Paroxetine efficacy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. A placebo-controlled study of fluoxetine versus imipramine in the acute treatment of atypical depression. A double-blind comparison of fluoxetine, imipramine and placebo in outpatients with major depression. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of paroxetine versus imipramine in depressed HIV-positive outpatients. Antidepressants for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. A placebo-controlled comparison of imipramine, trazodone, and diazepam. A comparison of fluoxetine, imipramine, and placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. Placebo-controlled comparison of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors citalopram and sertraline. Paroxetine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: results of a placebo-controlled, flexible-dosage trial. A review of multicenter controlled studies of fluoxetine vs. imipramine and placebo in outpatients with major depressive disorder.
Recently, there has been a renewed interest in alternatives to the benzodiazepines for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of paroxetine vs. imipramine and 2'-chlordesmethyldiazepam in 81 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of GAD. Approximately two-thirds of the patients who completed the study improved greatly or moderately on all three active drugs. During the first 2 weeks of treatment, 2'-chlordesmethyldiazepam treatment resulted in the greatest improvement in anxiety ratings. Both paroxetine and imipramine treatment resulted in more improvement than 2'-chlordesmethyldiazepam by the fourth week of treatment. Paroxetine and imipramine affect predominantly psychic symptoms, whereas 2'-chlordesmethyldiazepam affects predominantly somatic symptoms. Our results suggest that paroxetine is effective for the treatment of GAD. The atypical subtype of depression appears to be both well validated and common. Although monoamine oxidase inhibitors are effective in treating atypical depression, their side effects and prescription-associated dietary restrictions reduce their suitability as a first-line treatment. The objective of this study was to estimate the efficacy of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) fluoxetine in the treatment of major depression with atypical features.
                One hundred fifty-four subjects with DSM-IV major depression who met the Columbia criteria for atypical depression were randomly assigned to receive fluoxetine, imipramine, or placebo for a 10-week clinical trial. Imipramine was included because its known efficacy for treatment of atypical depression helped to calibrate the appropriateness of the study group.
                In both intention-to-treat and completer groups, the effectiveness of both fluoxetine and imipramine was significantly better than that of placebo. The two medications did not differ from each other in effectiveness. Significantly more patients dropped out of treatment with imipramine than with fluoxetine. Before treatment, patients on average rated themselves as very impaired on psychological dimensions of general health and moderately impaired on physical dimensions, compared with population norms. The self-ratings of patients who responded to treatment essentially normalized on these measures.
                Despite earlier data that SSRIs might be the treatment of choice, fluoxetine appeared to be no better than imipramine in the treatment of atypical depression, although fluoxetine was better tolerated than imipramine. Fluoxetine is the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant to be marketed in the U.S. In this double-blind trial fluoxetine was compared with imipramine and placebo among 198 outpatients with DSM-III major depression, of whom 145 completed at least 2 weeks of active treatment and were evaluated for efficacy. Significantly fewer patients in each active drug group terminated early due to lack of efficacy compared to placebo. Both imipramine and fluoxetine were significantly superior to placebo on most measures. There were no consistently significant differences between the two active drugs although a trend favored imipramine on a number of measures. Fluoxetine was generally well tolerated. Significantly more imipramine than placebo patients terminated early due to side-effects while the fluoxetine-placebo difference was not significant. The results support previous studies which suggest fluoxetine's superior side-effect profile and the approximate antidepressant equivalence of fluoxetine and TCAs. This study examined whether a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (paroxetine) had comparable efficacy but greater tolerability than a tricyclic antidepressant (imipramine) in depressed patients with HIV infection.
                Seventy-five HIV-positive patients (45% of whom had AIDS) were blindly and randomly assigned to receive paroxetine (N = 25), imipramine (N = 25), or placebo (N = 25) in a 12-week trial. The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impression scale, and the SAFETEE general inquiry (for safety and tolerability) were administered at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12.
                Fifty-six (75%) of the 75 patients completed 6 weeks and 34 (45%) completed 12 weeks of the trial. The mean daily doses of both paroxetine (33.9 mg) and imipramine (162.5 mg) were significantly more effective than placebo; they were comparably effective at weeks 6, 8, and 12 according to the intent-to-treat analysis and at week 8 according to the analysis for the subjects who completed the trial (for them, only imipramine was superior to placebo at week 12). There were significantly more dropouts due to side effects from imipramine (48%) than from both paroxetine (20%) and placebo (24%).
                Depressed patients with HIV infection responded to imipramine or paroxetine at a higher rate than to placebo irrespective of severity of immunosuppression. Because paroxetine was much better tolerated than imipramine, its overall effectiveness may be greater. However, because of the small study group and the high attrition rate, these findings cannot be generalized and may need replication in a larger study group. The current study examines whether antidepressants, contrary to current thinking, are safe and effective treatments for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) not complicated by depression or panic disorder.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose, 8-week treatment study comparing imipramine hydrochloride (mean maximum daily dose, 143 mg), trazodone hydrochloride (255 mg), and diazepam (26 mg).
                Two hundred thirty patients with a DSM-III diagnosis of GAD in whom major depression and panic disorder has been excluded, and who had a Hamilton Anxiety Scale total score of at least 18.
                Seventy-five percent of patients were treated in family practice settings in the community, with the remainder treated in psychiatric practices, either academic or private.
                Patients treated with diazepam showed the most improvement in anxiety ratings during the first 2 weeks of treatment, with somatic symptoms being most responsive. From week 3 through week 8 trazodone achieved comparable, and imipramine somewhat better, anxiolytic efficacy when compared with diazepam, with psychic symptoms of tension, apprehension, and worry being more responsive to the antidepressants. Among completers, moderate to marked improvement was reported by 73% of patients treated with imipramine, 69% of patients treated with trazodone, 66% of patients treated with diazepam, but only 47% of patients treated with placebo. Overall, patients treated with antidepressants reported a higher rate of adverse effects than diazepam-treated patients, but attention rates were the same across all treatments.
                The results of the study need replication, but suggest a potentially important role for antidepressants, particularly imipramine, in patients suffering from GAD. 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. Previous comparative studies of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have rarely included a placebo control group and have rarely demonstrated significant between-group differences. The study reported on here was a placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant effects of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline.
                Three hundred twenty-three patients with DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder were randomized to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with citalopram (20-60 mg/day), sertraline (50-150 mg/day), or a placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and the primary statistical analysis was an analysis of variance comparing the change from baseline to the last observation carried forward in each treatment group.
                Both citalopram and sertraline produced significantly greater improvement than placebo on the HAMD, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. Significant improvement was observed at earlier timepoints in the citalopram group than the sertraline group; however, sertraline treatment was associated with increased gastrointestinal side effects and a tendency toward early discontinuation, and analyses that excluded early dropouts revealed similar acute efficacy for the two active treatments. The Hamilton Anxiety Scale demonstrated a significant anxiolytic effect of citalopram, but not sertraline, relative to placebo.
                This study confirms the antidepressant efficacy of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline. It is hypothesized that the more consistent evidence of antidepressant activity that was observed early in treatment in the citalopram group was related to more pronounced antianxiety effects and better tolerability upon initiation of therapy. The objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of paroxetine in outpatients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).
                Male and female outpatients 18 years and older who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD and had baseline scores of at least 20 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) were randomly assigned to treatment with paroxetine (20-50 mg/day) or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the mean change from baseline in the total score of the HAM-A. Additional key efficacy variables were the change from baseline in the scores of the HAM-A items anxious mood and tension, the anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). The proportions of patients fulfilling response and remission criteria at week 8 were also determined.
                The intent-to-treat population included 324 patients. At week 8, compared with the placebo group (N = 163), the paroxetine group (N = 161) had a significantly greater reduction of GAD symptoms on all of the above-mentioned efficacy variables. On the HAM-A anxious mood item, which encompasses the cardinal symptoms of GAD, significantly greater efficacy was observed from week 1 and on the SDS significantly greater improvement was documented in the domain "social life" as early as week 4 for paroxetine compared with placebo. In both the last-observation-carried-forward and completer data sets, significantly greater proportions of paroxetine-treated patients achieved response or remission by week 8. Treatment with paroxetine was well tolerated, and the number and type of adverse events recorded in the paroxetine group correspond to the known safety profile of this medication.
                Paroxetine in doses of 20 to 50 mg once daily is effective in the treatment of patients with GAD. Improvement of core symptoms of GAD occurs early and is associated with significant reduction in disability after only 8 weeks of treatment. The efficacy of fluoxetine was evaluated in depressed patients in double-blind imipramine- and placebo-controlled clinical trials. Fluoxetine produced greater improvement than placebo on all major efficacy parameters and was comparable to imipramine with respect to the primary indicators of depression. Fluoxetine had significantly less associated anticholinergic effects, dizziness, drowsiness, somatosensory disturbance, and excessive sweating than imipramine. Although nausea occurred more frequently in fluoxetine patients, it was generally mild and well tolerated. A significantly smaller percentage of fluoxetine than imipramine patients terminated therapy because of adverse experiences.
The available evidence suggests that antidepressants are superior to placebo in treating GAD. There is evidence from one trial suggesting that paroxetine and imipramine have a similar efficacy and tolerability. There is also evidence from placebo-controlled trials suggesting that these drugs are well tolerated by GAD patients. Further trials of antidepressants for GAD will help to demonstrate which antidepressants should be used for which patients.