A multicentre, double-blind, amitriptyline-controlled study of mirtazapine in patients with major depression. Double-blind, randomized comparison of mirtazapine and paroxetine in elderly depressed patients. Comparison of the effects of mirtazapine and fluoxetine in severely depressed patients. A randomized, double-blind, 24-week study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and paroxetine in depressed patients in primary care. Mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablet versus sertraline: a prospective onset of action study. A double-blind multicentre comparison of mirtazapine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. Efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine versus citalopram: a double-blind, randomized study in patients with major depressive disorder. Nordic Antidepressant Study Group. Treatment of post-myocardial infarction depressive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with mirtazapine. Mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablets versus venlafaxine extended release: a double-blind, randomized multicenter trial comparing the onset of antidepressant response in patients with major depressive disorder.
Background: the efficacy and tolerability of the new antidepressant mirtazapine were evaluated in a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, amitriptyline-controlled, 5 week clinical study. Method: 156 patients with a DSM-III diagnosis of major depressive episode and 21-item Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression (HPRSD) score ≥ 18, were randomized to treatment with either mirtazapine 20-60 mg/day or amitriptyline 75-225 mg/day. Results: mirtazapine and amitriptyline were equally effective in reducing depressive symptoms, as assessed by the 17-item HPRSD and MADRS scales. Mirtazapine was better tolerated than amitriptyline, with fewer drop-outs due to adverse events and lower incidences of adverse events both at the beginning and at the end of the trial. Conclusion: this study shows that mirtazapine is as effective as amitriptyline in treating major depression, while at the same time better tolerated. Authors studied the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and paroxetine in elderly patients with major depression during an acute phase (8 weeks) and an extension phase (16 weeks).
                Patients with major depression and without dementia, at least 65 years old, were eligible; they were randomized to mirtazapine or paroxetine once daily, with doses increasing over 42 days. Efficacy was assessed with the Ham-D and Clinical Global Impressions Scale, and tolerability was assessed from adverse events.
                Of 255 patients randomized, 126 on mirtazapine and 120 on paroxetine were included in the efficacy analysis. Differences favoring mirtazapine were observed for the mean change from baseline in Ham-D-17 score. Other significant differences were in the proportion of patients classified as responders (50% decrease from baseline Ham-D-17 scores) at Day 14 and in remission (Ham-D-17 score of 7 or less) at Day 42. The median time to response was 26 days in the mirtazapine group and 40 days in the paroxetine group. The mirtazapine group also showed more reduction in Ham-D Factor I (Anxiety/Somatization) and Factor VI (Sleep Disturbance) scores. Efficacy of both drugs was maintained during the extension phase. Patients on paroxetine were more likely to discontinue therapy in the acute phase because of adverse events.
                During the first weeks of treatment, antidepressant effects were more pronounced in the mirtazapine group, suggesting that mirtazapine has an earlier onset of action. Mirtazapine also demonstrated a better tolerability profile and represents a valuable option for the treatment of depression in elderly patients. Depression is a major global problem associated with large medical, sociological and economic burdens. Mirtazapine (Remeron, Organon NV, The Netherlands) is an antidepressant with a unique mechanism of action that has similar or superior efficacy to TCAs and SSRIs in moderate-to-severe depression. However, this agent has not yet been tested in patients with severe depression alone.
                To compare the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and fluoxetine and their effects on anxiety and quality of life in patients with severe depression (> or = 25 points on the first 17 items of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS-17]).
                In this double-blind study, 297 severely depressed patients were randomised to receive mirtazapine 15-60 mg/day (n = 147) or fluoxetine 20-40 mg/day (n = 152) for 8 weeks. 294 subjects were actually treated and 292 included in the intent-to-treat population. Symptom severity was measured by the HDRS-17, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) rating scale. Quality of life was self-assessed by patients using the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire and the Quality of Life, Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study.
                No statistically significant differences were noted between the two groups in change from baseline HDRS-17 score at any time point; both treatments were associated with large (approximately 15 points) decreases by study end. However, more mirtazapine-treated patients tended to exhibit a > or = 50% decrease in HDRS score (significant at day 7; 9.0% vs 0.7%, p = 0.002). Significant differences in favour of mirtazapine were also observed at day 14 for changes in MADRS scores (-10.9 vs -8.5, p = 0.006) and the proportion of patients with > or = 50% decrease in MADRS score (21.4% vs 10.9%, p = 0.031). On the CGI, the proportion of 'much/very much improved' patients tended to be greater with mirtazapine (significant at day 7; 9.7% vs 3.4%, p = 0.032). No significant between-group differences were observed for the majority of quality-of-life measures. However, mirtazapine produced significantly better improvements on 'sleeping assessment 1' (14.9 +/- 5.2 vs 13.7 +/- 5.4, p = 0.028) and 'sleeping assessment 2' (p = 0.013) than fluoxetine. Both agents were generally well tolerated but mirtazapine-treated patients experienced a mean weight gain of 0.8 +/- 2.7 kg compared with a mean decrease in weight of 0.4 +/- 2.1 kg for fluoxetine-treated patients (p < 0.001).
                Mirtazapine is as effective and well tolerated as fluoxetine in the treatment of patients with severe depression. Primary care patients with a major depressive disorder and 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (17-HAM-D) score >18 were randomized to 24 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine 30-45 mg/day (n=99) or paroxetine 20-30 mg/day (n=98). Both treatments were efficacious in improving depressive symptomatology, as assessed by group mean 17-HAM-D scores, percentages of HAM-D responders and remitters and Clinical Global Improvement responders. The mirtazapine group showed statistically significantly larger decreases from baseline in group mean 17-HAM-D scores at weeks 1, 2 and 4, and the difference with the paroxetine group reached the level of clinical relevance at weeks 2 and 4. Antidepressant efficacy was maintained throughout both the acute and continuation phase of treatment. Both treatments were well tolerated. The only adverse event with a statistically significantly higher incidence in the mirtazapine group was fatigue. Statistically significantly more paroxetine-treated patients complained of increased sweating, headache and nausea. The results demonstrate that both mirtazapine and paroxetine were efficacious and well tolerated when used for 24 weeks in depressed patients treated in primary care. An observed difference in efficacy favouring mirtazapine between weeks 1 and 4 indicates that mirtazapine patients had improved earlier compared to those on paroxetine, and corroborates similar findings in other comparisons of mirtazapine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. This multinational, randomized, double-blind study was specifically designed to prospectively compare the onset of antidepressant efficacy of mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablets and sertraline at dosages commonly used in clinical practice. A total of 345 patients with major depressive episode (DSM-IV) received mirtazapine (30-45 mg/d) or sertraline (50-150 mg/d) for 8 weeks. Mirtazapine was administered in the newly developed fast dissolving, orally disintegrating tablet formulation. Assessments were performed at baseline and on days 4, 7, 10, 14, 28, 42, and 56. The primary efficacy variable (mean absolute change from baseline in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAMD] total score [17 items]) showed that mirtazapine was significantly (P < 0.05) more effective than sertraline at all assessments during the first 2 weeks of the study. After this time, HAMD total scores were similar in both groups. These findings were supported by analysis of the HAMD response rate (ie, > or =50% reduction in HAMD total score from baseline), HAMD remission rate (HAMD total score of < or =7), and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Both treatments were well tolerated. In addition, mirtazapine had a greater effect than sertraline on sexual functioning. In conclusion, this first prospective onset of action study using the orally disintegrating tablet indicates that mirtazapine has a faster onset of therapeutic effect than sertraline. The orally disintegrating tablet formulation of mirtazapine used in this study is known to enhance the convenience and compliance by the patient. A total of 115 elderly patients (60-85 years of age) with DSM III diagnosis of major depressive episode were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of treatment with either mirtazapine, 15-45 mg/day, or amitriptyline, 30-90 mg/day. Efficacy was assessed biweekly, using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) as primary outcome variables. The treatment with both drugs resulted in a similar reduction of total HRDS and MADRS scores, with no statistically significant differences between treatment groups at any assessment point or at endpoint. Statistically significant differences favouring amitriptyline were present according to CGI-Global Improvement Scale at endpoint, HRDS cognitive disturbance factor at weeks 2, 4 and 6 and endpoint and retardation factor at week 6. Adverse events were reported by a similar number of patients in both treatment groups. Additional research is needed to assess further the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine among elderly depressed patients. We aimed to compare the antidepressant and anxiolytic effects, tolerability and effects on quality of life of mirtazapine and citalopram in a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, 8-week study. Patients with a Major Depressive Episode (DSM-IV) and a baseline score of > or = 22 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were randomized to 8 weeks treatment with either mirtazapine (n = 137, 15-60 mg/day) or citalopram (n = 133, 20-60 mg/day). Efficacy was evaluated by the MADRS, Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), Clinical Global Impression scales (CGI), the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ) and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (QLESQ). The efficacy analyses were performed on the Intent-To-Treat Group using the Last Observation Carried Forward method. Vital signs and laboratory variables are measured and adverse events recorded at each weekly visit. The magnitude of reduction from baseline in group mean MADRS scores was large in both groups, reaching after 8 weeks of treatment mean scores of 9.1 in the mirtazapine group and 8.9 in the citalopram group. Both treatments also resulted in a substantial improvement in anxiety symptoms, sleep disturbances and quality of life, and high percentage of responders. However, at day 14, statistically significantly larger magnitudes of change favouring mirtazapine were present in the group mean MADRS, HAM-A and CGI-Severity of illness and Quality of life scores. A difference of 2.3 points on MADRS favouring mirtazapine is considered indicative for a clinically relevant superiority between two proven antidepressants. Mirtazapine treatment was also related to faster improvement of sleep, quality of sleep and improved alertness following awakening, as shown by statistically significant differences on the self-rating LSEQ at various time points. There were no differences between two treatment groups on self-rating QLSEQ. Both drugs were well tolerated, with a low number of patients in either group prematurely terminating the study due to adverse events (mirtazapine: 3.6%, citalopram, 3.0%). Sweating and nausea were statistically significantly more frequent in the citalopram group and increased appetite and complaints of weight increase in the mirtazapine group. There were no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters and vital sign variables with either treatment, except for clinically relevant increase in body weight, occurring more frequently in mirtazapine patients. In this study, mirtazapine and citalopram were equally effective in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety, and well tolerated. However, mirtazapine was significantly more effective than citalopram after 2 weeks of treatment on the MADRS, HAM-A and CGI Severity of illness and Quality of life scales. This finding, consistently present at all major efficacy variables, suggests potentially faster onset of efficacy of mirtazapine over citalopram. To examine the antidepressant efficacy of a dual-acting antidepressant (mirtazapine) in patients with post-myocardial infarction (MI) depressive disorder. Antidepressants used in post MI trials with a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design have been restricted to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Antidepressant effects have been limited.
                In a prospective multicenter study, 2177 patients with MI were evaluated for depressive disorder during the first year post MI. Ninety-one patients who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for major or minor depressive disorder were randomized to a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Antidepressant efficacy was tested using last-observation-carried-forward procedure and repeated measurements analysis using the SPPS mixed models approach, with as primary outcome reduction in depressive symptomatology on the 17-item Hamilton-Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D), and secondary outcomes the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and depression subscale of the Symptom Check List 90 items (dSCL-90) as well as the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale.
                Using the "last observation carried forward" (LOCF) method, mirtazapine did not show to be superior to placebo on the Ham-D, but did on the BDI, dSCL-90, and CGI scale over the acute treatment phase of 8 weeks (n = 91). Using mixed models analysis over the entire 24 weeks of treatment (n = 40), we did find a significant difference favoring mirtazapine to placebo on the Ham-D, BDI, and CGI, but on the dSCL-90, this difference was not significant.
                This trial shows efficacy of mirtazapine on primary and secondary depression measures. Mirtazapine seems to be safe in the treatment of post-MI depression. This randomized, multicenter, double-blind study was designed to compare specifically the onset of antidepressant action of mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablets (ODT) with venlafaxine extended-release (XR) formulation in outpatients with major depression. Both treatments were administered in a rapidly escalating dosing regimen. Target doses (mirtazapine ODT, 45 mg OD; venlafaxine XR, 225 mg OD) were reached by day 6 of treatment. On the primary efficacy parameter [the average of the change in HAM-D (17-item) total score on days 5, 8, 11, and 15], mirtazapine ODT was significantly superior to venlafaxine XR (P = 0.008). In addition, calculating the HAM-D score without the sleep items resulted in significant reductions in favor of mirtazapine ODT on days 8 (P = 0.006) and 11 (P = 0.037). The proportion of responders (HAM-D decrease of > or =50% from baseline) was higher in the mirtazapine ODT group on all assessment days, being significant on days 8 (P = 0.002), 11 (P = 0.004), and 22 (P = 0.027). More patients in the mirtazapine ODT group achieved remission (HAM-D total score of < or =7) up to day 29, and the difference was statistically significant on day 15 (P = 0.016). Significant differences in favor of mirtazapine ODT were evident in the CGI of change on days 8 (P = 0.019), 11 (P = 0.004), and 15 (P = 0.031), and the CGI of severity on days 8 (P = 0.014) and 11 (P = 0.033). Both treatments were well tolerated. These results indicate that mirtazapine ODT has a faster onset of antidepressant efficacy than venlafaxine XR in patients with major depressive disorder, and that this effect is independent of its sleep-improving properties.
Some statistically significant and possibly clinically meaningful differences between mirtazapine and other antidepressive agents were found for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. Mirtazapine is likely to have a faster onset of action than SSRIs during the acute-phase treatment. Dropouts occur similarly in participants treated with mirtazapine and those treated with other antidepressants, although the adverse event profile of mirtazapine is unique.