Combination of inositol and serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of depression. Comparison of the tolerability and efficacy of citalopram and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients treated in general practice. A randomized, double-blind comparison of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in treatment-resistant depression. A double-blind comparison of fluoxetine, imipramine and placebo in outpatients with major depression. Effects of the serotonin type 2A, 3A and 3B receptor and the serotonin transporter genes on paroxetine and fluvoxamine efficacy and adverse drug reactions in depressed Japanese patients. Efficacy and safety of tianeptine in the treatment of depressive disorders in comparison with fluoxetine. A Canadian multicenter, double-blind study of paroxetine and fluoxetine in major depressive disorder. Therapeutic effects of escitalopram and reboxetine in seasonal affective disorder: a pooled analysis. A double-blind comparison of sertraline and fluoxetine in the treatment of major depressive episode in outpatients.
Inositol has been reported to be an effective treatment in depression, and we hypothesized that inositol addition might enhance or speed up response to serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRI).
                Twenty-seven depressed patients completed a double-blind controlled 4-week trial of SSRI plus placebo or SSRI plus inositol. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale was used as an assessment tool at baseline, and 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks.
                No significant difference was found between the two treatment groups.
                Previous studies combining different effective antidepressant therapies similarly found no evidence for additive effects [e.g., monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI) plus tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), TCA plus lithium]. By contrast, augmentation by lithium or MAOI after a failed course of antidepressant treatment is effective and should be studied with inositol. The enhanced sensitivity of the elderly to the side effects produced by tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and the frequency and type of adverse events, have made the treatment of depression in this group difficult. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been reported to produce significantly fewer undesirable side effects and display better tolerance than TCAs. We compared the therapeutic actions and side effects produced by citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, with amitriptyline in a group of elderly patients (aged 65 and older) diagnosed with major depression. In a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter comparison of citalopram (20 or 40 mg/day) and amitriptyline (50 or 100 mg/day), patients who did not respond to placebo during a 1-week single-blind phase were randomly assigned to receive citalopram or amitriptyline for 8 weeks. Efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), and Clinical Global Impressions. Both drug treatments produced equivalent time-related declines in severity of depression, so that by 8 weeks slightly more than 50% of the patients in each group experienced marked recovery, defined as MADRS scores < or = 12. Amitriptyline produced a greater overall incidence of adverse events, including a significantly higher (P < 0.001) percentage of patients reporting dry mouth (34% vs. 7%), as well as a significantly higher (P < 0.02) incidence of somnolence. Constipation and fatigue also occurred more frequently in the amitriptyline than in the citalopram group. For only one event (nausea) did the citalopram group report a significantly greater (P = 0.012) incidence (12.8% vs. 4.8%). On the basis of these results, it was concluded that citalopram is as effective an antidepressant as amitriptyline in the treatment of the depressed elderly. Because of its low incidence and low magnitude of side effects, citalopram seems especially useful in private practice. Based on preliminary evidence of its usefulness in treatment-resistant depression (TRD), an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) was examined in comparison with olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in a TRD population. In this 12-week double-blind study, 483 subjects with unipolar, nonpsychotic TRD, with historic failure on a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and prospective failure on open-label venlafaxine, were randomized to an OFC or to an olanzapine, fluoxetine, or venlafaxine monotherapy group. Venlafaxine was continued randomly in the double-blind acute phase to explore the benefits of continuation versus switching therapy. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total change score at end point was the primary outcome measure. The OFC group had significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms by week 1 of treatment (MADRS mean change =-7.2, baseline =29.6), in comparison to olanzapine (-4.8, P=.03), fluoxetine (-4.7, P=.03), or venlafaxine (-3.7, P=.002) groups and maintained its statistical separation from all three monotherapy groups through week 6. At end point, the OFC group was significantly different only from the olanzapine group (-14.1 vs. -7.7, P<.001). Analysis of a subgroup of subjects who had an SSRI failure in their current depressive episode (n=334) revealed statistical separation from both olanzapine and fluoxetine (but not venlafaxine) at end point: OFC (-14.6) versus olanzapine (-9.4, P<.001) versus fluoxetine (-10.7, P=.006) versus venlafaxine (-14.7, P=.98). The OFC had a safety profile comparable to its component monotherapies (i.e., olanzapine and fluoxetine), showed a rapid onset of antidepressant effect, and was effective in this TRD sample. At the study end point, OFC, fluoxetine, venlafaxine, and low-dose OFC all appeared to be similarly effective. 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. In this study, we tested the influence of the serotonin type 2A, 3A and 3B receptor genes (HTR2A, HTR3A, HTR3B) in addition to a polymorphism in the promoter region of the serotonin transporter (SERTPR), and investigated the different characteristics of clinical responses to paroxetine and fluvoxamine. A total of 100 Japanese patients affected by major recurrent depression were enrolled in a randomized 6-week study. The clinical response was evaluated using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and adverse drug reactions were assessed at each visit. Patients with the l allele of SERTPR showed a better response to SSRIs than s/s genotype carriers (p = 0.015-0.042), more significantly to fluvoxamine. The -1438G/G genotype of HTR2A was associated with a good response to SSRIs (p = 0.010-0.039), especially to fluvoxamine, and significantly with severe nausea in paroxetine-treated patients (p = 0.013). The 178C/C genotype of the HTR3A was associated with an antidepressant response (p = 0.022-0.042), and more significantly in paroxetine-treated patients (p = 0.002-0.042). These effects were independent of one another. We replicated the finding that the SERPTR polymorphism was associated with a response to SSRIs. We additionally found that HTR2A and HTR3A polymorphisms are associated with the efficacy, and the HTR2A polymorphism is also associated with adverse drug reactions. Furthermore, the effects of these polymorphisms varied from one SSRI to another and thus may depend on the characteristics of each SSRI. Depression is treated by a great variety of antidepressant treatments. SSRIs (such as fluoxetine) are well known: it is, however, sure that further progress is needed and the search for antidepressants with other mechanisms of action (such as tianeptine) or different efficacy is still of interest.
                A multinational study compared tianeptine with fluoxetine in 387 patients with Depressive Episode, or Recurrent Depressive Disorder, or Bipolar Affective Disorder (ICD-10), in a double-blind parallel group design. They were treated for six weeks.
                At inclusion, no significant difference between groups was shown. Final MADRS scores were 15.7 and 15.8 with tianeptine and fluoxetine, respectively (ITT population) (p = 0.944). MADRS responders were 58% and 56% with tianeptine and fluoxetine, respectively (p = 0.710). No statistical difference was observed for the other efficacy parameters. Thirty-six withdrawals occurred in each group, without any difference for the reasons of discontinuation. There was no major difference between groups for the other safety parameters.
                In this study, both tianeptine and fluoxetine exhibited a good efficacy and safety. Recent studies have suggested clinical differences among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. In a 12-week randomized, multicenter, double-blind trial, the antidepressant and anxiolytic efficacy of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors paroxetine and fluoxetine was compared in patients with moderate to severe depression.
                A total of 203 patients were randomized to fixed doses (20 mg/day) of paroxetine or fluoxetine for the first six weeks of therapy. From week 7-12, dosing could be adjusted biweekly, as required (paroxetine 20-50 mg/day, and fluoxetine 20-80 mg/day). The mean prescribed doses were paroxetine 25.5 mg/day (range 20.0-40.2 mg/day), and fluoxetine 27.5 mg/day (range 20.0-59.5 mg/day). Emergence of motor nervousness or restlessness was assessed using the ESRS scale for akathisia.
                Both active treatments demonstrated comparable antidepressant efficacy (HAM-D, CGI). Anxiolytic activity of the two drugs (COVI, STAI, HAM-D) was also comparable. However, paroxetine was found to be superior to fluoxetine on two subscore measures at week 1 of therapy (HAM-D Agitation item, p < 0.05; Psychic Anxiety item, p < 0.05), with no differences detected after week 2. The overall incidence of adverse effects was comparable in the two treatment groups. Constipation, dyspepsia, tremor, sweating and abnormal ejaculation were more common in paroxetine-treated subjects, whereas nausea and nervousness were more frequent in fluoxetine-treated patients. Weight loss was more common in the fluoxetine versus paroxetine group (11.88% versus 2.94%, respectively). ESRS scores for akathisia were low throughout the study and showed little change.
                Differences observed between the two drugs in antianxiety effects were limited to two measures of anxiety among several others.
                The data indicate that paroxetine and fluoxetine have comparable antidepressant and anxiolytic efficacy. Paroxetine appears to produce an earlier improvement in agitation and psychic anxiety symptoms compared with fluoxetine. The monoaminergic neurotransmitters serotonin and noradrenaline have both been implicated in the pathogenesis of seasonal affective disorder (SAD). However, the differential therapeutic value of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NARI) in SAD has not been assessed until now. This study compares data from two open-label trials with similar methodology investigating the SSRI escitalopram and the NARI reboxetine. 20 SAD patients were treated with escitalopram (10-20mg) and 15 patients received treatment with reboxetine (fixed dosage: 8mg) over 6 weeks. Ratings included the structured interview guide for the Hamilton depression rating scale, SAD version (SIGH-SAD), the clinical global impression of severity (CGI-S) and improvement (CGI-I) and the UKU side effect rating scale. Treatment led to a significant reduction in SIGH-SAD score, CGI-S and CGI-I after one week in the reboxetine group and after two weeks in the escitalopram group. SIGH-SAD score was significantly lower in the reboxetine group at weeks 1, 2 and 4 but not at the end of the study. The response rate (SIGH-SAD <50% of baseline value) and the remission rate (SIGH-SAD <8) were not significantly different after 6 weeks of treatment, but the time to response and to remission was significantly shorter in the reboxetine group. The number and severity of side effects were higher in patients treated with reboxetine at all time points. Thus escitalopram and reboxetine were equally effective in treating SAD on all primary and secondary outcome measures. Reboxetine displayed a faster onset of action, but was associated with more pronounced side effects. Further studies comparing SSRI and NARI in SAD are warranted. Depression is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. As depressive disorders carry a high risk of relapse, treatment strategies include the use of a 6-month continuation period after resolution of the acute episode. Tolerability is of major importance when determining compliance and outcome during long-term therapy. Due to the superior tolerability profile of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) over the older tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), the former may be more suitable for extended therapy. Comparative studies have not shown differences between the SSRIs in terms of efficacy, but side-effect profiles may vary. A multicenter, double-blind, comparative study of sertraline and fluoxetine was carried out in outpatients fulfilling DSM-III-R criteria for major depressive disorder. Patients were randomised to receive sertraline (50-150 mg, n = 118) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg, n = 120) for 24 weeks. Assessments for depression (HAM-D, HAD, CGI-I, CGI-S), anxiety (Covi), sleep (Leeds Sleep Evaluation scale) and quality of life (SIP) were made at study entry and at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 18 and 24. All adverse events were recorded to allow evaluation of tolerability. In total, 88 patients in the sertraline group completed the study compared with 79 in the fluoxetine group. Side effects were responsible for the premature treatment withdrawal of seven (6%) sertraline patients and 12 (10%) fluoxetine patients. Two-hundred and thirty-four patients were included in an ITT analysis up to last visit (116 sertraline, 118 fluoxetine). At study endpoint, both treatments produced a significant improvement over baseline on all efficacy variables (P < 0.001). Although the magnitude of global changes in depression, anxiety, and quality of life was larger with sertraline than fluoxetine, none of the between-group differences reached statistical significance. However, significant differences in favour of sertraline were observed for individual HAM-D items including item 4 (insomnia onset) (P = 0.04), item 9 (agitation) (P = 0.02), and item 13 (general somatic symptoms) (P = 0.008). In addition, sertraline was associated with significantly superior performance on the Leeds Sleep Evaluation scale and on SIP items relating to sleep and rest, emotional behaviour and ambulation. Both sertraline and fluoxetine were well tolerated with no significant differences between treatments.
Our findings suggest that SSRIs and TCAs are of the same efficacy. However, we have found some evidence suggesting that TCA related antidepressants and classical TCAs have different side effect profiles and are associated with differing withdrawal rates when compared with SSRIs. The review suggests that classical TCAs are associated with a higher withdrawal rate due to side effect experience, although these results must be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the drugs and patient populations.