, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study of citalopram in moderate-to-severe depression

BACKGROUND: Citalopram, the most selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is a bicyclic phthalane derivative with a chemical structure that is unrelated to that of other SSRIs and available antidepressants. The drug is approved for use in 69 countries. This 6-week, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, multicenter trial was performed to confirm its efficacy and safety in treatment of outpatients with major depression in the United States. METHOD: Six hundred and fifty adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe major depression (DSM-III-R) were randomly assigned to receive citalopram at doses of 10 mg (N = 131), 20 mg (N = 130), 40 mg (N = 131), or 60 mg (N = 129) or placebo (N = 129) once daily. Outcome assessments were the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinical Global Impressions scale. RESULTS: Between-group comparisons of the change from baseline to endpoint revealed significantly greater improvement in the citalopram patients relative to the placebo patients on all 3 efficacy measures. Patients randomly assigned to 40 mg/day and 60 mg/day of citalopram showed significantly greater improvement than placebo on all efficacy measures, as well as on the HAM-D symptom clusters measuring depressed mood, melancholia, cognitive disturbance, and psychomotor retardation. Patients who received 10 mg/day and 20 mg/day of citalopram also showed consistent improvement relative to placebo on all efficacy ratings, with statistical significance demonstrated in the MADRS response rate, the HAM-D depressed mood item, and the HAM-D melancholia subscale. Citalopram was well tolerated, with only 15% of patients discontinuing for adverse events. The side effects most commonly associated with citalopram treatment were nausea, dry mouth, somnolence, insomnia, and increased sweating. CONCLUSION: Citalopram was significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe major depression, especially symptoms of depressed mood and melancholia, with particularly robust effects shown at doses of 40 and 60 mg/day. Citalopram was well tolerated in spite of forced upward titration to fixed-dose levels, with a low incidence of anxiety, agitation, and nervousness.     

Mirtazapine compared with paroxetine in major depression

BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine with those of paroxetine. METHOD: 275 outpatients with a diagnosis of major depressive episode (DSM-IV) and a score > or = 18 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine (15-45 mg/day) or paroxetine (20-40 mg/day). Efficacy was assessed by the HAM-D-17, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and Clinical Global Impressions scales (Severity and Improvement), and analyses were performed on the intent-to-treat sample (127 mirtazapine-treated patients and 123 paroxetine-treated patients). RESULTS: Mean daily doses were 32.7 mg of mirtazapine and 22.9 mg of paroxetine. Thirty patients in the mirtazapine group and 33 in the paroxetine group dropped out. Both drugs were equally effective in reducing symptoms of depression. At week 1, the mean HAM-D-17 total score was significantly lower in mirtazapine- than paroxetine-treated patients (16.5 vs. 18.8, p = .0032). Similarly, significantly more mirtazapine-treated patients were HAM-D-17 responders (> or = 50% decrease from baseline) at weeks 1 (23.2% vs. 8.9%, p = .002) and 4 (58.3% vs. 44.5%, p = .04). Both treatments were equally effective in reducing anxiety. However, the reduction in mean HAM-A total score was significantly greater with mirtazapine than with paroxetine at week 1 (-5.1 vs. -3.5, p = .0435). Tolerability of both treatments was good, with more nausea, vomiting, tremor, and sweating in the paroxetine group and more weight increase and influenza-like symptoms in the mirtazapine group. CONCLUSION: Mirtazapine and paroxetine were equally effective after 6 weeks of therapy and were both well tolerated. A potentially faster onset of overall therapeutic efficacy of mirtazapine was suggested by significant differences between treatments after 1 week of therapy that were due to slightly larger improvements of several core symptoms of depression as well as distinct prevention of treatment-emergent worsening of anxiety and physical components of depression.     

米氮平与氟西汀治疗抑郁症的疗效对比分析

目的　评价米氮平治疗抑郁症的临床疗效和安全性。方法　将符合CCMD - 3抑郁症诊断标准的 6 1例抑郁症患者随机分为米氮平组 (31例 )和氟西汀组 (30例 ) ,治疗 6周。用汉密顿抑郁量表 (HAMD)评定疗效 ,用副反应量表 (TESS)评定副反应。结果　米氮平组和氟西汀组的有效率分别为 78%和 77% ,二者比较差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 ) ,但米氮平起效快 ,副反应轻。结论　米氮平是一种安全有效的新一代抗抑郁药。     

Influence of mirtazapine on urinary free cortisol excretion in depressed patients

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

Benefits from mianserin augmentation of fluoxetine in patients with major depression non-responders to fluoxetine alone

OBJECTIVE: To assess, in depressed patients, the clinical benefit of mianserin augmentation of fluoxetine or the the benefit of switching treatment from fluoxetine to mianserin. METHOD: In a 6-week double-blind study we compared the therapeutic efficiency and tolerance of mianserin 60 mg/day (N = 34), mianserin 60 mg/day plus fluoxetine 20 mg/day (N = 32) and continuing fluoxetine 20 mg/day (N = 38) in patients with major depression who did not respond to previous fluoxetine treatment. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analysis showed that at week 6 the decrease in the Hamilton Depression rating scale score was significantly (P < or = 0.03) greater in the mianserin plus fluoxetine group when compared to the fluoxetine group (effect size 0.665). Switching from fluoxetine to mianserin gave intermediate results. Mianserin augmentation of fluoxetine was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Mianserin augmentation of fluoxetine in patients non-responders to fluoxetine 20 mg/day increases response to treatment and is well tolerated.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of venlafaxine and fluoxetine treatment in depressed outpatients

This double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared venlafaxine (immediate release), the first modern serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine. Outpatients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of treatment with venlafaxine (75-225mg/day; n=102), fluoxetine (20-60mg/day; n=104), or placebo (n=102). Efficacy was assessed using the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D(21)), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale, response and remission rates, and several other measures. Intent-to-treat analyses utilized both the last observation carried forward and ETRANK methods to account for missing data. At week 6 or study endpoint, venlafaxine (mean dose: 142mg/day) was superior to placebo on most outcomes measures, whereas the differences between fluoxetine (mean dose: 41mg/day) and placebo were less consistent. Final remission (defined as HAM-D < or =7) rates were 32%, 28%, and 22% for venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and placebo, respectively. Few differences between the active treatments attained statistical significance. Both active therapies were generally well tolerated; however, attrition due to adverse events, incidence of selected side effects, and increases in pulse and blood pressure favored fluoxetine over venlafaxine. This study provides further evidence that venlafaxine is effective after 6 weeks of treatment compared with placebo. The efficacy profile of fluoxetine was somewhat less consistent. It is strongly recommended that future studies of comparative antidepressant efficacy be adequately powered to detect modest between-drug differences in efficacy.