A double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study of paroxetine, desipramine, or placebo in breast cancer patients (stages I, II, III, and IV) with major depression. Efficacy of paroxetine in treating major depressive disorder in persons with multiple sclerosis. Comparison of desipramine and citalopram treatments for depression in Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. A randomized, double-blind, 24-week study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and paroxetine in depressed patients in primary care. The SSRIs drug Fluoxetine, but not the noradrenergic tricyclic drug Desipramine, improves memory performance during acute major depression. Fluoxetine and desipramine in major depressive disorder. Antidepressant treatment of chronic tension-type headache: a comparison between fluoxetine and desipramine. Antidepressant pharmacotherapy of depression associated with multiple sclerosis. A double-blind comparison of fluvoxamine and paroxetine in the treatment of depressed outpatients.
This study compared the efficacy and safety of paroxetine and desipramine with those of placebo in the treatment of depressive disorders in adult women with breast cancer, stages I-IV.
                In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 35 female outpatients with breast cancer and DSM-III-R major depression or adjustment disorder with depressed mood were randomly assigned to treatment with paroxetine (N=13), desipramine (N=11), or placebo (N=11) for 6 weeks. Primary efficacy was assessed by change from baseline in score on the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and the secondary outcome measure was change from baseline in the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) score.
                Mean changes in the total HAM-D and CGI-S scores from baseline to 6-week endpoint for the paroxetine and desipramine groups were not significantly different than those for the placebo-treated group. An unusually high rate of response (defined as >or=50% improvement in the HAM-D score) in the placebo group was observed (55% [N=6]); adverse events precipitated patient discontinuation in the active treatment groups (9% [N=1] for desipramine, 15% [N=2] for paroxetine) similar to that in the placebo-treated patients (18% [N=2]). Improvement on symptom dimensions within the HAM-D and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (depressive, anxiety, cognitive, neurovegetative, or somatic) was also similar between groups.
                The small number of women in this study most likely contributed to the lack of observed differences in efficacy observed during the 6 weeks of treatment. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of adequate power seeking to determine efficacy of antidepressants in the United States for the treatment of women with breast cancer and comorbid depression remain of paramount importance. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of paroxetine in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS).
                In this double-blind trial, 42 participants with MS and MDD were randomly assigned to one of two parallel 12-week treatment arms: paroxetine or placebo. The participants started at an initial dose of 10 mg/day paroxetine or placebo, titrated up to 40 mg daily based on symptoms response and side effects. The primary outcome measure was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). Secondary outcomes included fatigue, anxiety and self-reported quality of life.
                Intent-to-treat analyses revealed that both groups improved from pretreatment to posttreatment. Although the treatment group improved more than the control group on most measures, few differences were statistically significant. For the primary outcome, 57.1% of participants in the treatment arm had at least a 50% reduction in HAM-D score, compared with 40% in the control group (nonsignificant). Treatment effects were greater among the participants who completed the study; 78.6% of completers had a treatment response compared with 42.1% of controls (P=.073).
                Although paroxetine may not be efficacious for all persons with MS and MDD, it appears to benefit some individuals. Depression is one of the most common psychiatric disturbances in Parkinson's disease (PD). Recent reviews have highlighted the lack of controlled trials and the ensuing difficulty in formulating recommendations for antidepressant use in PD. We sought to establish whether antidepressants provide real benefits and whether tricyclic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants differ in their short-term efficacy, because the time to onset of therapeutic benefit remains an important criterion in depression. The short-term efficacy (after 14 and 30 days) of two antidepressants (desipramine, a predominantly noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor tricyclic and citalopram, a SSRI) was assessed in a double-blind, randomized, placebo- controlled study of 48 nondemented PD patients suffering from major depression. After 14 days, desipramine prompted an improvement in the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score, compared with citalopram and placebo. Both antidepressants produced significant improvements in the MADRS score after 30 days. Mild adverse events were twice as frequent in the desipramine group as in the other groups. A predominantly noradrenergic tricyclic antidepressant induced a more intense short-term effect on parkinsonian depression than did an SSRI. However, desipramine's lower tolerability may outweigh its slight short-term clinical advantage.
                (c) 2008 Movement Disorder Society. Primary care patients with a major depressive disorder and 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (17-HAM-D) score >18 were randomized to 24 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine 30-45 mg/day (n=99) or paroxetine 20-30 mg/day (n=98). Both treatments were efficacious in improving depressive symptomatology, as assessed by group mean 17-HAM-D scores, percentages of HAM-D responders and remitters and Clinical Global Improvement responders. The mirtazapine group showed statistically significantly larger decreases from baseline in group mean 17-HAM-D scores at weeks 1, 2 and 4, and the difference with the paroxetine group reached the level of clinical relevance at weeks 2 and 4. Antidepressant efficacy was maintained throughout both the acute and continuation phase of treatment. Both treatments were well tolerated. The only adverse event with a statistically significantly higher incidence in the mirtazapine group was fatigue. Statistically significantly more paroxetine-treated patients complained of increased sweating, headache and nausea. The results demonstrate that both mirtazapine and paroxetine were efficacious and well tolerated when used for 24 weeks in depressed patients treated in primary care. An observed difference in efficacy favouring mirtazapine between weeks 1 and 4 indicates that mirtazapine patients had improved earlier compared to those on paroxetine, and corroborates similar findings in other comparisons of mirtazapine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Accumulating evidence suggests that noradrenergic and serotonergic drugs are equally effective in ameliorating the depressive symptoms of major depression. Major depression is associated also with memory impairments, but the comparative effects of the antidepressant drugs on memory are not clear. We previously found that serotonergic neurotransmission is of particular importance for some aspects of episodic memory. We set out to test whether treatment with the selective serotonergic drug Fluoxetine (Prozac) would be advantageous in this respect over treatment with the selective noradrenergic tricyclic antidepressant drug Desipramine (Deprexan). Seventeen patients with major depressive episode, randomly assigned for treatment with either Fluoxetine (n = 8) or Desipramine (n = 9), were assessed for their clinical situation and for memory performance at the beginning of treatment, after 3 weeks, and after 6 weeks of pharmacological treatment. We found that although clinically both drugs were equally effective, the improvement of memory performance in the Fluoxetine-treated patients was significantly greater compared with that of the Desipramine-treated patients. The results support the role of serotonin in memory. More studies in larger samples of patients are required, but it may be that in cases where memory impairment is a major symptom, it would be beneficial to consider serotonergic antidepressant drugs for treatment. Furthermore, in cases where, for various reasons, the treatment of choice is noradrenergic, it may be worthwhile to consider a supplementary serotonergic drug to improve memory deficits. The efficacy and safety of fluoxetine and desipramine were compared in a 6-week double-blind, parallel group study of patients with major depression. Twenty-five were studied while hospitalized for treatment, and 33 were studied as outpatients. Improvement on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was significant for both treatments from week 1 through the end of the study and did not differ between the two treatments at any week. Overall, 64% of fluoxetine-treated patients and 68% of desipramine-treated patients had at least a 50% reduction in Hamilton Depression score. We assessed whether improvement relatively early in treatment was predictive of categorical response at 6 weeks. Among fluoxetine-treated patients, but not desipramine-treated patients, the week 3 change in the Hamilton Depression mood item was significantly predictive of the response at 6 weeks. Patients treated with fluoxetine had significantly fewer side effects than those treated with desipramine. Desipramine, but not fluoxetine, caused a persistent increase in heart rate. The results suggest that early signs of response to fluoxetine are not dependent on achieving steady-state levels of the drug. Amitriptyline, which is a noradrenaline reuptake and 5-HT reuptake inhibitor, has an established role in the management of chronic tension-type headaches. In a single-blind study, patients with chronic tension-type headache were randomized to either fluoxetine 20 mg (a selective 5-HT reuptake inhibitor) or desipramine 75 mg (a selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor) and followed for 12 weeks to compare the effectiveness of the two drugs in improving headache, and to assess whether pain control is related to changes in depression. Patients were evaluated at weekly intervals on an analog pain-rating scale and at 4-weekly intervals on the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the MOS general health status questionnaire (SF36), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and a side effects checklist. Eighteen patients were randomized to take fluoxetine and 19 to take desipramine. Of the 25 patients who completed the trial, 12 were on fluoxetine and 13 were on desipramine. There was no significant difference between the two groups at baseline nor in change of pain; reduction in use of analgesic medication; nor change in the HADS, MADRS, or SF36 scores at 12 weeks, but 72% of patients who completed the study improved, and this improvement almost exactly mirrored the improvement on the MADRS. The results from this trial are compatible with the notion that the beneficial effect of antidepressants in chronic tension-type headache is indirect, mediated by an effect on depression, and not more,dependent on serotonin reuptake inhibition than noradrenaline reuptake inhibition. In a double-blind clinical trial involving 28 patients with multiple sclerosis and major depressive disorder, 14 patients were randomly assigned to a 5-week trial of desipramine and individual psychotherapy and 14 to placebo plus psychotherapy. Clinical judgments indicated that patients treated with desipramine improved significantly more than the placebo group. This was confirmed by scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression but not by Beck Depression Inventory scores. Side effects limited desipramine dosage in half of the treated patients. The authors conclude that desipramine has a modest beneficial effect in serious depression associated with multiple sclerosis but that side effects may be more of a limiting factor than in patients without medical or neurologic disease. Fluvoxamine and paroxetine, both serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), were compared at two centers in a 7-week double-blind study in outpatients with major depression, diagnosed by DSM-III-R criteria.
                Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive dosage titrated upward to between 50-150 mg/day of fluvoxamine (N = 30) or 20-50 mg/day of paroxetine (N = 30). The mean +/- SD daily dose administered at the last assessment was 102 +/- 44 mg/day for fluvoxamine and 36 +/- 13 mg/day for paroxetine. Sixteen (53%) fluvoxamine-treated patients and 10 (33%) paroxetine-treated patients were titrated to the maximum permissible dosage of either drug. Sample size was calculated to provide at least 85% power at 5% level of significance to detect at least a 1.00-point difference in mean severity of adverse events, assuming a standard deviation of 1.0.
                Fluvoxamine and paroxetine were similarly effective in ameliorating depression as demonstrated by mean total scores of 10.9 +/- 7.3 (p < .00) and 11.5 +/- 7.4 (p < .00), respectively, in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). Adverse events were mostly mild to moderate in severity. The most common events were headache (N = 17, 57%), nausea (N = 14, 47%), sweating (N = 10, 33%), somnolence (N = 9, 30%), diarrhea (N = 9, 30%), dry mouth (N = 8, 27%), dizziness (N = 8, 27%), and, among males, impotence (N = 3, 21%) and ejaculatory abnormality (N = 3, 21%) in the paroxetine group, and headache (N = 12, 40%), somnolence (N = 12, 40%), nausea (N = 11, 37%), dry mouth (N = 11, 37%), insomnia (N = 9, 30%), asthenia (N = 7, 23%), and dyspepsia (N = 7, 23%) in the fluvoxamine group. The only statistically significant difference between treatment groups was for sweating (33% paroxetine vs. 10% fluvoxamine, p = .028).
                Observed differences in some side effects, although not statistically significant, indicate that when a patient has difficulty tolerating one SSRI, the clinician may choose to change to a different agent within the same class.
Both desipramine and paroxetine show a trend towards efficacy in depression in MS the short term, but both treatments were associated with adverse effects, with significantly more patients treated with paroxetine suffering from nausea or headache. Further clinical research on the treatment of depression in MS is clearly needed. Future trials should address the efficacy and tolerability in the long term and compare antidepressant treatments head-to-head.