[Comparison of the effect of amisulpride and viloxazine in the treatment of dysthymia]. Relevance of DMS-III depressive subtype and chronicity of antidepressant efficacy in atypical depression. Differential response to phenelzine, imipramine, and placebo. Reduced REM latency predicts response to tricyclic medication in depressed outpatients. A double-blind trial of maprotiline (Ludiomil) and amitriptyline in depressed outpatients. Cognitive behavior therapy, relaxation training, and tricyclic antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression. Compliance with antidepressant medication in the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care: a randomized comparison of fluoxetine and a tricyclic antidepressant. Trimipramine in physical illness with depression. Changes in weight during treatment for depression. Controlled efficacy study of fluoxetine in dysthymia.
An evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy of Amisulpride as compared with Viloxazine in a group of patients diagnosed as dysthymic, according to the DSM-III-R criteria is presented. Study was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial: Subjects were assessed during an initial examination with informed consent, then entering a 4-week treatment trial. The Hamilton Depression Scale, the Widlocher Psychomotor Retardation Scale, and the Andreasen Negative Symptoms Scale were used for evaluating cases. Both the efficacy and safety of drugs were assessed. An analysis of results suggests a better therapeutic response among the Amisulpride group subjects. One hundred ninety-four nonmelancholic depressed outpatients with features of atypical depression took part in a 6-week randomized trial of imipramine hydrochloride, phenelzine sulfate, and placebo. Their courses of illness were also rated for chronicity. Significantly more patients responded to phenelzine (71%) than to imipramine (48%), which benefited significantly more patients than placebo (26%). Both chronicity and DMS-III diagnosis predicted response on several outcome measures. For example, patients with dysthymic disorder responded better to treatment than did those with major depression, suggesting that dysthymic disorder can be treated with medication. Placebo response correlated inversely with chronicity, regardless of DMS-III diagnosis. Atypical depression and longitudinal course of illness may add to the usefulness of DMS-III depressive diagnosis as a predictor of antidepressant response. Forty-two outpatients with major depressive disorder entered a double-blind, randomized trial of either desipramine or amitriptyline for a minimum of 6 weeks. Pretreatment polysomnographic and clinical measures were used to predict response. Response was defined as a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score less than or equal to 9 at the end of treatment. There was a 61.1% response rate for patients treated with amitriptyline and a 66.7% response rate for patients treated with desipramine. Reduced REM latency (2-night mean less than or equal to 65.0 min) predicted a positive response to these tricyclic antidepressants. REM latency did not differentiate between desipramine or amitriptyline responders. More patients with reduced REM latency (80%) responded to treatment compared with patients with nonreduced REM latency (50%). The 80% response rate in reduced REM latency depressed patients confirms our previous findings in a mixed inpatient and outpatient sample. Contrary to our hypothesis, in this sample, endogenous depression was not associated with a good response to tricyclic medication. The results of a double-blind trial of a tetracyclic antidepressant, maprotiline (Ludiomil) and a conventional tricyclic, amitriptyline (Elavil), in 67 ambulatory depressives are reported. Hamilton's Rating Scale for Depression was the main outcome criterion. No statistically significant differences were found between the drugs in onset of action, efficacy, side effects or predictors of response. Patients on either drug showed a significant reduction in symptoms after 1 week of treatment and at the end of the trial. Both drugs were tolerated well. A review of double-blind comparisons of maprotiline and tricyclic antidepressants, spanning 13 countries, and including over 900 patients, both ambulatory and inpatient, shows essentially similar results. The main outcome criterion in all these studies was manifest psychopathology assessed on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression by the treating physician. The absence of additional types of outcome criteria or assessment techniques, which may have detected differences in motor activity or drive as originally postulated, may have obscured results which were expected to be subtle. Outcomes of seven treatment trials comparing cognitive behavioral therapy to treatment with tricyclic antidepressant medication in major depressive disorder have been quite similar to one another. This led us to question whether treatment outcome in time-limited studies reflected a unique effect of cognitive behavioral therapy. To test the uniqueness hypothesis, relaxation training, a nonpharmacologic, noncognitive treatment, was chosen as a comparison for cognitive behavioral therapy as well as drug therapy. Treatment duration was 16 weeks. The sample of 37 patients treated for major depressive disorder was less depressed than those previously studied. For both cognitive behavioral therapy and relaxation training, outcome of depression was superior to that of tricyclic antidepressant medication by endpoint analysis. The posttreatment scores on the Beck Depression Inventory of 82% of the group receiving cognitive behavioral therapy improved to a Beck Depression Inventory score < or = 9 which was not significantly greater than that for the group receiving relaxation training (73%), so a unique effect was not demonstrated for cognitive behavioral therapy. The outcome for tricyclic antidepressant medication (29% improved to criteria) was significantly worse than that for cognitive behavioral therapy. The patient's pretreatment initial expectancy was not predictive. Many claims have been made for superior compliance with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with tricyclic antidepressants, but to date meta-analyses have not confirmed reduced dropouts in randomized controlled trials. The authors used a randomized study design to evaluate differential compliance with antidepressant medications in a primary care setting.
                A total of 152 patients treated in 10 primary care practices in the United Kingdom were included in a randomized, open-label, parallel-group study of fluoxetine and dothiepin at therapeutic doses for 12 weeks. Compliance was assessed by using pill count, patient questionnaires, and the Medication Event Monitoring System.
                The level of compliance with fluoxetine was numerically higher than the level of compliance with dothiepin on all three primary outcome measures, although the differences were not significant. In a secondary analysis using data from the Medication Event Monitoring System, both a survival analysis for length of time without a gap in medicine taking and a derived compliance index showed a significant advantage to fluoxetine. Patients in the fluoxetine group reported superior response on the health transition scale of the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey Questionnaire and numerically greater improvement on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. In both treatment arms patients with a superior compliance index were more likely to have improved in Hamilton depression scale scores by the last study visit.
                This study supports recent meta-analyses of SSRIs versus tricyclic antidepressants in finding no significant differences in crude indices of compliance between fluoxetine and dothiepin, despite marked differences in side effect profile and dose regimen. However, both a survival analysis and a new measure that takes account of prolonged periods of noncompliance distinguished between the treatments and was associated with improvement in both groups. 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. Changes in appetite and weight were examined in a group of 47 carefully diagnosed primary depressives who were treated in a random design with either placebo (N = 17) or amitryptyline (N = 30) over a 35-day protocol. While the amitriptyline treated group as a whole showed a greater gain in weight than did the placebo group (4.5 vs. 0.5 lb, p less than 0.05), no differential effects could be demonstrated between drug responders and nonresponders. Likewise, while a consistent relationship between the self-report of decreased appetite and final weight change was noted in the placebo group, no simple relationship between final weight change and self-reported changes in appetite were apparent in the drug-treated patients. There was, however, a relationship between the report of decreased appetite and clinical severity of depression in the drug nonresponder subgroup despite significant weight gain during the protocol. Thus, weight change during this study period did not appear to show a simple relationship to corresponding clinical change. The clinical lore that has supported the notion that increased appetite and weight gain in patients being treated with tricyclic antidepressants are "good" signs cannot be confirmed by our findings. There have been very few controlled studies of antidepressants in dysthymia, particularly in samples diagnosed reliably and with an adequate length of follow-up. In this investigation, we measured the long-term outcome in a large group of patients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for dysthymia. This study was designed to investigate whether fluoxetine is effective in the treatment of dysthymia.
                This randomised study including 140 patients, compared fluoxetine (91 patients) and placebo (49 patients) on a double-blind basis in two distinct phases: a short-term end-point (3 months with 20 mg/day fluoxetine) and a medium-term end-point (6 months) where the initial responders continued double-blind treatment unchanged and non-responders received an additional treatment of 20 mg/day fluoxetine.
                After three months of treatment, response was seen more frequently in the fluoxetine group (42/72) than in the placebo group (14/39, P < 0.0001). Improved patients at 3 months were still improved at 6 months. Furthermore, 50% of the nonresponders at 3 months improved and rated as responders at 6 months, after fluoxetine was increased to 40 mg daily.
                This study showed the significant and persistent action of fluoxetine on dysthymia. The finding that 50% of the non-responders at 3 months were improved at 6 months, after fluoxetine dosage was increased to 40 mg daily, argues in favour of treating dysthymic patients for at least 6 months, and with a higher dosage if the initial doses are ineffective.
Drugs are effective in the treatment of dysthymia with no differences between and within drug classes. Tricyclic antidepressants are more likely to cause adverse events and dropouts. As dysthymia is a chronic condition, there remains little information on quality of life and medium or long-term outcome.