[Lofepramine: a comparative clinical study with amitriptyline]. Double-blind, multicenter comparative study of sertraline and amitriptyline in hospitalized patients with major depression. Comparison of the tolerability and efficacy of citalopram and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients treated in general practice. Randomized, controlled trial of amitriptyline versus placebo for adolescents with "treatment-resistant" major depression. A comparative double-blind controlled study of trimipramine and amitriptyline in major depression: lack of correlation with 5-hydroxytryptamine reuptake blockade. Predictors of therapeutic benefit from amitriptyline in mild depression: a general practice placebo-controlled trial. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the effects of sertraline versus amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression. Tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of depressions. A double-blind clinical comparison of clomipramine (Anafranil) and amitriptyline. Double-blind multicenter study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed inpatients.
Lofepramine, a new tricycle antidepressant, is compared with amitriptyline in a double-blind study. A brief pharmacological description of the drug is made emphasizing its low toxicity and anticholinergic peripheral effects, high plasmatic concentration levels and good tolerance and elimination in comparison with some other known tricycle antidepressants. Sixty depressive outpatients of a Mental Health Service in Lima, 5 male and 55 female, aging 16 to 65, 29 endogenous and 31 neurotic were studied with both drugs in a equimolar dosage. Through the chi square test, no statistical significance was found in maximal therapeutic response, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores, type of depression, and side-effects xerostomy which is lesser with lofepramine. A discussion of these results is made and it is concluded that in the present study lofepramine compared with amitriptyline has a similar therapeutic effect. Though not statistically significant, lofepramine seems to be better for neurotic depression and patients sensitive to anticholinergic side-effects. Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) for which marketing approval has been obtained recently in Germany. The results of several double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that sertraline has a clear antidepressive effect. However these studies have been conducted in outpatient populations. In the context of this multicenter study, a total of 160 inpatients were treated with sertraline 50-150 mg or amitriptyline 75-225 mg over a period of 6 weeks in a double-blind fashion. Sixty-two patients in the sertraline and 59 patients in the amitriptyline group were evaluated for efficacy in the according-to-protocol (ATP) population; 80 sertraline and 75 amitriptyline patients were evaluated for safety in the Intention-to-treat population (ITT). No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups in the efficacy analysis performed on the basis of the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) total score and Clinical Global Impression (CGI). Due to its sedating properties, amitriptyline was found to be significantly more effective with regard to the HAM-D factor "sleep disturbance". The safety analysis, which was based on the CGI, the global assessment at the end of study and a score for somatic adverse events (FSUCL) revealed statistically significant advantages of sertraline over amitriptyline. Amitriptyline was associated with more autonomic and circulatory side effects, while epigastric complaints occurred more often with sertraline. The incidence of nausea - a typical SSRI side effect - was the same in both groups. The enhanced sensitivity of the elderly to the side effects produced by tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and the frequency and type of adverse events, have made the treatment of depression in this group difficult. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been reported to produce significantly fewer undesirable side effects and display better tolerance than TCAs. We compared the therapeutic actions and side effects produced by citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, with amitriptyline in a group of elderly patients (aged 65 and older) diagnosed with major depression. In a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter comparison of citalopram (20 or 40 mg/day) and amitriptyline (50 or 100 mg/day), patients who did not respond to placebo during a 1-week single-blind phase were randomly assigned to receive citalopram or amitriptyline for 8 weeks. Efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), and Clinical Global Impressions. Both drug treatments produced equivalent time-related declines in severity of depression, so that by 8 weeks slightly more than 50% of the patients in each group experienced marked recovery, defined as MADRS scores < or = 12. Amitriptyline produced a greater overall incidence of adverse events, including a significantly higher (P < 0.001) percentage of patients reporting dry mouth (34% vs. 7%), as well as a significantly higher (P < 0.02) incidence of somnolence. Constipation and fatigue also occurred more frequently in the amitriptyline than in the citalopram group. For only one event (nausea) did the citalopram group report a significantly greater (P = 0.012) incidence (12.8% vs. 4.8%). On the basis of these results, it was concluded that citalopram is as effective an antidepressant as amitriptyline in the treatment of the depressed elderly. Because of its low incidence and low magnitude of side effects, citalopram seems especially useful in private practice. To assess the response to a serotonergic/noradrenergic tricyclic antidepressant, amitriptyline (AMI), in a group of adolescents with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD).
                Twenty-seven depressed adolescents admitted to a state hospital underwent a 10-week randomized, controlled trial with a flexible dose of AMI or placebo.
                There were no differences between patients taking AMI (n = 13) and placebo (n = 14). Both treatment groups showed approximately 70% to 80% improvement on the clinical outcome measurements, and 65% to 70% showed functional improvement. At the end of the protocol, 30% of patients still fulfilled criteria for MDD and had impaired functioning. Patients taking AMI experienced significantly more dry mouth and tachycardia. The final AMI dose was 173.1 mg/day +/- 56.3 mg/day; blood levels were 226.2 ng/mL +/- 80.8 ng/mL.
                No significant differences were found between AMI and placebo, in part because of the high placebo response rate. Although both treatment groups showed substantial response, at the end of treatment a substantial proportion of patients still had MDD of subsyndromal symptoms of depression. This and other studies of tricyclic antidepressants question the use of this medication as first-line treatment for youths with MDD. Thirty-four hospitalized patients with major depression were enrolled in a 3-week double-blind parallel comparative study of trimipramine and amitriptyline. Following a 1-week washout period, patients randomly received one of the two drugs up to 100 mg twice daily on a fixed increment dosage schedule. Both treatments produced a rapid significant clinical improvement that occurred in a predominantly linear fashion. The pattern of improvement was very similar with both drugs. There was no significant correlation between plasma levels of trimipramine and desmethyl-trimipramine and clinical improvement. A negative correlation between amitriptyline plasma levels and clinical improvement was found, whereas a positive correlation occurred with the nortriptyline levels. Amitriptyline, and to a lesser extent trimipramine, prolonged intracardiac conduction. In the amitriptyline group only, this effect was accompanied by significant increases of heart rate and blood pressure. Platelet serotonin content was decreased by 57% by the amitriptyline treatment but remained unchanged in the trimipramine group. This finding constitutes the first clinical evidence that trimipramine does not exert its antidepressant effect through 5-hydroxytryptamine reuptake blockade. It is proposed that neuronal sensitization to 5-hydroxytryptamine might mediate the therapeutic effect of tricyclic antidepressant drugs. General practice depressives were treated for 6 weeks with amitriptyline or placebo in a controlled trial. Overall, drug was found strongly superior to placebo. Interactions were examined between drug effects and a number of variables, principally reflecting demographic characteristics, history of illness, severity of illness, and endogenous depression separately in symptoms and stress. Only in the area of severity were significant interactions found. Amitriptyline was superior to placebo in probable or definite major depression on the Research Diagnostic Criteria, but not in minor depression. It was also superior to placebo in subjects with initial scores on the Hamilton Depression Scale of 13-15, and 16 or more, but not with lower scores. Findings indicate that tricyclic antidepressants are of considerable benefit in relatively mild depressions, except in the mildest range. This study was designed to compare the efficacy, safety, tolerability profiles, and effects on quality of life of the serotonin selective reuptake inhibitor antidepressant sertraline versus the nonselective tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline and placebo in patients with major depression.
                Outpatients with DSM-III-R major depression were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 8 weeks with sertraline (50-200 mg daily), amitriptyline (50-150 mg daily), or matching placebo. Assessments included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale, Global Assessment Scale, Profile of Mood States, Beck Depression Inventory, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Health-Related Quality of Life battery.
                All treatment groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement from baseline in depression ratings by Week 1 and thereafter. The antidepressant effects of amitriptyline and sertraline were significantly (p < .05) greater than placebo and did not differ significantly from each other. Sertraline was associated with significantly (p < .05) greater subjective (i.e., patient-rated) improvement in mood than amitriptyline or placebo. Both active drugs were associated with greater improvements than placebo on most quality of life measurements. On several items, sertraline, but not amitriptyline, was superior to placebo. There was a discernible effect of sertraline earlier than amitriptyline on most quality of life scales. Amitriptyline therapy was associated with significantly more treatment-related adverse events, and discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events, in comparison to both sertraline and placebo therapy.
                Sertraline and amitriptyline each were effective treatments for major depression as assessed by both physician- and patient-rated scales. These results show that sertraline therapy is better tolerated than amitriptyline therapy. Quality of life was also improved by effective antidepressant treatment, with sertraline showing a tendency to produce greater improvements on quality of life measures. The clinical efficacy of oral clomipramine and amitriptyline treatment (50--125 mg/day) was compared over a period of 2 months in 72 depressive patients visiting a psychiatric out-patient clinic. Both drugs were equally effective as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. According to a nurse's independent evaluation of 13 items the two drugs were equipotent in relieving depressive symptoms and no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups were found in the global evaluation by the investigator and the patient. A trend in favour of clomipramine was, however, seen in several parameters. The declines in the Hamilton Rating Scale scores and the nurse's evaluation scores were highly significant during the first 2 weeks of treatment (P less than 0.001) in both groups and the scores continued to decrease during the 2nd month of the study. The most common unwanted effects were dryness of the mouth and fatigue. The frequency of side effects was 51% in the clomipramine group and 43% in the amitriptyline group. The side effects were generally mild and transient and called for discontinuation of treatment in only one case in each group. Paroxetine is a new compound in the group of the selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors. The results of several open and double-blind control-group studies demonstrate clear antidepressive efficacy of paroxetine. However, most data were collected in samples of outpatients. To overcome this restriction, a six-week double-blind control-group study, comparing 30 mg paroxetine with 150 mg amitriptyline per day, was performed in a sample of inpatients suffering from major depression. Generally speaking, the efficacy analysis of 160 patients was not able to demonstrate statistically significant differences in the antidepressive activity of paroxetine or amitriptyline, either with respect to the total score on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) and the Clinical Global Impressions or with respect to the subscores of the HAMD. One exception was the retardation subscore, in which amitriptyline showed a greater degree of reduction. Both drugs had a characteristic side-effect profile. Paroxetine was characterized by a lack of anticholinergic side-effects and a higher rate of nausea.
This present systematic review indicates that amitriptyline is at least as efficacious as other tricyclics or newer compounds. However, the burden of side-effects in patients receiving it was greater. In comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors amitriptyline was less well tolerated, and although counterbalanced by a higher proportion of responders, the difference was not statistically significant.