Predictors of therapeutic benefit from amitriptyline in mild depression: a general practice placebo-controlled trial. A double-blind comparison of Org 3770, amitriptyline, and placebo in major depression. Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of amitriptyline among depressed patients in general practice. Mirtazapine vs. amitriptyline vs. placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Randomized, controlled trial of amitriptyline versus placebo for adolescents with "treatment-resistant" major depression. A randomized, controlled trial of amitriptyline in the acute treatment of adolescent major depression. [Lofepramine: a comparative clinical study with amitriptyline]. A double-blind trial with amitriptyline and lofepramine in the treatment of endogenous depression. A comparative trial of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in patients with major depressive disorder.
General practice depressives were treated for 6 weeks with amitriptyline or placebo in a controlled trial. Overall, drug was found strongly superior to placebo. Interactions were examined between drug effects and a number of variables, principally reflecting demographic characteristics, history of illness, severity of illness, and endogenous depression separately in symptoms and stress. Only in the area of severity were significant interactions found. Amitriptyline was superior to placebo in probable or definite major depression on the Research Diagnostic Criteria, but not in minor depression. It was also superior to placebo in subjects with initial scores on the Hamilton Depression Scale of 13-15, and 16 or more, but not with lower scores. Findings indicate that tricyclic antidepressants are of considerable benefit in relatively mild depressions, except in the mildest range. A 6-week, double-blind, dose titration study was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety of the new antidepressant Org 3770 in comparison with amitriptyline and placebo.
                One hundred fifty outpatients of both sexes, 18 years and older, with a DSM-III diagnosis of major depressive episode, were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of treatment with Org 3770, amitriptyline, or placebo.
                At baseline, mean 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) scores of all treatment groups were higher than 25, thus indicating that a large proportion of severely depressed patients entered the study. The overall mean daily doses were 22 mg/day for Org 3770, 133 mg/day for amitriptyline, and 4.9 capsules/day for placebo. The majority of times assessments were made, both active drugs produced significantly greater improvements than placebo on all efficacy variables (17-item HAM-D, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions, and Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale). After 6 weeks of treatment, significantly greater (p < or = .05) proportions of patients in both active treatment groups (70% in the Org 3770- and 58% in the amitriptyline-treatment groups) than in the placebo-treatment group (33%) were HAM-D responders. Org 3770 was well tolerated in this study; dry mouth and somnolence were the only adverse experiences that occurred significantly more frequently with Org 3770- than with placebo-treated patients. By contrast, treatment with amitriptyline was related to significantly higher rates of dry mouth, constipation, and dyspepsia as compared with both Org 3770 and placebo, and significantly higher rates of somnolence as compared with placebo.
                In this study, Org 3770 was as effective as amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression, with advantages regarding improvements of depressed mood (HAM-D Item 1), responder rates, and safety. Depressed patients in general practice were included in a double-blind placebo-controlled six-week trial of amitriptyline (median dose 125 mg). The patients were relatively mildly ill and satisfied diagnostic criteria for depression and treatment with antidepressants in routine practice. Amitriptyline was found to be considerably superior to placebo after six weeks and significantly so as early as two weeks after the start of treatment. The effects of the antidepressant were on the core symptoms of depression, and were apparent in all but the most mildly ill patients. The findings suggest that tricyclic antidepressants are of considerable therapeutic benefit to depressed patients in general practice. Patients (n = 150) were randomized to a 6-week, double-blind study to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of mirtazapine, amitriptyline, and placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder symptoms. Average daily modal doses were mirtazapine, 18 mg; amitriptyline, 111 mg; and placebo, 4.6 capsules. Mirtazapine- and amitriptyline-treated patients had statistically significantly greater mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score reductions (weekly visits 1, 2, 4, and endpoint) compared to placebo. These findings were supported by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales. Somnolence and weight gain were the only adverse clinical experiences (ACEs) reported substantially more often by mirtazapine-treated patients than by those in the placebo group. However, more amitriptyline-treated patients reported decreased visual accommodation, dry mouth, dyspepsia, constipation, tachycardia, hypertension, hypotension, discoordination, dizziness, and tremor than mirtazapine- or placebo-treated patients. Results of this study indicate that mirtazapine is more effective than placebo in the treatment of these patients, and superior to amitriptyline in respect to anticholinergic and cardiovascular effects. To assess the response to a serotonergic/noradrenergic tricyclic antidepressant, amitriptyline (AMI), in a group of adolescents with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD).
                Twenty-seven depressed adolescents admitted to a state hospital underwent a 10-week randomized, controlled trial with a flexible dose of AMI or placebo.
                There were no differences between patients taking AMI (n = 13) and placebo (n = 14). Both treatment groups showed approximately 70% to 80% improvement on the clinical outcome measurements, and 65% to 70% showed functional improvement. At the end of the protocol, 30% of patients still fulfilled criteria for MDD and had impaired functioning. Patients taking AMI experienced significantly more dry mouth and tachycardia. The final AMI dose was 173.1 mg/day +/- 56.3 mg/day; blood levels were 226.2 ng/mL +/- 80.8 ng/mL.
                No significant differences were found between AMI and placebo, in part because of the high placebo response rate. Although both treatment groups showed substantial response, at the end of treatment a substantial proportion of patients still had MDD of subsyndromal symptoms of depression. This and other studies of tricyclic antidepressants question the use of this medication as first-line treatment for youths with MDD. To determine amitriptyline's (AMI) efficacy in the acute treatment of adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD).
                Subjects aged 12 through 17 years meeting Research Diagnostic Criteria for MDD, diagnosed with the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children (K-SADS), participated in a 2-week placebo-washout followed by an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-design, placebo-controlled trial of AMI, 5 mg/kg per day. The K-SADS nine-item scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impressions rating scale were used as outcome measures.
                Thirty-one subjects were randomized (18 AMI, 13 placebo). Twenty-two subjects were study completers (12 AMI, 10 placebo). AMI's efficacy was suggested by the Clinical Global Impressions but not the K-SADS-derived data. Perhaps the primary limitation of the current study is its small sample size.
                No definitive recommendation can be made regarding the efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of adolescent MDD. Lofepramine, a new tricycle antidepressant, is compared with amitriptyline in a double-blind study. A brief pharmacological description of the drug is made emphasizing its low toxicity and anticholinergic peripheral effects, high plasmatic concentration levels and good tolerance and elimination in comparison with some other known tricycle antidepressants. Sixty depressive outpatients of a Mental Health Service in Lima, 5 male and 55 female, aging 16 to 65, 29 endogenous and 31 neurotic were studied with both drugs in a equimolar dosage. Through the chi square test, no statistical significance was found in maximal therapeutic response, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores, type of depression, and side-effects xerostomy which is lesser with lofepramine. A discussion of these results is made and it is concluded that in the present study lofepramine compared with amitriptyline has a similar therapeutic effect. Though not statistically significant, lofepramine seems to be better for neurotic depression and patients sensitive to anticholinergic side-effects. A double-blind trial was undertaken to compare the antidepressant efficacy and the side effects of Lofepramine with those of Amitriptyline in the treatment of endogenous depression. The study involves 22 acutely ill endogenously depressive patients. 11 patients were treated with Lofepramine and the remaining 11 with Amitriptyline. The results demonstrate that both substances are effective in the treatment of depression. However, the therapeutical efficacy of Lofepramine is significantly greater than that of Amitriptyline. Furthermore, the tolerance of Lofepramine is better than that of Amitriptyline, and the side effects of Amitriptyline, especially in blood pressure dysregulation, are greater than those of Lofepramine. The efficacy and safety of fluoxetine, a new antidepressant agent, were assessed in a double-blind, parallel, randomized study of 44 outpatients with major depressive disorder. Following a 1-week placebo period, patients were randomly assigned to either fluoxetine or amitriptyline for a period of 5 weeks. The mean maintenance dosages were 55 mg/day for fluoxetine and 159 mg/day for amitriptyline. Both drugs were effective in relieving the symptoms of depression. The most frequently reported side effects were nausea and nervousness for fluoxetine, and dry mouth, dizziness, and drowsiness for amitriptyline.
Amitriptyline is an efficacious antidepressant drug. It is, however, also associated with a number of side effects. Degree of placebo response and severity of depression at baseline may moderate drug-placebo efficacy differences.