A randomized trial of psychiatric consultation with distressed high utilizers. Antidepressant drugs and generic counselling for treatment of major depression in primary care: randomised trial with patient preference arms. Fluoxetine treatment of depressive disorders in methadone-maintained opioid addicts. Predictive value of pharmacological activity for the relative efficacy of antidepressant drugs. Meta-regression analysis. Imipramine as treatment for depression in addicts. Comparison of pharmacological treatments for opioid-dependent adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Short-term interpersonal psychotherapy in methadone-maintained opiate addicts. Comparative study of the effectiveness of slow-release morphine and methadone for opioid maintenance therapy. Imipramine treatment of opiate-dependent patients with depressive disorders. A placebo-controlled trial.
This study reports the results of a randomized trial of a psychiatric consultation intervention with distressed, high utilizing patients of 18 physicians in two primary care clinics. Psychiatric consultation was associated with a significant increase in the use of antidepressants in intervention patients compared with controls in the first 6 months after intervention. Intervention patients were also significantly more likely to continue antidepressant treatment than control patients. The primary care physicians receiving psychiatric consultations increased the rate of prescribing antidepressant medications in their practice from 32 prescriptions filled per 1,000 visits before their participation in four consultations to 44 new prescriptions per 1,000 visits in the 12-month period after. There were no significant differences between intervention patients and controls at 6 and 12 months after randomization in psychiatric distress, functional disability, or utilization of health care (ambulatory visits, radiographic and laboratory testing services, admissions to inpatient medical care). To compare the efficacy of antidepressant drugs and generic counselling for treating mild to moderate depression in general practice. To determine whether the outcomes were similar for patients with randomly allocated treatment and those expressing a treatment preference.
                Randomised controlled trial, with patient preference arms. Follow up at 8 weeks and 12 months and abstraction of GP case notes.
                31 general practices in Trent region.
                Patients aged 18-70 who met research diagnostic criteria for major depression; 103 patients were randomised and 220 patients were recruited to the preference arms.
                Difference in mean Beck depression inventory score; time to remission; global outcome assessed by a psychiatrist using all data sources; and research diagnostic criteria.
                At 12 months there was no difference between the mean Beck scores in the randomised arms. Combining the randomised and patient preference groups, the difference in Beck scores was 0.4 (95% confidence interval -2.7 to 3.5). Patients choosing counselling did better than those randomised to it (mean difference in Beck score 4.6, 0.0 to 9.2). There was no difference in the psychiatrist's overall assessment of outcome between any of the groups. 221/265 (83%) of participants with a known outcome had a remission. Median time to remission was shorter in the group randomised to antidepressants than the other three groups (2 months v 3 months). 33/221 (15%) patients had a relapse.
                Generic counselling seems to be as effective as antidepressant treatment for mild to moderate depressive illness, although patients receiving antidepressants may recover more quickly. General practitioners should allow patients to have their preferred treatment. This study tested the effectiveness of fluoxetine as a treatment for depression in a population of methadone-maintained opioid addicts. Methadone-maintained opioid addicts (44) with depression received fluoxetine or placebo in addition to their methadone, in a double-blind randomized trial, for 12 weeks. Depressive symptoms decreased significantly overall with no significant differences between the groups treated with fluoxetine versus placebo. In addition, drug use outcomes, including cocaine and heroin self-reported use and urine toxicology were measured. There was a significant decrease in heroin use in treatment, but no medication effect. Cocaine use, was unchanged from pre-treatment to endpoint. In separately analyzing data for the subsample of subjects with the most severe depression, there was a significant decrease in depression during treatment and a significant decrease in self-reported cocaine use, but no medication effect on either depressive symptoms or on cocaine use. This study suggests that fluoxetine is not an effective agent in treating depression or cocaine use in this population. There is uncertainty about the contribution of specific pharmacological properties to the efficacy of antidepressants.
                To assess whether specific pharmacological characteristics of alternative antidepressants resulted in altered efficacy compared to that of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of major depression.
                Meta-regression analysis of randomised trials that compare treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and an alternative antidepressant.
                One-hundred-and-five randomised trials were included. None of the factors identified a priori predicted a statistically significant improvement in outcome across the trials.
                This analysis does not provide evidence that antidepressants acting at more than one pharmacological site differ in efficacy from drugs selective for serotonin reuptake in the treatment of major depression. This report describes the results of a placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial evaluating imipramine hydrochloride, a tricyclic antidepressant, as treatment for depression in methadone-maintained opiate addicts. Forty-six subjects were assigned randomly to either the imipramine or placebo group for up to eight weeks. All patients also received mandatory once weekly group therapy as part of the methadone program. Outcome measures included attrition, depressive symptoms, global improvement, side effects, social functioning, and urine specimen results positive for illicit drugs. The therapeutic response in the two conditions was similar. Addicts receiving either imipramine or placebo experienced a substantial reduction of depressive symptoms during the eight weeks of the study. These findings are compared with other studies that treat depression in addicts and nonaddicts. The prevalence of heroin and other opioid use has markedly increased among adolescents in the last decade; however, virtually no research has been conducted to identify effective treatments for this population.
                To evaluate the relative efficacy of 2 pharmacotherapies, the partial opioid agonist buprenorphine hydrochloride and the centrally active alpha(2)-adrenergic blocker clonidine hydrochloride, in the detoxification of opioid-dependent adolescents.
                A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-groups randomized controlled trial conducted in a university-based research clinic from October 2001 to December 2003. Patients were a volunteer sample of 36 adolescents who met DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence (ages 13-18 years eligible).
                Participants were randomly assigned to a 28-day, outpatient, medication-assisted withdrawal treatment with either buprenorphine or clonidine. Both medications were provided along with thrice weekly behavioral counseling and incentives contingent on opiate abstinence. Postdetoxification, all participants were offered the opportunity for continued treatment with the opiate antagonist, naltrexone hydrochloride.
                Treatment retention, opiate abstinence, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior, along with measures of withdrawal and medication effects.
                A significantly greater percentage of adolescents who received buprenorphine were retained in treatment (72%) relative to those who received clonidine (39%) (P<.05). For those in the buprenorphine group, a significantly higher percentage of scheduled urine test results were opiate negative (64% vs 32%; P = .01). Participants in both groups reported relief of withdrawal symptoms and drug-related human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior. Those in the buprenorphine condition generally reported more positive effects of the medication. No evidence of opioid intoxication or psychomotor impairment was observed. Sixty-one percent of participants in the buprenorphine condition and 5% of those in the clonidine group initiated treatment with naltrexone.
                Combining buprenorphine with behavioral interventions is significantly more efficacious in the treatment of opioid-dependent adolescents relative to combining clonidine and behavioral interventions. A clinical trial was used to evaluate short-term interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) as treatment for psychiatric disorders in opiate addicts who were also participating in a full-service methadone hydrochloride maintenance program. Seventy-two opiate addicts were randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions for six months: (1) IPT, consisting of weekly individual psychotherapy, and (2) low-contact treatment, consisting of one brief meeting per month. Recruitment was a problem, as only 5% of eligible clients agreed to participate and only around half of the subjects completed the study treatment. The outcome was similar for the two study groups. However, in many of the outcome areas, subjects in both treatment conditions attained significant clinical improvement. Several factors limited the generalizability of findings and may have biased against showing a psychotherapy effect. Slow-release morphine may represent a much-needed new pharmacological treatment for opioid dependence.
                In a 14-week randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, cross-over study oral slow-release morphine was compared with methadone as a treatment for opioid dependency. During two study periods, each consisting of a 1-week titration and a 6-week fixed-dose treatment phase, medication was administered daily under supervised conditions.
                The study was carried out at the Addiction Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, Medical University Vienna.
                Sixty-four subjects (56 males, eight females) with opioid dependence participated in the trial.
                Efficacy was evaluated on the basis of retention, use of illicit substances based on urinalysis, extent of drug cravings, withdrawal symptoms and general wellbeing. Safety was assessed on the basis of adverse events and clinical and physical examination. Demographic and baseline characteristics were assessed using the European Addiction Severity Index.
                Fifty-five patients (86%) completed the study, with a mean methadone dose of 85 mg and a mean slow-release morphine dose of 680 mg. No significant differences in retention or use of illicit substances (opioids, benzodiazepines, cocaine) were observed, irrespective of treatment group or medication. However, patients receiving slow-release morphine had significantly lower depression (P < 0.001) and anxiety scores (P = 0.008) and fewer physical complaints (P < 0.001).
                Oral slow-release morphine is as effective as methadone in the treatment of opioid dependency, with comparable safety and tolerability and a greater benefit on patient wellbeing. Greater pharmaceutical diversity represents a modern development in mainstream medicine. Slow-release morphine might represent a future treatment option that will improve long-term outcomes for this target group. The literature is inconclusive on the role of antidepressant medications in treating drug dependence. Studies have either not focused on depressed patients or have selected patients with depressive disorders based on cross-sectional symptoms rather than a syndromal diagnosis. A clinical trial of an antidepressant was, therefore, conducted on drug-dependent patients with syndromal depression.
                Patients receiving methadone hydrochloride maintenance treatment were selected if they met the criteria for a DSM-III-R depressive disorder that was chronologically primary, had persisted during a past abstinent period or was long-standing, and persisted during at least 1 month of stable methadone treatment. Subjects were randomized to a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of imipramine hydrochloride. A favorable response was defined as a Clinical Global Impression scale score for depression of 2 ("much improved") or 1 ("very much improved") and at least a 75% reduction in self-reported drug or alcohol use or abstinence.
                One hundred thirty-seven patients were randomized, and 84 completed a minimum adequate trial of at least 6 weeks. Among the 84 adequately treated patients, 57% (24/42) receiving imipramine were rated as responders compared with 7% (3/42) receiving placebo (P < .001). On measures of mood, there was a robust effect of imipramine. Imipramine was superior to placebo on some self-reported measures of substance use and craving, and mood improvement was associated with improvement in self-reported substance use. However, few patients achieved urine-confirmed abstinence.
                Imipramine was an effective antidepressant in patients receiving methadone who were selected via syndromal criteria for depressive illness. Imipramine may reduce substance abuse among patients whose mood improves; however, this effect was less robust.
There is low evidence, at the present, supporting the clinical use of antidepressants for the treatment of depressed opioid addicts in treatment with opioid agonists. There is a need of larger randomised studies investigating relevant outcomes, safety issues and reporting data to allow comparison of results.