Addition of desipramine to serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. Is baseline agitation a relative contraindication for a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor: a comparative trial of fluoxetine versus imipramine. Effects of fluoxetine and maprotiline on functional recovery in poststroke hemiplegic patients undergoing rehabilitation therapy. Imipramine treatment of opiate-dependent patients with depressive disorders. A placebo-controlled trial. Pharmacotherapy of impaired affect in recovering schizophrenic patients. The SSRIs drug Fluoxetine, but not the noradrenergic tricyclic drug Desipramine, improves memory performance during acute major depression. A comparison of fluoxetine, imipramine, and placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. Amphetamine paired with physical therapy accelerates motor recovery after stroke. Further evidence. A controlled trial of imipramine for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether combined treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, desipramine, effectively reduces obsessive-compulsive symptoms in patients who do not respond to SSRIs.
                In a double-blind study, desipramine or placebo was added for 6 or 10 weeks to the treatment of 30 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder whose symptoms were refractory to SSRI treatment (fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, or sertraline) alone.
                There were no significant differences between the adjunctive desipramine and placebo groups in obsessive-compulsive or depressive symptoms.
                These data suggest that clomipramine's possibly superior efficacy in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive symptoms may not stem from its capacity to inhibit reuptake of norepinephrine. A common presentation for major depression includes psychomotor agitation. However, this subtype has been the infrequent subject of controlled investigation during depression trials. Yet, the subcategorization of agitated depression has historically been associated with the belief that older, sedating compounds have a superior risk:benefit profile. In the 8-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel trial, 124 subjects with Research Diagnostic Criteria-compatible agitated depression were randomized to either imipramine (IMI) or fluoxetine (FLU). Both compounds proved to be similarly effective as measured by change in HAM-D17, HAM-D17 response, and HAM-D17 remission rates. Similar comparability was seen in secondary measures of agitation, anxiety, suicidality, and global impressions. However, of note, a statistically significant difference in early discontinuations because of intolerable adverse events emerged. Whereas 43.5% of IMI subjects discontinued early, only 9.7% of FLU subjects (p < 0.001) did. Significantly more central nervous system events characterized the IMI than the FLU subgroup (IMI, 24.2%, vs. FLU, 6.5%; p = 0.006). In conclusion, among subjects with major depression, subtype agitated, the risk:benefit profile favored FLU over IMI. This was driven by the superior tolerance of FLU. No evidence emerged in support of the clinical hypothesis that a "sedating" agent is the treatment of choice for this group. The results are important when striving to maximize compliance with pharmacotherapy in order to minimize recidivism and associated psychological and economic morbidity. In animals, drugs that increase brain amine concentrations influence the rate and degree of recovery from cortical lesions. It is therefore conceivable that antidepressants may influence outcome after ischemic brain injury in humans. We evaluated the effects of the norepinephrine reuptake blocker maprotiline and the serotonin reuptake blocker fluoxetine on the motor/functional capacities of poststroke patients undergoing physical therapy.
                Fifty-two severely disabled hemiplegic subjects were randomly assigned to three treatment groups; during 3 months of physical therapy, patients were treated with placebo, maprotiline (150 mg/d), or fluoxetine (20 mg/d). Before and at the end of the observation period, we assessed activities of daily living by the Barthel Index, degree of neurological deficit by a neurological scale for hemiplegic subjects, and depressive symptomatology by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.
                The diverse treatments ameliorated walking and activities of daily living capacities to different extents. The greatest improvements were observed in the fluoxetine-treated group and the lowest in the maprotiline-treated group. Furthermore, fluoxetine yielded a significantly larger number of patients with good recovery compared with maprotiline or placebo. These effects of the drugs were not related to their efficacy in treating depressive symptoms.
                Fluoxetine may facilitate or, alternatively, maprotiline may hinder recovery in poststroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. The effects of fluoxetine as an adjunct to physical therapy warrant further investigation, since treatment with fluoxetine may result in a better functional outcome from stroke than physical therapy alone. The literature is inconclusive on the role of antidepressant medications in treating drug dependence. Studies have either not focused on depressed patients or have selected patients with depressive disorders based on cross-sectional symptoms rather than a syndromal diagnosis. A clinical trial of an antidepressant was, therefore, conducted on drug-dependent patients with syndromal depression.
                Patients receiving methadone hydrochloride maintenance treatment were selected if they met the criteria for a DSM-III-R depressive disorder that was chronologically primary, had persisted during a past abstinent period or was long-standing, and persisted during at least 1 month of stable methadone treatment. Subjects were randomized to a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of imipramine hydrochloride. A favorable response was defined as a Clinical Global Impression scale score for depression of 2 ("much improved") or 1 ("very much improved") and at least a 75% reduction in self-reported drug or alcohol use or abstinence.
                One hundred thirty-seven patients were randomized, and 84 completed a minimum adequate trial of at least 6 weeks. Among the 84 adequately treated patients, 57% (24/42) receiving imipramine were rated as responders compared with 7% (3/42) receiving placebo (P < .001). On measures of mood, there was a robust effect of imipramine. Imipramine was superior to placebo on some self-reported measures of substance use and craving, and mood improvement was associated with improvement in self-reported substance use. However, few patients achieved urine-confirmed abstinence.
                Imipramine was an effective antidepressant in patients receiving methadone who were selected via syndromal criteria for depressive illness. Imipramine may reduce substance abuse among patients whose mood improves; however, this effect was less robust. Prominent and persistent anxiety, depression, and/or negative features characterize a substantial minority of recovered or residually psychotic schizophrenic outpatients and contribute to poor outcome. Because extrapyramidal side effects of typical neuroleptic medications often resemble such features, we first systematically studied the contribution of extrapyramidal side effects to these problems and their treatment. For patients who remained distressed, controlled trials of supplemental thymoleptics were undertaken.
                In trial 1, 92 distressed (depressed and/or anxious) patients and 36 patients in a defect state (patients with negative symptoms) participated in a double-blind, intramuscular challenge that compared centrally acting benztropine mesylate with peripherally acting glycopyrrolate. In trial 2, 57 distressed patients and 22 patients in a defect state were randomly assigned to a double-blind, neuroleptic medication dose-reduction group. In trial 3, 57 chronically distressed patients who were maintained on a low dose of fluphenazine decanoate were randomly assigned to a supplemental desipramine hydrochloride, lithium carbonate, or placebo group under double-blind conditions for 12 weeks.
                For patients who were already maintained on antiparkinsonian medication, impaired affect was not resolved by additional benztropine. Only distressed patients with a family history of severe mental disorder (often affective) showed improvement with neuroleptic medication dose reduction. Patients in the defect-state group reported less dysphoria on a reduced neuroleptic medication dose, but negative symptoms persisted. Desipramine improved diverse aspects of mood and residual psychoticism, possibly as a prophylaxis against minor affective exacerbations. Depression improved in women only. Lithium positively affected multiple indexes of anxiety and anxious depression.
                Most often, persistent affective impairments are neither resistant extrapyramidal side effects nor characterological traits. Thymoleptics improve the nonphasic, chronic types of anxiety and depression in contrast to the acute, episodic forms, for which little support can be found in the literature. Accumulating evidence suggests that noradrenergic and serotonergic drugs are equally effective in ameliorating the depressive symptoms of major depression. Major depression is associated also with memory impairments, but the comparative effects of the antidepressant drugs on memory are not clear. We previously found that serotonergic neurotransmission is of particular importance for some aspects of episodic memory. We set out to test whether treatment with the selective serotonergic drug Fluoxetine (Prozac) would be advantageous in this respect over treatment with the selective noradrenergic tricyclic antidepressant drug Desipramine (Deprexan). Seventeen patients with major depressive episode, randomly assigned for treatment with either Fluoxetine (n = 8) or Desipramine (n = 9), were assessed for their clinical situation and for memory performance at the beginning of treatment, after 3 weeks, and after 6 weeks of pharmacological treatment. We found that although clinically both drugs were equally effective, the improvement of memory performance in the Fluoxetine-treated patients was significantly greater compared with that of the Desipramine-treated patients. The results support the role of serotonin in memory. More studies in larger samples of patients are required, but it may be that in cases where memory impairment is a major symptom, it would be beneficial to consider serotonergic antidepressant drugs for treatment. Furthermore, in cases where, for various reasons, the treatment of choice is noradrenergic, it may be worthwhile to consider a supplementary serotonergic drug to improve memory deficits. The efficacy and safety of fluoxetine were compared with those of imipramine and of placebo in a 6-week randomized double-blind parallel study of patients with major depressive illness. Mean values for all efficacy measurements were improved over baseline with fluoxetine and imipramine treatment (p less than .001). More fluoxetine patients completed the study than did imipramine or placebo patients. Predominant adverse experiences reported by imipramine patients were dry mouth and dizziness/lightheadedness. Predominant adverse experiences reported by fluoxetine patients were drowsiness/sedation and excessive sweating. In a subsequent 48-week open-label study, the predominant adverse experience in the fluoxetine group was excessive sweating and in the imipramine group was still dry mouth. In this study, fluoxetine relieved the symptoms of major depressive illness effectively and significantly better than placebo and was better tolerated than imipramine. In animal models of brain injury, administration of numerous pharmaceuticals is reported to facilitate functional recovery. However, only drugs that increase the release of norepinephrine have been shown to promote recovery when administered late (days to weeks) after injury. To determine whether these findings were applicable to humans, we administered the norepinephrine stimulant dextroamphetamine, paired with physical therapy, to hemiplegic stroke patients.
                Ten hemiplegic patients who suffered an acute ischemic infarction were entered between days 16 and 30 after onset and randomly assigned to receive either 10 mg of dextroamphetamine or a placebo orally every fourth day for 10 sessions paired with physical therapy. The Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale was used at baseline, within each session, and for 12 months after onset as the dependent measure. Confounding medications such as alpha-adrenergic antagonists or agonists were excluded in all subjects.
                Although there were no differences between the groups at baseline (P = .599), there was a significant (P = .047) difference between the groups when the drug had been discontinued for 1 week and at the 12-month follow-up visit (P = .047).
                Administration of dextroamphetamine paired with physical therapy increased the rate and extent of motor recovery in a small group of hemiplegic stroke patients. These data support and extend previous findings of the facilitatory aspects of certain types of drugs on recovery from brain injury. The use of neuromodulation may allow the nervous system to adapt previously unused or alternative pathways to relevant external input. At the Drug Detoxification Program of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, we conducted a randomized clinical trial of imipramine in the treatment of methamphetamine dependence. The purposes of the trial were to test the efficacy of imipramine as a treatment for methamphetamine dependence and to establish the feasibility of conducting a controlled clinical trial at the Clinic. Thirty-two subjects were randomly assigned to receive either 10 or 150 mg/day of imiprine for 180 days. Imipramine 10 mg/day was the control. Subjects received intensive counseling. Retention in treatment was significantly longer for subjects who were treated with 150 mg of imipramine compared to control (median days: 33.0 vs. 10.5). There were no consistent differences in percent of urine samples positive for methamphetamine, Beck Depression Inventory scores, or craving. Determination of the full extent of imipramine's utility in the treatment of methamphetamine dependence awaits a larger trial.
Fluoxetine, amlodipine, imipramine and desipramine have very limited benefits for amphetamine dependence and abuse. Fluoxetine may decrease craving in short-term treatment. Imipramine may increase duration of adherence to treatment in medium-term treatment. Apart from these, no other benefits can be found. This limited evidence suggests that no treatment has been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of amphetamine dependence and abuse.
Although there is a large number of people with amphetamine dependence and abuse worldwide, very few controlled trials in this issue have been conducted. As the previous treatment trials show no promising result, other treatments, both biological and psychosocial, should be further investigated. However, the results of neurotoxic studies of amphetamines are also crucial for the study designs appropriate for further treatment studies for amphetamine dependence and abuse.