Effective low dose tricyclic antidepressant treatment for depressed geriatric rehabilitation patients. A double-blind study. Trimipramine in physical illness with depression. Tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of depressions. A double-blind clinical comparison of clomipramine (Anafranil) and amitriptyline. Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of amitriptyline among depressed patients in general practice. Tricyclic antidepressant education program and its evaluation. Predictors of therapeutic benefit from amitriptyline in mild depression: a general practice placebo-controlled trial. A randomized, within-patient, cross-over, placebo-controlled trial on the efficacy and tolerability of the tricyclic antidepressants chlorimipramine and nortriptyline in central pain. Randomized, controlled trial of amitriptyline versus placebo for adolescents with "treatment-resistant" major depression. Cognitive behavior therapy, relaxation training, and tricyclic antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression.
The efficacy of low doses (10 to 20 mg daily) of doxepin in the treatment of depressive disorders in elderly inpatients was assessed by a double-blind study in 24 patients. The patients were treated for a three-week period to test for an early response. The Hamilton Depression Scale and the Geriatric Depression Scale were used to quantify symptoms of depression. The patients treated with doxepin had a significantly greater reduction in depressive symptoms than did those who received a placebo. No side effects were found and there were no major differences in the degree of physical dependency between the doxepin and placebo groups. A depressive disorder is a common occurrence among elderly inpatients and the effectiveness of low dose doxepin therapy without demonstrable side effects argues for the active treatment for this condition. To assess whether tricyclic antidepressants are useful in patients with a serious physical disorder who develop symptoms of major depression, 42 medically ill outpatients who met RDC criteria for endogenous major depression and had a Raskin depression score of at least 7 were studied. The patients were randomly assigned to a 6-week trial of trimipramine or placebo under double-blind conditions. In the placebo group, depressive symptoms improved when the physical disorder improved; in the trimipramine group, improvement was seen in the depressive symptoms even when there was no concomitant improvement in physical condition. 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. Depressed patients in general practice were included in a double-blind placebo-controlled six-week trial of amitriptyline (median dose 125 mg). The patients were relatively mildly ill and satisfied diagnostic criteria for depression and treatment with antidepressants in routine practice. Amitriptyline was found to be considerably superior to placebo after six weeks and significantly so as early as two weeks after the start of treatment. The effects of the antidepressant were on the core symptoms of depression, and were apparent in all but the most mildly ill patients. The findings suggest that tricyclic antidepressants are of considerable therapeutic benefit to depressed patients in general practice. The objectives of this study were (1) to develop an individualized tricyclic audiovisual education program and (2) to compare the program's effectiveness with that of traditional education. The program is designed to increase short-term and long-term knowledge about tricyclic antidepressants and depression. The patient's dose was stabilized, and then a pretest was given. If the patient was in the study group, he received the seven-minute slide-tape program and a posttest within 72 hours. The control group received the posttest within five days of the pretest. Both groups were given knowledge tests at approximately four weeks. Statistical analysis of the data from this small study group revealed significance at the 95% confidence level for the following statement: the study group showed a greater increase in factual short-term and long-term knowledge about its tricyclic therapy as shown by differences in pretest, posttest, and scores of tests at four weeks. This study demonstrates an effective standardized alternative to traditional education which can be used to educate the majority of patients about tricyclic antidepressants and depression with a minimum time investment. 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. 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. 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. Outcomes of seven treatment trials comparing cognitive behavioral therapy to treatment with tricyclic antidepressant medication in major depressive disorder have been quite similar to one another. This led us to question whether treatment outcome in time-limited studies reflected a unique effect of cognitive behavioral therapy. To test the uniqueness hypothesis, relaxation training, a nonpharmacologic, noncognitive treatment, was chosen as a comparison for cognitive behavioral therapy as well as drug therapy. Treatment duration was 16 weeks. The sample of 37 patients treated for major depressive disorder was less depressed than those previously studied. For both cognitive behavioral therapy and relaxation training, outcome of depression was superior to that of tricyclic antidepressant medication by endpoint analysis. The posttreatment scores on the Beck Depression Inventory of 82% of the group receiving cognitive behavioral therapy improved to a Beck Depression Inventory score < or = 9 which was not significantly greater than that for the group receiving relaxation training (73%), so a unique effect was not demonstrated for cognitive behavioral therapy. The outcome for tricyclic antidepressant medication (29% improved to criteria) was significantly worse than that for cognitive behavioral therapy. The patient's pretreatment initial expectancy was not predictive.
Treatment of depression in adults with low dose tricyclics is justified. However, more rigorous studies are needed to definitively establish the relative benefits and harms of varying dosages.