A double-blind comparison of escitalopram and venlafaxine extended release in the treatment of major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Escitalopram is the most selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) antidepressant available. Venlafaxine is a non-selective SRI that also inhibits noradrenergic re-uptake. This study compared escitalopram and venlafaxine extended release (XR) in depressed outpatients at the highest doses recommended in the United States. METHOD: In this randomized trial, patients (diagnosis of DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder; baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of >/= 20) received 1 week of single-blind placebo treatment, followed by 8 weeks of double-blind, fixed-dose treatment with either escitalopram or venlafaxine XR (rapidly titrated to 20 mg/day and 225 mg/day, respectively, in accordance with prescribing information). The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline to week 8 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Data were collected from May to December 2002. RESULTS: Mean baseline MADRS scores for the escitalopram (N = 97) and venlafaxine XR (N = 98) groups were 30.7 and 30.0, respectively. There were no significant differences in measures of efficacy between the 2 antidepressants. Mean changes from baseline to endpoint in MADRS total score for escitalopram and venlafaxine XR were -15.9 and -13.6, respectively. Remission (MADRS score of /= 50% reduction from baseline MADRS score) rates for the escitalopram and venlafaxine XR groups were 58.8% and 48.0%, respectively. Tolerability measures favored escitalopram over venlafaxine XR treatment. The venlafaxine XR group had a higher incidence than the escitalopram group of treatment-emergent adverse events (85.0% vs. 68.4%) and discontinuation due to adverse events (16.0% vs. 4.1%; p <.01). CONCLUSION: Results of this study indicate that, when titrated rapidly to their maximum recommended doses, escitalopram is at least as effective as venlafaxine XR and significantly better tolerated. These results do not support the hypothesis that nonselective SRIs have greater efficacy than selective SRIs.     

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.     

Comparative efficacy between venlafaxine and SSRIs: a pooled analysis of patients with depression.

BACKGROUND: Serotonergic and adrenergic enhancement may be synergistic and more effective than serotonergic enhancement alone in treating depression. The dual serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine is a dual reuptake inhibitor that may therefore offer greater efficacy than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). METHODS: Data from eight randomized, double-blind, controlled studies were pooled to compare efficacy in depressed patients receiving venlafaxine/venlafaxine extended release (XR), SSRIs, or placebo for 相似文献   

Venlafaxine versus nortriptyline in the treatment of elderly depressed inpatients: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The majority of the trials in the elderly are outpatient trials which excluded psychotic patients and patients with common comorbid physical disorders. Consequently information is lacking about the more complex cases of elderly depressed patients, as found in inpatient wards. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of two antidepressants, venlafaxine and nortriptyline, in a clinically representative sample of elderly depressed inpatients. METHOD: A 12-week, double blind, randomised, controlled trial in 81 elderly inpatients from one centre. All patients fulfilled DSM-IV criteria for major depression and were assessed using the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Geriatric Depression Scale, the Clinical Global Improvement and the Symptom, sign, and Side-effect Checklist. RESULTS: Overall, remission was achieved by 26 (32.1%) of the patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients achieving remission on the MADRS between venlafaxine (11 out of 40 patients) and nortriptyline (15 out of 41 patients; p = 0.381) or in any of the secondary outcome variables. The number and severity of side-effects was not statistically different between both treatment groups and most side effects were mild or moderate in intensity. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly inpatients with severe depression, venlafaxine and nortriptyline appeared to be equally effective and equally well tolerated.     

万拉法新与氯丙咪嗪治疗精神分裂症后抑郁对照研究

目的 验证万拉法新治疗精神分裂症后抑郁的疗效及安全性。方法 对65例精神分裂症后抑郁患者随机入组,分别以万拉法新与氯丙咪嗪治疗6周。采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、简明精神病量表(BPRS)、阴性症状量表(SANS)评定临床疗效,采用副反应量表(TESS)评定副反应。结果 万拉法新组与氯丙咪嗪组治疗前后HAMD、BRPS、SANS评分及减分率比较均无显著性差异(P>0.05)。万拉法新组的副反应较氯丙咪嗪组少而轻,但各有1例精神病症状恶化。结论 万拉法新治疗精神分裂症后抑郁的疗效确切,但极个别病例精神病症状恶化。     

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.     

Acute Efficacy and Safety of Escitalopram Versus Desvenlafaxine and Vortioxetine in the Treatment of Depression With Cognitive Complaint: A Rater-Blinded Randomized Comparative Study

Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of escitalopram, vortioxetine, and desvenlafaxine for acute treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with cognitive complaint (CC). Methods A total of 129 patients with MDD who also complained of CC were randomized evenly to either escitalopram, vortioxetine, or desvenlafaxine group and underwent a multi-center, six-week, rater-blinded, and head-to-head comparative trial. Differences in depressive symptoms following treatment were measured using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Subjective cognitive function and the presence of adverse events were assessed. Results The three antidepressant treatment groups did not show significant differences in the improvement of depressive symptoms as measured by HAMD and MADRS. Desvenlafaxine treatment was associated with a superior treatment response rate in depressive symptoms compared to vortioxetine or escitalopram treatment. However, no significant differences were found in the remission rate of depressive symptoms. The three antidepressant treatment groups did not show significant differences in the improvement of CC. Adverse profiles of each treatment group were tolerable, with no significant differences. Conclusion In acute antidepressant treatment for MDD with CC, escitalopram, vortioxetine, and desvenlafaxine presented similar efficacy in relief of depressive symptoms; however, desvenlafaxine was associated with a superior treatment. Further studies are needed to confirm these results by investigating the therapeutic efficacy and safety profile of long-term antidepressant treatment of MDD with CC (Clinical Trial Registry, http://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/en/: KCT0002173).     

Once-Daily Venlafaxine Extended Release (XR) and Venlafaxine Immediate Release (IR) in Outpatients with Major Depression

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) and venlafaxine immediate release (IR). Outpatients with DSM-III-R major depression were randomly assigned to venlafaxine XR, 75 mg once daily, venlafaxine IR, 37.5 mg twice daily, or placebo for a maximum of 12 weeks. If the response was inadequate after 2 weeks of treatment, the dosage of venlafaxine XR or IR could be increased to 150 mg daily. The primary efficacy variables were the 21-item Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) Rating Scale total score and depressed mood item, the Montgomery–Asberg Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores, and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) severity scale. Two hundred seventy-eight patients were evaluated for efficacy. Venlafaxine XR was significantly superior (p < 0.05) to placebo beginning at week 2 for the HAM-D, week 3 for the MADRS, and week 4 for the CGI severity. Similarly, venlafaxine IR was significantly superior (p < 0.05) to placebo beginning at week 2 on the HAM-D total and depressed mood item, week 3 on the MADRS total, and week 6 on the CGI severity scales. Venlafaxine XR exhibited superiority (p < 0.05) over venlafaxine IR at week 12 for all efficacy variables. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with venlafaxine XR was nausea. The incidence of nausea was highest during the first 2 weeks with a low likelihood of developing nausea thereafter. The results of this study indicate that venlafaxine XR is safe, effective, and well tolerated for the treatment of major depression at once-daily doses ranging from 75 to 150 mg.     

An examination of the sensitivity of the six-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression in a sample of patients suffering from major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVES: To compare the sensitivity of the 6-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD6) with the more widely used 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD17) in patients suffering from major depressive disorder, with or without melancholia and/or dysthymic disorder. A secondary objective was to compare the sensitivity of the HRSD6 to the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 4 clinical trials that tested antidepressant therapies. SETTING: Outpatient treatment in a major psychiatric hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and forty-three male and female outpatients meeting the criteria of the DSM-III-R or DSM-IV for major depressive disorder. OUTCOME MEASURES: HRSD17, HRSD6 and MADRS. RESULTS: The HRSD6 correlated strongly with the HRSD17, both at baseline and termination of treatment, and for the subgroups of double depression and melancholia. The HRSD6 was also correlated significantly with the MADRS at both measurement times, and for the subgroups. Paired t-tests with the HRSD6, HRSD17 and MADRS demonstrated equal sensitivity to change over the course of treatment, both in the full sample and in the dysthymic and melancholic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The HRSD6 appears to be as sensitive to change over treatment as the HRSD17 and the MADRS. A shorter, less time-consuming measure of depression may have utility in clinical practice and research.     

Greater depression severity associated with less improvement in depression-associated cognitive deficits in older subjects.

OBJECTIVES: Elderly depressed patients often exhibit cognitive deficits, which may improve with drug therapy. The authors investigated the relationship of baseline depression severity and cognitive improvement with antidepressant treatment in depressed patients with mild cognitive impairment. METHODS: Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores were measured in 52 depressed geriatric patients without dementia at baseline, 6, and 12 months, during an intent-to-treat period. A repeated-measures regression model tested the effect of MADRS score on MMSE. RESULTS: MMSE changes were significant and linear over time, with an average increase of 0.72 in the MMSE per 6-month interval. The final model showed that for every point increase in baseline MADRS, the average 6-month increase in MMSE decreased by 0.12. Repeated MADRS measurements did not significantly alter its predictive value. CONCLUSION: Greater baseline depression severity in older subjects with mild cognitive deficits is associated with less improvement in those deficits even with successful antidepressant therapy.     

A 12-week double-blind multi-centre study of paroxetine and imipramine in hospitalized depressed patients

Fifty-seven inpatients with major depression (DSM-III-R) entered a 12-week study comparing paroxetine and imipramine. Trends (not reaching statistical significance) in favour of paroxetine were seen on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The UKU Side Effect Rating Scale showed a significant difference in favour of paroxetine on reduced salivation. Global evaluation of side effect symptoms showed that significantly more paroxetine patients had no side effects, both in the investigators’ and the patients’ opinion. These results are in line with previous findings of paroxetine being an effective and well tolerated antidepressant.     

A double-blind multicentre comparison of mirtazapine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients

Hnyberg OJ, Maragakis B, Mullin J, Norum D, Stordall E, Ekdahl P, Ose E, Moksnes KM, Sennef C. A double-blind multicentre comparison of mirtazapine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1996: 93: 184–190. © Munksgaard 1996. A total of 115 elderly patients (60–85 years of age) with DSM III diagnosis of major depressive episode were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of treatment with either mirtazapine, 15–45 mg/day, or amitriptyline, 30–90 mg/day. Efficacy was assessed biweekly, using tbe Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) as primary outcome variables. The treatment with both drugs resulted in a similar reduction of total HRDS and MADRS scores, with no statistically significant differences between treatment groups at any assessment point or at endpoint. Statistically significant differences favouring amitriptyline were present according to CGI-Global Improvement Scale at endpoint, HRDS cognitive disturbance factor at weeks 2, 4 and 6 and endpoint and retardation factor at week 6. Adverse events were reported by a similar number of patients in both treatment groups. Additional research is needed to assess further the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine among elderly depressed patients.     

Fluoxetine versus trimipramine in the treatment of depression in geriatric patients

INTRODUCTION: Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and trimipramine, a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA), were compared in terms of efficacy and tolerability in a six-week, parallel group, double-blind pilot study in 41 geriatric patients with major depression (61 - 85 years old). METHOD: The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17), the Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale (MADRS), the Adjective Mood Scale (Bf-S), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI), and the Patients Global Impression (PGI) were used to measure changes in depressive symptoms. RESULTS: Improvement with treatment was found on all scales. Efficacy and tolerability were similar in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that fluoxetine and trimipramine are comparable in terms of efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of major depression in geriatric patients.     

Aripiprazole augmentation versus antidepressant switching for patients with major depressive disorder: A 6-week,randomized, rater-blinded,prospective study

No study has directly compared the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole augmentation (AA) and antidepressant switching (SW) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This is the first 6-week, randomized, rater-blinded, direct comparison study between AA and SW in outpatients. An inadequate response to antidepressants was defined as a total score ≥14 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-item 17 (HDRS-17) despite adequate antidepressant dosage for at least 6 weeks in the current depressive episode. The primary endpoint was change in the total score of the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to the end of treatment. Secondary efficacy measures included the response and remission rates as priori defined at the end of treatment: changes in total scores of the HDRS-17, Iowa Fatigue Scale (IFS), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) from baseline to the end of treatment and the proportion of patients who scored 1 or 2 on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Score (CGI-I) at the end of treatment. Tolerability was assessed with the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS) and Arizona Sexual dysfunction scale (ASEX), and the numbers of adverse events were compared between the two groups. A total of 101 patients were randomized to either AA (n = 52) or SW (n = 49). The mean change in the MADRS score from baseline was significantly higher in the AA, with a difference in magnitude of −8.7 (p < 0.0001). The intergroup difference was first evident in week 2. The numbers of responders (p = 0.0086) and remitters (p = 0.0005) were also significantly higher in the AA (60% and 54%, respectively) compared with the SW (32.6% and 19.6%, respectively). On most secondary endpoints, AA showed better clinical outcomes compared to SW. The tolerability profiles were comparable between the two groups. Overall, AA yielded potentially beneficial clinical outcomes compared to SW. Given the methodological shortcomings of the present study, adequately powered, more rigorously controlled clinical trials are strongly warranted to confirm the present findings.     

A double-blind placebo-controlled study of lamotrigine monotherapy in outpatients with bipolar I depression. Lamictal 602 Study Group

BACKGROUND: More treatment options for bipolar depression are needed. Currently available antidepressants may increase the risk of mania and rapid cycling, and mood stabilizers appear to be less effective in treating depression than mania. Preliminary data suggest that lamotrigine, an established antiepileptic drug, may be effective for both the depression and mania associated with bipolar disorder. This is the first controlled multicenter study evaluating lamotrigine monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar I depression. METHODS: Outpatients with bipolar I disorder experiencing a major depressive episode (DSM-IV, N = 195) received lamotrigine (50 or 200 mg/day) or placebo as monotherapy for 7 weeks. Psychiatric evaluations, including the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Mania Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impressions scale for Severity (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) were completed at each weekly visit. RESULTS: Lamotrigine 200 mg/day demonstrated significant antidepressant efficacy on the 17-item HAM-D, HAM-D Item 1, MADRS, CGI-S, and CGI-I compared with placebo. Improvements were seen as early as week 3. Lamotrigine 50 mg/day also demonstrated efficacy compared with placebo on several measures. The proportions of patients exhibiting a response on CGI-I were 51%, 41%, and 26% for lamotrigine 200 mg/day, lamotrigine 50 mg/day, and placebo groups, respectively. Adverse events and other safety results were similar across treatment groups, except for a higher rate of headache in the lamotrigine groups. CONCLUSION: Lamotrigine monotherapy is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for bipolar depression.     

Efficacy of venlafaxine in major depression resistant to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

INTRODUCTION: Some studies suggest that venlafaxine, due to its pharmacodynamic characteristics, could be an effective drug in depression, resistant to other antidepressive agents. This investigation explores the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine in major depression, resistant to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). METHODS: A multicenter naturalistic study was performed during 6 months and included those patients diagnosed of major depression according to the criteria of DSM-IV who had a minimum score of 18 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and who had not responded to previous treatment with a SSRI at therapeutic doses for a minimum of 4 weeks. The assessment of efficacy was performed with the HAM-D scale, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and the Global Clinical Impression (GCI). Tolerability was evaluated by recording the adverse reactions and with the GCI score on overall drug tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients, of which 59 were evaluable for efficacy (they had fulfilled at least 4 weeks of treatment), were included. About 81% of all of them obtained a reduction of at least 50% in the HAM-D, 74% were considered as "quite improved" or "very improved" in the GCI and 69% met both criteria. The mean dose of venlafaxine used was 170.4 (S.D.=43.8) mg. Of the 21 patients who did not complete the 6 months of treatment, 3 were due to lack of efficacy, 6 due to adverse effects and 12 for other reasons. About 89.2% of side effects were considered as mild or moderate. CONCLUSION: The results of our study support the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine in patients suffering from depression who have not responded to SSRI treatment.     

A placebo-controlled double-blind randomized study of venlafaxine in the treatment of depression in dementia

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine in the treatment of major depression in dementia. METHODS: Thirty-one outpatients who had dementia and major depression participated in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week, flexible dose clinical trial. The screening measures were Cornell Scale for depression in dementia, DSM-IV for depression and dementia and Mini-Mental State Examination. The outcome measures were response rate, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating scale and Clinical Global Impressions. RESULTS: The percentage of patients defined as Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating scale responders was approximately the same in the placebo and in the venlafaxine groups. Clinical Global Impressions showed no significant difference between the groups. The reasons for dropouts show borderline significance between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the venlafaxine and placebo-treated groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the hypothesis that venlafaxine improves mood in elderly demented patients.     

Early reduction in prefrontal theta QEEG cordance value predicts response to venlafaxine treatment in patients with resistant depressive disorder

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies of patients with unipolar depression have shown that early decrease of prefrontal EEG cordance in theta band can predict clinical response to various antidepressants. We have now examined whether decrease of prefrontal quantitative EEG (QEEG) cordance value after 1 week of venlafaxine treatment predicts clinical response to venlafaxine in resistant patients. METHOD: We analyzed 25 inpatients who finished 4-week venlafaxine treatment. EEG data were monitored at baseline and after 1 week of treatment. QEEG cordance was computed at three frontal electrodes in theta frequency band. Depressive symptoms and clinical status were assessed using Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Beck Depression Inventory-Short Form (BDI-S) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI). RESULTS: Eleven of 12 responders (reduction of MADRS >or=50%) and only 5 of 13 non-responders had decreased prefrontal QEEG cordance value after the first week of treatment (p=0.01). The decrease of prefrontal cordance after week 1 in responders was significant (p=0.03) and there was no significant change in non-responders. Positive and negative predictive values of cordance reduction for response were 0.7 and 0.9, respectively. CONCLUSION: The reduction of prefrontal theta QEEG cordance value after first week of treatment might be helpful in the prediction of response to venlafaxine.     

A double-blind, multicentre study to assess the tolerability and efficacy of paroxetine compared with amitriptyline in the treatment of depressed patients in Australian general practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the tolerability and efficacy of paroxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of depression in general practice. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicentre study conducted in the general practice, patients with depression (Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score > or = 20) who were regarded as requiring antidepressant therapy were randomly assigned to receive paroxetine (20 mg, n = 184) or amitriptyline (50-100 mg, n = 191) once daily for 9 weeks. RESULTS: More patients completed treatment with paroxetine than with amitriptyline (71.1% vs 56.1%, p = 0.009). Depression rating scores (MADRS and Clinical Global Impression [CGI]) were improved with both agents, but at week 9, paroxetine achieved more favourable scores compared with amitriptyline on MADRS (p=0.019), CGI severity of depression (p=0.044), and CGI efficacy index (p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Depressed patients treated in general practice respond more quickly and are more likely to complete the treatment regimen with paroxetine than with amitriptyline.     

度洛西汀与文拉法辛对首发抑郁症疗效的对照研究

目的观察固定剂量度洛西汀与文拉法辛对首发抑郁症患者的疗效和安全性。方法73例首发抑郁症患者随机分为度洛西汀组（36例）和文拉法辛组（37例），治疗剂量分别为60mg／d和150mg／d，观察8周。用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD17）和蒙哥马利抑郁量表（MADRS）评定疗效，不良反应量表（TESS）评定不良反应和安全性。结果度洛西汀组31例和文拉法辛组30例完成8周的观察。至第8周末两组的有效率和临床痊愈率分别为77．4％（24／31）、83．3％（25／30）和48．4％（15／31）、53．3％（16／30），差异无统计学意义。治疗第1周末，文拉法辛组起效率（80．0％）高于度洛西汀组（41．9％）。度洛西汀组主要不良反应为食欲减退、恶心、心动过速、头痛、震颤、口干和便秘，与文拉法辛组相似。结论度洛西汀对首发抑郁症患者安全有效，与文拉法辛相似。