Effects of pill-giving on maintenance of placebo response in patients with chronic mild depression. A randomized, within-patient, cross-over, placebo-controlled trial on the efficacy and tolerability of the tricyclic antidepressants chlorimipramine and nortriptyline in central pain. A double-blind comparison of fluoxetine, imipramine and placebo in outpatients with major depression. Efficacy of maintenance use of anticholinergic agents. Exercise and pharmacotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Dynamics and significance of placebo response in primary dysmenorrhea. Aripiprazole augmentation in major depressive disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with inadequate response to antidepressants. A controlled trial of maprotiline (Ludiomil) in depressed outpatients. Continuation therapy with lithium and amitriptyline in unipolar depressive illness: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.
Fifty outpatients with mild, chronic, mood-reactive depression whose mood improved markedly after a 10-day single-blind placebo trial were randomly assigned in a double-blind design either to have their placebo medication discontinued or to have it maintained for an additional 6 weeks. Half of the patients in each condition relapsed within 6 weeks, indicating that pill-taking itself does not influence maintenance of placebo response. Placebo response was more likely to be maintained in patients who were currently married. At the end of 3 months, the overall relapse rate was 58%. The authors raise questions about the utility of the initial 10-day placebo washout in antidepressant clinical trials, and they discuss limits on the generalizability of their findings. Antidepressant drugs are increasingly used in the management of chronic pain. They are mainly prescribed for cancer-related pain and central pain, e.g. phantom or stump pain, post-herpetic neuropathy. However, no controlled clinical trials have validated their in either pathology. Thus, physicians still do not know whether antidepressants are really effective and which might be best. It is still debated whether the effect of antidepressants in the management of chronic pain is limited to the amelioration of frequently concomitant depression or extends to pain itself. To verify both the analgesic effect of tricyclic antidepressants, and the possible relationship between their antidepressant effect and the relief of central pain, we carried out a randomized, within-patient (cross-over) placebo-controlled study in patients suffering from central pain. The results clearly indicate the better analgesic effect of tricyclic antidepressants over placebo (p less than 0.0001). Within the antidepressants tested, chlorimipramine, a blocker of serotonin reuptake, is significantly more effective (p less than 0.0001) than notriptyline, a blocker of noradrenaline reuptake. Finally, the antinociceptive effect is independent of the effects of the two drugs on the symptoms of depression. 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. Twenty-seven long-term psychiatric inpatients maintained on neuroleptics with concomitant antiparkinsonian medication were entered into a study in which anticholinergic medication was gradually withdrawn in a randomized double-blind within-subjects design. The extrapyramidal symptoms of each patient were compared when taking their usual anticholinergic medication, when taking placebo and when taking no antiparkinsonian drug. The relapse rate on no medication was 14%, and if patients relapsed on no medication they also relapsed on placebo. The relapse rate was not significantly different on active medication. Nor were there significant differences in ratings of parkinsonism or dyskinesia. The lack of difference between double-blind and overt withdrawal does not mean that studies that find a much higher relapse rate are necessarily unaffected by nonspecific factors, as significant unblinding may occur in clinical trials. 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. A total of 55 patients with primary dysmenorrhea who had shown a favorable response to a preliminary treatment cycle with placebo were admitted to a double-blind study on placebo versus antiprostaglandin agents (naproxen and pirprofen). To evaluate the placebo effect and its duration, the treatment was given for 4 successive cycles. Whereas the antiprostaglandin agents were effective in most of the patients (in 80% of the pirprofen group and 85.7% of the naproxen group) and this efficacy was maintained throughout the study, a favorable response to placebo was observed in 84% in the first cycle, 29% in the second, 16% in the third and 10% in the fourth. The incidence of side effects was similar in the placebo and the active treatment groups (35.4% vs. 37.5%). It is postulated that a placebo effect in dysmenorrhea is due to a central analgesic mechanism mediated by endorphin release or possibly to psychological dynamics (mental or conditioning theories). However, this effect loses efficacy with time possibly due to a decreased susceptibility to the opioid action of the central nervous circuits responsible for menstrual pain perception or to deconditioning mechanisms. Effective management of major depressive disorder (MDD) continues to be a challenging task for psychiatrists and primary care physicians. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole versus antidepressant monotherapy in patients with MDD and independently replicated the positive findings of two similar trials.
                Patients (N=1,147) with MDD experiencing a major depressive episode and a history of inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy were enrolled (week 0); 827 received single-blind adjunctive placebo plus open-label antidepressant (escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine controlled release, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended release) for 8 weeks to confirm inadequate response to antidepressants; 349 patients with inadequate response were randomized (1:1) to double-blind, adjunctive placebo (n=172) or adjunctive aripiprazole (n=177; 2-20 mg/day). Primary outcome was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Total score from baseline (week 8) to endpoint (week 14).
                Clinically significant improvements in depressive symptoms as assessed by decreases in the MADRS Total score were greater with adjunctive aripiprazole (-10.1) than placebo (-6.4; P<.001). Remission rates were greater for adjunctive aripiprazole than for adjunctive placebo (week 14, 36.8% vs 18.9%; P<.001). Completion rates with adjunctive aripiprazole and placebo were high (83% vs. 87%) and discontinuations due to adverse events were low (6.2% vs 1.7%).
                For some patients with MDD who do not obtain adequate symptom relief with antidepressant monotherapy, adjunctive therapies can significantly improve depressive symptoms. As reported, adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with a two-fold higher remission rate than adjunctive placebo. This, and previous studies, have shown that discontinuations due to adverse events were low and completion rates were high, and has indicated that both antidepressant and aripiprazole in combination were relatively well-tolerated and safe. This is the third consecutive clinical trial, in the absence of a failed trial, to demonstrate that aripiprazole augmentation to antidepressants is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for patients with MDD who do not respond adequately to standard antidepressant monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00105196). 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. A detailed analysis of the results of a multi-centre clinical trial shows that, while the relapse rate following recovery from an operationally defined depressive illness was smaller among patients subsequently treated with either amitryptiline or lithium than with a placebo, there was no clinically significant difference between the prophylactic efficacy of the 2 antidepressants. An account is given of the relative adverse effects of the treatments, and the implications of the findings are discussed.
The more conservative estimates from the present analysis found that differences between antidepressants and active placebos were small. This suggests that unblinding effects may inflate the efficacy of antidepressants in trials using inert placebos. Further research into unblinding is warranted.