Exercise and pharmacotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Placebo-controlled treatment trial of depression in elderly physically ill patients. A double-blind comparison of Org 3770, amitriptyline, and placebo in major depression. Trimipramine in physical illness with depression. A controlled trial of maprotiline (Ludiomil) in depressed outpatients. A double-blind comparative trial of zimelidine, amitriptyline, and placebo in patients with mixed anxiety and depression. Glycemic control improvement through treatment of depression using antidepressant drugs in patients with diabetes mellitus type 1. Predictors of therapeutic benefit from amitriptyline in mild depression: a general practice placebo-controlled trial. Alprazolam, amitriptyline, doxepin, and placebo in the treatment of depression.
To assess whether patients receiving aerobic exercise training performed either at home or in a supervised group setting achieve reductions in depression comparable to standard antidepressant medication (sertraline) and greater reductions in depression compared to placebo controls.
                Between October 2000 and November 2005, we performed a prospective, randomized controlled trial (SMILE study) with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment in a tertiary care teaching hospital. A total of 202 adults (153 women; 49 men) diagnosed with major depression were assigned randomly to one of four conditions: supervised exercise in a group setting; home-based exercise; antidepressant medication (sertraline, 50-200 mg daily); or placebo pill for 16 weeks. Patients underwent the structured clinical interview for depression and completed the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).
                After 4 months of treatment, 41% of the participants achieved remission, defined as no longer meeting the criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) and a HAM-D score of <8. Patients receiving active treatments tended to have higher remission rates than the placebo controls: supervised exercise = 45%; home-based exercise = 40%; medication = 47%; placebo = 31% (p = .057). All treatment groups had lower HAM-D scores after treatment; scores for the active treatment groups were not significantly different from the placebo group (p = .23).
                The efficacy of exercise in patients seems generally comparable with patients receiving antidepressant medication and both tend to be better than the placebo in patients with MDD. Placebo response rates were high, suggesting that a considerable portion of the therapeutic response is determined by patient expectations, ongoing symptom monitoring, attention, and other nonspecific factors. To determine the response of physically ill elderly depressed patients to treatment.
                Acute geriatric medical inpatients with depression, randomly assigned to an 8-week double-blind placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine.
                Response rate as defined by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.
                Eighty-two patients entered the trial; 62 patients (all those who had completed at least 3 weeks of treatment) were included in the efficacy analysis. Forty-two completed the full 8 weeks (21 in each group) with response rates of 67% in the fluoxetine group and 38% in the placebo group. No significant difference was found between the responses of the two groups (p = 0.12). There was a trend for results in the fluoxetine group to continue to improve with time. On secondary analysis those patients with serious physical illness who completed 5 or more weeks (N = 37) showed a significant improvement in mood if treated with fluoxetine (p = 0.02).
                The main benefit of antidepressants is to approximately double the chances of recovery. This trial showed the response rate of the fluoxetine treated group was increased by a factor of 1.8 over the placebo group in an 8-week period. The presence of physical illness, often severe and/or multiple, did not reduce the effectiveness of the medication, which was well tolerated overall. Those with serious physical disease responded significantly better to drug treatment; this will require further work. Psychological support was also considered to be important. 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. To assess whether tricyclic antidepressants are useful in patients with a serious physical disorder who develop symptoms of major depression, 42 medically ill outpatients who met RDC criteria for endogenous major depression and had a Raskin depression score of at least 7 were studied. The patients were randomly assigned to a 6-week trial of trimipramine or placebo under double-blind conditions. In the placebo group, depressive symptoms improved when the physical disorder improved; in the trimipramine group, improvement was seen in the depressive symptoms even when there was no concomitant improvement in physical condition. A double blind comparison is reported of a new tetracyclic antidepressant, maprotiline, with amitriptyline and placebo in psychiatric outpatients. Amitriptyline was significantly more effective than placebo in its global effect on depression. Maprotiline emerged as neither inferior to amitriptyline nor superior to placebo. Methodological difficulties prevented an adequate assessment of the anxiolytic activity of maprotiline. We performed a randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of zimelidine with amitriptyline and placebo in outpatients with major depression, in particular patients with mixed anxiety/depressive symptomatology. Overall, amitriptyline was more effective than zimelidine and placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. However, when those patients with more severe depression were specifically examined, both antidepressants were equal in efficacy and superior to placebo. We also found no evidence for a greater likelihood of a zimelidine-induced peripheral neuropathy in this study. The present results suggest that zimelidine may be more effective in the treatment of severely depressed patients, rather than those with more mild mixed anxiety/depressive syndromes. Depression is a common disorder among diabetic patients and affects negatively the treatment of their basic disease. The aim of the study was to assess, whether antidepressant medication could positively influence glycemic control of diabetes type 1 in depressive or anxious patients.
                A six-month, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study was performed to investigate the reaction of type 1diabetic patients (n=21) to treatment of depression and anxiety symptoms using antidepressant drug sertraline. The patients were given sertraline (100 mg/day) or placebo. The evolution of mental change was assessed using Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) along with development of somatic parameters commonly assessed in diabetic patients, especially glycosylated hemoglobin, insulin dose and body weight. The level of active substance in serum of the patients was also measured.
                Mental state improved at the level of statistical significance of p<0.001 in both patients using antidepressant and placebo. From somatic parameters, body weight and systolic blood pressure increased statistically significantly also in both groups of patients.
                The mental state of most patients who successfully completed the study improved regardless of the fact if they were using antidepressant or placebo. No statistically significant connections between the mental and somatic changes were found. This finding points out to the placebo effect of the medication, to the importance of a contact with patients, but also to the need to concentrate on their mental state. 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. Five hundred four outpatients suffering from a major depressive episode were randomly assigned to receive either amitriptyline, doxepin, alprazolam, or placebo. The study was conducted in three treatment centers during a six-week period. All three active medications produced significantly more clinical improvement than did placebo, irrespective of the patient's initial anxiety, depression, and psychomotor retardation and irrespective of the patient's assignment to various subtypes of depression, including the DSM-III melancholia subtype. Compared with placebo, sedation was reported more frequently with all three medications, whereas anticholinergic effects were reported more frequently only for the two tricyclic antidepressants, but not for alprazolam.
This review provides evidence that antidepressants are superior to placebo in treating depression in physical illness. However, it is likely that publication and reporting biases exaggerated the effect sizes obtained. Further research is required to determine the comparative efficacy and acceptability of particular antidepressants in this population.