A double-blind comparison of Org 3770, amitriptyline, and placebo in major depression. The treatment of depression in general practice: a comparison of L-tryptophan, amitriptyline, and a combination of L-tryptophan and amitriptyline with placebo. Mirtazapine vs. amitriptyline vs. placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Treatment of post-myocardial infarction depressive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with mirtazapine. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of citalopram in adolescents with major depressive disorder. Efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine versus citalopram: a double-blind, randomized study in patients with major depressive disorder. Nordic Antidepressant Study Group. Comparison of the tolerability and efficacy of citalopram and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients treated in general practice. A double-blind comparative study of the clinical efficacy of fluvoxamine and chlorimipramine. Polymorphism of the 5-HT transporter and response to antidepressants: randomised controlled trial.
A 6-week, double-blind, dose titration study was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety of the new antidepressant Org 3770 in comparison with amitriptyline and placebo.
                One hundred fifty outpatients of both sexes, 18 years and older, with a DSM-III diagnosis of major depressive episode, were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of treatment with Org 3770, amitriptyline, or placebo.
                At baseline, mean 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) scores of all treatment groups were higher than 25, thus indicating that a large proportion of severely depressed patients entered the study. The overall mean daily doses were 22 mg/day for Org 3770, 133 mg/day for amitriptyline, and 4.9 capsules/day for placebo. The majority of times assessments were made, both active drugs produced significantly greater improvements than placebo on all efficacy variables (17-item HAM-D, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions, and Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale). After 6 weeks of treatment, significantly greater (p < or = .05) proportions of patients in both active treatment groups (70% in the Org 3770- and 58% in the amitriptyline-treatment groups) than in the placebo-treatment group (33%) were HAM-D responders. Org 3770 was well tolerated in this study; dry mouth and somnolence were the only adverse experiences that occurred significantly more frequently with Org 3770- than with placebo-treated patients. By contrast, treatment with amitriptyline was related to significantly higher rates of dry mouth, constipation, and dyspepsia as compared with both Org 3770 and placebo, and significantly higher rates of somnolence as compared with placebo.
                In this study, Org 3770 was as effective as amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression, with advantages regarding improvements of depressed mood (HAM-D Item 1), responder rates, and safety. One hundred and fifteen patients from 5 general practices participated in a 12-week, double-blind study comparing L-tryptophan, amitriptyline, L-tryptophan-amitriptyline combination and placebo in the treatment of depression. Analysis of total score on the Hamilton Depression Scale and a global rating of depression showed that all 3 active treatments were more effective than placebo. Significantly more patients were withdrawn as treatment failures in the placebo group compared with the active treatment groups. Side-effects necessitated withdrawal of more patients from the amitriptyline group than from the other active treatment groups, but this difference was not significant. Plasma amitriptyline and nortriptyline levels were similar in the amitriptyline and combined treatment groups. Standard haematological and biochemical profiles did not alter significantly in any group, but mean heart rate was significantly increased in patients receiving amitriptyline. There was no change in free or total plasma tryptophan concentration with treatment or on remission of symptoms. Patients (n = 150) were randomized to a 6-week, double-blind study to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of mirtazapine, amitriptyline, and placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder symptoms. Average daily modal doses were mirtazapine, 18 mg; amitriptyline, 111 mg; and placebo, 4.6 capsules. Mirtazapine- and amitriptyline-treated patients had statistically significantly greater mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score reductions (weekly visits 1, 2, 4, and endpoint) compared to placebo. These findings were supported by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales. Somnolence and weight gain were the only adverse clinical experiences (ACEs) reported substantially more often by mirtazapine-treated patients than by those in the placebo group. However, more amitriptyline-treated patients reported decreased visual accommodation, dry mouth, dyspepsia, constipation, tachycardia, hypertension, hypotension, discoordination, dizziness, and tremor than mirtazapine- or placebo-treated patients. Results of this study indicate that mirtazapine is more effective than placebo in the treatment of these patients, and superior to amitriptyline in respect to anticholinergic and cardiovascular effects. To examine the antidepressant efficacy of a dual-acting antidepressant (mirtazapine) in patients with post-myocardial infarction (MI) depressive disorder. Antidepressants used in post MI trials with a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design have been restricted to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Antidepressant effects have been limited.
                In a prospective multicenter study, 2177 patients with MI were evaluated for depressive disorder during the first year post MI. Ninety-one patients who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for major or minor depressive disorder were randomized to a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Antidepressant efficacy was tested using last-observation-carried-forward procedure and repeated measurements analysis using the SPPS mixed models approach, with as primary outcome reduction in depressive symptomatology on the 17-item Hamilton-Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D), and secondary outcomes the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and depression subscale of the Symptom Check List 90 items (dSCL-90) as well as the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale.
                Using the "last observation carried forward" (LOCF) method, mirtazapine did not show to be superior to placebo on the Ham-D, but did on the BDI, dSCL-90, and CGI scale over the acute treatment phase of 8 weeks (n = 91). Using mixed models analysis over the entire 24 weeks of treatment (n = 40), we did find a significant difference favoring mirtazapine to placebo on the Ham-D, BDI, and CGI, but on the dSCL-90, this difference was not significant.
                This trial shows efficacy of mirtazapine on primary and secondary depression measures. Mirtazapine seems to be safe in the treatment of post-MI depression. In a European, multicenter, double-blind study, 244 adolescents, 13 to 18 years old, with major depression were randomized to treatment with citalopram (n = 124) or placebo (n = 120). One third of the patients in both groups withdrew from the study. No significant differences in improvement of scores from baseline to week 12 between citalopram and placebo were found. The response rate was 59% to 61% in both groups according to the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for school-aged children-Present episode version (Kiddie-SADS-P) (depression and anhedonia scores < or =2) and Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (> or =50% reduction). Remission (MADRS score < or =12) was achieved by 51% of patients with citalopram and 53% with placebo. A post hoc analysis revealed that more than two thirds of all patients received psychotherapy during this study. For those patients not receiving psychotherapy, there was a higher percentage of Kiddie-SADS-P responders with citalopram (41%) versus placebo (25%) and a significantly higher percentage of MADRS responders and remitters with citalopram (52% and 45%, respectively) versus placebo (22% and 19%, respectively). Mild to moderate treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 75% citalopram and 71% of placebo patients, most commonly headache, nausea, and insomnia. Serious adverse events occurred in 14% to 15% in both groups. Suicide attempts, including suicidal thoughts and tendencies, were reported by 5 patients in the placebo group and by 14 patients in the citalopram group (not significant) with no pattern with respect to duration of treatment, time of onset, or dosage. In contrast, the suicidal ideation (Kiddie-SADS-P) single item showed worsening more frequently in the placebo (18%) than in the citalopram group (8%). We aimed to compare the antidepressant and anxiolytic effects, tolerability and effects on quality of life of mirtazapine and citalopram in a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, 8-week study. Patients with a Major Depressive Episode (DSM-IV) and a baseline score of > or = 22 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were randomized to 8 weeks treatment with either mirtazapine (n = 137, 15-60 mg/day) or citalopram (n = 133, 20-60 mg/day). Efficacy was evaluated by the MADRS, Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), Clinical Global Impression scales (CGI), the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ) and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (QLESQ). The efficacy analyses were performed on the Intent-To-Treat Group using the Last Observation Carried Forward method. Vital signs and laboratory variables are measured and adverse events recorded at each weekly visit. The magnitude of reduction from baseline in group mean MADRS scores was large in both groups, reaching after 8 weeks of treatment mean scores of 9.1 in the mirtazapine group and 8.9 in the citalopram group. Both treatments also resulted in a substantial improvement in anxiety symptoms, sleep disturbances and quality of life, and high percentage of responders. However, at day 14, statistically significantly larger magnitudes of change favouring mirtazapine were present in the group mean MADRS, HAM-A and CGI-Severity of illness and Quality of life scores. A difference of 2.3 points on MADRS favouring mirtazapine is considered indicative for a clinically relevant superiority between two proven antidepressants. Mirtazapine treatment was also related to faster improvement of sleep, quality of sleep and improved alertness following awakening, as shown by statistically significant differences on the self-rating LSEQ at various time points. There were no differences between two treatment groups on self-rating QLSEQ. Both drugs were well tolerated, with a low number of patients in either group prematurely terminating the study due to adverse events (mirtazapine: 3.6%, citalopram, 3.0%). Sweating and nausea were statistically significantly more frequent in the citalopram group and increased appetite and complaints of weight increase in the mirtazapine group. There were no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters and vital sign variables with either treatment, except for clinically relevant increase in body weight, occurring more frequently in mirtazapine patients. In this study, mirtazapine and citalopram were equally effective in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety, and well tolerated. However, mirtazapine was significantly more effective than citalopram after 2 weeks of treatment on the MADRS, HAM-A and CGI Severity of illness and Quality of life scales. This finding, consistently present at all major efficacy variables, suggests potentially faster onset of efficacy of mirtazapine over citalopram. 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. 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. Antidepressants exhibit a variety of pharmacological actions including inhibition of the serotonin and noradrenaline transporters. We wished to investigate whether genetic variation could be used to target or personalise treatment, in a comparison of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NARIs).
                To test the hypothesis that patients homozygous for the long (insertion) polymorphism of the serotonin transporter (5-HTTLPR) have an increased response to SSRI antidepressants but not to NARI antidepressants.
                In an individually randomised, parallel-group controlled trial, people meeting criteria for a depressive episode who were referred by their general practitioner were randomised to receive either citalopram (an SSRI) or reboxetine (an NARI). Randomisation was by means of a remote automated system accessed by telephone. The main outcome was depressive symptoms, measured by Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) total score 6 weeks after randomisation. The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN31345163).
                Altogether 298 participants were randomised to receive citalopram and 303 were randomised to reboxetine. At 6 weeks follow-up, complete data were available for 258 participants taking citalopram and 262 taking reboxetine. We found no evidence to support an influence of 5-HTTLPR on outcome following antidepressant treatment. The interaction term for BDI score at 6 weeks was 0.50 (95% CI -2.04 to 3.03, P = 0.70), which indicated that responses to the SSRI and NARI were similar irrespective of 5-HTTLPR genotype.
                It is unlikely that the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism alone will be clinically useful in predicting response to antidepressants in people with depression.
A large number of studies appear to address the research questions, but few are of sufficient quality to be reliable. Available evidence does suggest these substances are better than placebo at alleviating depression. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5-HTP and tryptophan before their widespread use can be recommended. The possible association between these substances and the potentially fatal Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome has not been elucidated. Because alternative antidepressants exist which have been proven to be effective and safe the clinical usefulness of 5-HTP and tryptophan is limited at present.