Fluvoxamine versus imipramine and placebo: a double-blind comparison in depressed patients. A comparison of fluvoxamine and fluoxetine in the treatment of major depression. A double-blind comparative study of the clinical efficacy of fluvoxamine and chlorimipramine. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluvoxamine versus imipramine in outpatients with major depression. Perspectives in clinical psychopharmacology of amitriptyline and fluvoxamine. A double-blind study in depressed inpatients. A placebo-controlled inpatient comparison of fluvoxamine maleate and imipramine in major depression. A double-blind, randomised comparison of fluvoxamine with dothiepin in the treatment of depression in elderly patients. Venlafaxine versus fluvoxamine in the treatment of delusional depression: a pilot double-blind controlled study. A double-blind placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine and imipramine in out-patients with primary depression.
Approximately 20 million patients suffer from major depressive disorder each year, indicating a need for antidepressant agents that are synonymous with effectiveness, tolerability and patient compliance. The authors examined the effects of fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, in the treatment of outpatients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for major depressive disorder. A randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo- and imipramine-controlled single center study was conducted in 150 outpatients. Patients were randomized to receive up to 150 mg/day of fluvoxamine as a single bedtime dose, 240 mg/day of imipramine on a twice-daily (BID) schedule, or placebo for six weeks. Efficacy measurements included HAM-D, MADRS, CGI, Raskin-Covi and SCL-56 scales. The HAM-D total score indicated that both active treatment groups showed significantly (p < or = 0.05) greater therapeutic benefit than did placebo. Severely depressed patients (HAM-D > or = 30) responded better to fluvoxamine in five of six measures. Side-effects from fluvoxamine were similar to those reported for other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (nausea, somnolence) and were well tolerated. Imipramine was associated with anticholinergic effects such as dry mouth and dizziness. The pharmacokinetic properties of fluvoxamine which allow the drug to be administered as a single daily dose should aid in the maintenance of patient compliance, while offering significant clinical benefit in the improvement of depressive symptoms. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design study of 100 outpatients with major depressive disorder is the first study in the United States to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fluvoxamine (100-150 mg/day) and fluoxetine (20-80 mg/day). After a variable, single-blind, washout period, patients were randomized to receive either fluvoxamine (51 patients) of fluoxetine (49 patients) for 7 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and Clinical Global Impressions scale for severity and improvement. Eighty-four percent of each treatment group completed the study with each group having a mean score at end point of less than 10. Both groups demonstrated a 60% improvement in HAM-D scores over the 7-week trial. There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups on any efficacy parameter. The medications were well tolerated, with only two patients in each group who were terminated because of side effects. There were differences in the side-effect profiles, with fluvoxamine being associated with less nausea than fluoxetine. In summary, fluvoxamine and fluoxetine were equally effective in reducing depressive symptoms, but the two drugs displayed slightly different side-effect profiles. 1 We report the results of a comparative clinical trial of a new antidepressant drug fluvoxamine (a specific re-uptake inhibitor of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)) with chlorimipramine. Thirty-two patients with mixed depression received one or the other drug at the same daily dosage of 150 mg. 2 In both drug groups there was an overall clinically significant improvement for all items on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (67% improvement in both groups). 3 In the chlorimipramine group there were more digestive symptoms and anticholinergic effects; the difference with the fluvoxamine group approached statistical significance. 4 No clinically important effects of either treatment were observed on heart-rate or blood pressure. The authors employed a double-blind, placebo-controlled design to investigate the effectiveness of fluvoxamine versus imipramine in 54 outpatients with moderate major depression. Fluvoxamine proved superior to placebo but not to imipramine on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Nausea and hyperarousal were the most common side effects in the fluvoxamine-treated patients. The efficacy of fluvoxamine was compared to that of amitriptyline in a double-blind 6-week fixed-dose trial of 56 inpatients with major depressive episode. The two drugs were comparable in their antidepressant efficacy. We tested the percentage of improvement in Hamilton-D scores during the first and the second weeks of treatment as predictors of efficacy for the last week. Improvement rates during the second week significantly predicted the outcome. We also investigated whether or not some symptomatological characteristics would permit prior prediction of the outcome with amitriptyline or fluvoxamine, dividing our sample into responders and nonresponders to the two drugs. The four groups showed differences in their symptomatological profiles. Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, was investigated in a 6-week double-blind study among severely ill inpatients with DSM-III major depression. All but 1 patient also fulfilled criteria for melancholia. Following a 3-day placebo wash-out patients were randomly assigned to fluvoxamine, imipramine or placebo. Sixty of 81 patients completed at least 2 weeks following wash-out and were evaluated for efficacy. Analysis of covariance (controlling for baseline scores) showed significant (p less than 0.05) differences on CGI severity and BPRS total and a similar trend (p = 0.08) on the Hamilton Depression Scale. Fluvoxamine was superior (p less than or equal to 0.02) to both placebo and imipramine on these measures. Fluvoxamine's most common adverse effects were nausea and agitation. The number of fluvoxamine patients withdrawn for side-effects was less than imipramine and not significantly different than placebo. Fluvoxamine was not associated with significant changes in vital signs, ECG or laboratory tests. The results therefore indicate that fluvoxamine is a safe and highly effective treatment for hospitalized patients with major depression. The efficacy and tolerability of the selective 5-HT reuptake inhibitor fluvoxamine were compared with the tricyclic dothiepin in 52 elderly (age greater than 64 years) hospital patients in a multi-centre double-blind randomised trial. Patients met DSM-III criteria for 'major depressive episode' and scored greater than 29 on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) after a one-week placebo baseline. Active treatment was for six weeks. The dosage of both drugs was 50 mg nocte for three days, 100 mg nocte for the remainder of the first week, thereafter increasing to a maximum of 200 mg/day according to response/tolerance. MADRS scores improved by 63.5% with fluvoxamine and 60.0% with dothiepin; there were no significant differences between treatments at any assessment. Nausea, dizziness, headache, somnolence and constipation in both groups, plus dry mouth and asthenia in the dothiepin group were more frequent than single reports. Two patients in each group discontinued treatment owing to unwanted effects. There were no clinically significant changes in haematological, biochemical or cardiovascular parameters. Previous studies have reported the efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as monotherapy in the treatment of delusional depression. The clinical efficacy of venlafaxine, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake blocker, has been demonstrated in the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe depression, but, to date, no evidence is available about its use in depressed patients with psychotic features.
                Under double-blind conditions, 28 hospitalized patients who met DSM-IV criteria for major depression, severe with psychotic features, were randomly assigned to receive fluvoxamine or venlafaxine, 300 mg/day, for 6 weeks. Severity was evaluated using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and the Dimensions of Delusional Experience Rating Scale (DDERS) administered at baseline and every week thereafter. Side effects were also recorded. Clinical response was defined as a reduction of the scores in the 21-item HAM-D to 8 or below and in the DDERS to 0.
                At study completion, the response rates were 78.6% (N = 11) and 58.3% (N = 7) for fluvoxamine and venlafaxine, respectively. No significant difference was found between drugs (Fisher exact test, p = .40). Analysis of covariance on HAM-D scores did not reveal a significantly different decrease of depressive symptomatology between the 2 treatment groups (p = .14). Treatment response appeared to be unrelated to the demographic and clinical characteristics recorded. The overall safety profile of both fluvoxamine and venlafaxine was favorable.
                The results of this pilot double-blind trial show that fluvoxamine is useful in the treatment of delusional depression and suggest that venlafaxine may also be an effective compound in the treatment of this disorder. The latter finding, although promising, warrants further replication in a larger sample of patients. 1 A double-blind placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine and imipramine was performed in a group of depressed patients. Twenty-two patients received fluvoxamine (mean dose 101 mg/day), 25 received imipramine (mean dose 127 mg/day) and 22 received placebo. 2 Apart from an increase in the SGOT and SGPT values of four imipramine patients, no statistically significant changes in haematology or urinalysis were judged to be medically relevant. Fluvoxamine exhibited fewer anticholinergic side effects than imipramine. 3 Both fluvoxamine treated patients and imipramine-treated patients exhibited a statistically significant improvement at the end of the 28-day treatment period with respect to the placebo patients, as measured using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. Evaluations of the results of the Beck Depression Inventory and the Profile of Mood States revealed a statistically significant improvement for imipramine patients with respect to placebo at week 4, but not for fluvoxamine patients. It is postulated on the basis of quantitative pharmaco-EEG findings, that the slight superiority of imipramine over fluvoxamine was due to underdosing of the latter.
We found no strong evidence that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to any other antidepressants in terms of efficacy and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of depression. However, differing side effect profiles were evident. Based on these findings, we conclude that clinicians should focus on practical or clinically relevant considerations, including these differences in side effect profiles.