Anxiety as part of depression

Changes in diagnostic criteria have shown a trend towards a broader definition of depression. Thus, a number of patients who would previously have been considered to be suffering from anxiety states are now classified as having major depressive illness according to the criteria of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual III. Despite this, such patients show a good response to antidepressant drugs (compared to placebo) if their severity of depression is above 15 on the Hamilton depression scale. It therefore seems likely that there is a common biological substrate underlying both anxiety states and depressive illness, but this issue remains somewhat controversial. The suggestion that the 5-HT system is involved in the mediation of anxiety is considered. Further evidence is required before definite conclusions can be drawn, but it seems clear that anxiolytic activity is not dependent on sedative properties.

Comparison between zimeldine and amitriptyline of efficacy and adverse symptoms--a combined analysis of four British clinical trials in depression

The similarities and differences in the clinical response and incidence of adverse symptoms between zimeldine and amitriptyline have been evaluated by use of a combined analysis of four double-blind clinical trials in depression. In total, 197 patients were included in this series of studies. The efficacy of the drugs was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). Reports of adverse symptoms were actively elicited by use of a check-list of symptoms and rated for severity. The overall clinical efficacy of the two drugs was shown to be equivalent with a high degree of statistical confidence. However, there exist differences in the profile of action. Amitriptyline has a significant advantage in insomnia problems. In spite of this zimeldine was shown to be at least as effective as amitriptyline in reducing anxiety. Amitriptyline is associated with significantly more anticholinergic side-effects, whereas headache is more disturbing during zimeldine treatment. The combination of several independent trials based on similar protocols can be a useful tool to increase the statistical reliability of conclusions relative to that which can be achieved in standard sized, individual studies in depression.

Plasma levels and clinical response with imipramine in a study comparing efficacy with mianserin and nomifensine

1 The comparative antidepressant efficacy of 150 mg imipramine, 60 mg mianserin and 150 mg nomifensine was studied in 45 depressed patients in a six week double-blind investigation. 2 In the efficacy analysis of 41 patients completing the study there was no overall significant difference in efficacy between the groups. Individual group comparisons showed no significant difference in response between mianserin and nomifensine, and mianserin and imipramine. There was a significant (z = 1.99, P less than 0.05) improved response in the imipramine compared with the nomifensine treated group. The imipramine treated group were significantly older. 3 No significant plasma concentration/clinical response relationships were demonstrated with nomifensine, mianserin, imipramine or desipramine. 4 Plasma level monitoring of imipramine recommended by some investigators does not seem to be appropriate.

The prevention of recurrent suicidal acts

1 There have been few controlled prospective investigations into the prevention of suicidal behaviour and by and large they have failed to demonstrate the efficacy of social work, psychotherapy or psychiatric treatment. 2 A group of 58 high-risk patients with multiple episodes of suicidal behaviour was treated with mianserin 30 mg at night or placebo in a six month double-blind trial of the efficacy of an antidepressant in reducing suicidal behaviour. 3 Patients were screened for depression, schizophrenia and organic disease. Patients were diagnosed as suffering from personality disorders according to DSM-III criteria mainly borderline or histrionic. 4 There was no significant difference in outcome between the mianserin and placebo treated group at any point in the six month study. 5 An item analysis of the MADRS showed that at entry the item 'reduced appetite' predicted subsequent suicidal attempt. The total MADRS score did not predict further suicidal acts at entry but was highly significant at four weeks. At four weeks the items 'reduced sleep' and 'reduced appetite' were highly significant predictors of further suicidal acts and the items 'lassitude', 'suicidal thoughts', 'inability to feel' and 'pessimistic thoughts' were significant predictors.

Prediction of steady-state plasma concentrations and individual dosage regimens of tricyclic antidepressants from a single test dose

Inappropriate plasma drug concentrations may be one major reason why many patients fail to show a satisfactory clinical response or experience side-effects to treatment with tricyclic antidepressants. One way of improving the situation is to try to reduce the variability in plasma concentrations by individualising drug dosage regimens as early as possible in treatment. This could be done if it were possible to predict the steady-state plasma concentrations that would be achieved by patients on any given dosage regimen. Our own studies, as well as those of other groups, have demonstrated that it is possible to make such predictions from simple measurements of drug plasma concentrations after administration of a single test dose of antidepressant. The test is best carried out in addition to therapeutic monitoring and is a simple means of selecting the optimum starting dose. The clinical advantages of a simple tolerance test are (1) ensuring that an appropriate dosage is prescribed, (2) reducing the number of dosage alterations, (3) reducing the risk of toxicity, and (4) checking patient compliance when used in combination with routine therapeutic monitoring.

A double blind comparison of zimelidine and amitriptyline in endogenous depression

In a randomized double-blind group comparison study of 40 patients with endogenous depression zimelidine appeared to be as effective an antidepressant as amitriptyline at 4 and 6 weeks using the Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS) and the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). At 2 weeks there was a significantly better response (P less than 0.05) on zimelidine compared to amitriptyline on the clinician's global scale and 4 out of 10 items on the MADRS suggesting an early onset of action. A significant better response to zimelidine was seen on the item somatic anxiety (HRS) while the effect on sleep and appetite was better in the amitriptyline group. There were significantly more side effects, raw and corrected, in the amitriptyline-treated group. High steady state plasma concentrations of norzimelidine (greater than 800 nmol/l) which were significantly correlated with age (r = 0.8) were associated with a significantly poorer response suggesting that a lower dose than 200 mg in older patients may be appropriate.

The antidepressant efficacy of zimelidine and maprotiline

In a double-blind group comparison study of 39 patients with primary depressive illness zimelidine in a dose of 200 mg at night demonstrated the same order of antidepressant efficacy as maprotiline in a dose of 150 mg at night after either two or four weeks treatment measured by the amelioration or final score on the Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS) and on the Montgomery & Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Both zimelidine and maprotiline demonstrated significant antidepressant activity at 2 weeks compared with 2 weeks prior treatment with placebo measured by amelioration on HRS (paired t 4.1 P less than 0.001, t 2.7 P less than 0.02) or MADRS (paired t 3.5 P less than 0.005, t 5.1 P less than 0.001). An item analysis of the MADRS showed significantly better sleep and appetite in the maprotiline-treated group compared with the zimelidine-treated group which is in accord with the pharmacology of the two compounds.

A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change

The construction of a depression rating scale designed to be particularly sensitive to treatment effects is described. Ratings of 54 English and 52 Swedish patients on a 65 item comprehensive psychopathology scale were used to identify the 17 most commonly occurring symptoms in primary depressive illness in the combined sample. Ratings on these 17 items for 64 patients participating in studies of four different antidepressant drugs were used to create a depression scale consisting of the 10 items which showed the largest changes with treatment and the highest correlation to overall change. The inner-rater reliability of the new depression scale was high. Scores on the scale correlated significantly with scores on a standard rating scale for depression, the Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS), indicating its validity as a general severity estimate. Its capacity to differentiate between responders and non-responders to antidepressant treatment was better than the HRS, indicating greater sensitivity to change. The practical and ethical implications in terms of smaller sample sizes in clinical trials are discussed.

Dosage adjustment from simple nortriptyline spot level predictor tests in depressed patients

20 routine patients with endogenous depression were investigated in a kinetic and 4 week treatment study. Steady-state plasma nortriptyline concentrations above 200 microgram/L were associated with a highly significant poorer therapeutic outcome. The correlations between the 24, 48 and 72 hour concentrations and steady-state concentration were very good (r = 0.81, 0.97, 0.94; p less than 0.0001) and better than the correlation between half-life and steady-state (r = 0.65; p less than 0.01). The Spearman rank correlations (Rs) between amelioration of depression measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS) and the 24, 48 and 72 hour concentrations were highly significant (Rs = 0.74, 0.79, 0.79; p less than 0.001) but for half-life (Rs = 0.33) the correlation was not significant. The single 48 hour plasma nortriptyline concentration following a single oral dose is recommended as a reliable simplified monitoring test suitable for a busy clinic. The test is useful for dosage adjustment to maximise antidepressant action and minimise toxicity. A tentative dosage adjustment schedule for individualising antidepressant treatment with nortriptyline based on the 48 hour or the 24 hour plasma concentration is proposed.

Mianserin plasma levels and differential clinical response in endogenous and reactive depression

Fifty patients with moderate to severe primary depression were treated in equal groups of inpatients and outpatients with a constant dose of 60 mg. of mianserin daily for four weeks in a double blind placebo controlled trial with either a three times daily dosage regime or a single nightly dose. There was no difference in apparent compliance, side effects or therapeutic effect in either day-time or night-time dosage regimes. Patients developing high plasma levels of mianserin (greater than 70 microgram/l) were associated with a highly significantly poorer therapeutic outcome. Patients identified as endogenous depression demonstrated a significant negative correlation between plasma levels of mianserin and therapeutic response measured as an amelioration of either the Hamilton Rating Scale scores (r = --0.48) or on a new depression scale by Montgomery and Asberg (r = --0.51) with high levels associated with poor response. There was a significant correlation (r = 0.66) between mianserin plasma levels and age in endogenous depression. In those patients identified as suffering from reactive depression, no significant relationship could be seen between plasma levels and therapeutic response or with age. These findings support the view that the relationship between mianserin plasma levels and clinical response is more likely to be demonstrated in endogenous depression.

A double-blind comparison of lithium carbonate and maprotiline in the prophylaxis of the affective disorders

A double-blind prospective study was carried out comparing the prophylactic effect of maprotiline and lithium carbonate over a period of one year in patients suffering from recurrent affective disorders. The average Affective Morbidity Index was lower, but not significantly so, in patients treated with lithium. A further analysis, based on dividing patients into those with no affective morbidity and those who showed some affective morbidity during the study, demonstrated lithium carbonate to be significantly superior to maprotiline both in the group as a whole and in unipolar depressives. A correlation between high plasma maprotiline concentration and low morbidity was observed and was in line with an earlier report. A highly significant negative correlation (r=-0-97; p less than 0-001) was found between plasma maprotiline concentration and body weight. Although the results showed lithium carbonate to be superior to maprotiline in the study, it should be emphasized that the plasma levels of lithium were constantly monitored and maintained at what is considered to be its optimum concentration, whereas the maprotiline treated patients were kept on a fixed dosage regime irrespective of plasma levels.