Controlled comparison of milnacipran and fluoxetine in major depression

Effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) on suicide: A network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized trials

The relationship between the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and suicide risk in patients with mental disorders remains controversial. We conducted a network meta-analysis to examine the effects of SSRIs on suicide risk in patients with mental disorders. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, Wanfang Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for articles published until December 19, 2023. The main outcomes were suicidal ideation and instances of suicidal behavior. We included 29 double-blind randomized trials in our analysis. The findings suggest that SSRIs primarily offer short-term protection against suicidal ideation. By week 2, paroxetine, fluoxetine, escitalopram, and non-SSRI treatments were linked to a decreased suicide risk compared with a placebo, with the exception of sertraline. This protective effect was diminished by week 8. In contrast, studies on instances of suicidal behavior from weeks 1 to 10 found no significant difference in efficacy between SSRIs, non-SSRIs, and placebo. These results indicate that SSRIs may offer short-term protection against suicidal ideation. However, their long-term effectiveness in mitigating suicidal ideation and preventing suicidal behaviors is limited.

Safety and tolerability of antidepressant co-treatment in acute major depressive disorder: results from a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although antidepressant (AD) monotherapy is recommended first-line for major depressive disorder (MDD), AD + AD co-treatment is common.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted the first systematic review searching PubMed/MEDLINE/PsycInfo/Embase from database inception until 1 June 2015 for acute randomized trials in ≥ 20 adults with MDD comparing AD monotherapy with AD + AD co-treatment that reported quantitative data on adverse events (AEs). Meta-analyzing 23 studies (n = 2435, duration = 6.6 weeks) AD monotherapy and AD + AD co-treatment were similar regarding intolerability-related discontinuation (risk ratio [RR] = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.89 - 1.10) and frequency of ≥ 1 AE (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.95 - 1.49). Nevertheless, AD + AD co-treatment was associated with significantly greater burden regarding 4/25 AEs (tremor: RR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.01 - 2.38; sweating: RR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.13 -3.38, ≥ 7% weight gain: RR = 3.15, 95% CI = 1.34 - 7.41; weight gain = 2.17, 95% CI = 0.71 - 3.63 kg), but not more CNS, gastrointestinal, sexual or alertness-related AEs. However, 11/25 AEs (44.0%) were reported in only 1 - 2 studies. Adding noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSA) or tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) was specifically associated with more AEs.

EXPERT OPINION

The potential for increased AEs with AD + AD co-treatment needs to be considered vis-à-vis unclear efficacy benefits of this strategy. In particular, NaSSAs and TCAs should be added to SSRIs with caution. Clearly, more data on side-effect burden of AD + AD co-treatment are needed.

Open-label milnacipran for patients with persistent knee pain 1 year or longer after total knee arthroplasty: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

The current study investigates whether milnacipran is effective in reducing pain and improving function in patients with persistent pain ≥ 1 year after total knee arthroplasty.

METHOD

This was a 12-week open-label study of flexibly dosed milnacipran in patients (N = 5) experiencing chronic persistent knee pain ≥ 1 year following total knee arthroplasty in the absence of new injury, infection, or implant failure. Subjects were identified from October 2010 to August 2011 through the Duke University Medical Center orthopedic clinic (Durham, North Carolina), typically during 1-year postoperative follow-up visits, and were referred by their orthopedic surgeon.

RESULTS

Milnacipran treatment was associated with reduction in pain according to the primary outcome measure of the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain (effect size of 1.15) and secondary outcome measures of Knee Society Score (KSS) evaluation subscale score (effect size of 1.37) and Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) bodily pain subscale (effect size of 1.16) at week 12. Secondary outcome measures of functional change were mixed in such that, at week 12, the SF-36 physical functioning subscale showed improvement (effect size of 1.16), but the KSS function subscale score was just below the threshold for meaningful effect size (0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Open-label milnacipran demonstrated reduced pain and some evidence of functional improvement in this small sample of patients with chronic persistent pain 1 year or more after total knee arthroplasty such that well-powered studies are warranted.

Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

BACKGROUND

Depression is common in primary care and is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, thus creating significant demands on service providers. The antidepressant fluoxetine has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in comparison with other conventional and unconventional antidepressants. However, these studies have produced conflicting findings.Other systematic reviews have considered selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) as a group which limits the applicability of the indings for fluoxetine alone. Therefore, this review intends to provide specific and clinically useful information regarding the effects of fluoxetine for depression compared with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), monoamineoxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and newer agents, and other conventional and unconventional agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of fluoxetine in comparison with all other antidepressive agents for depression in adult individuals with unipolar major depressive disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR)to 11May 2012. This register includes relevant RCTs from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (all years),MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. The pharmaceutical company marketing fluoxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing fluoxetine with any other AD (including non-conventional agents such as hypericum) for patients with unipolar major depressive disorder (regardless of the diagnostic criteria used) were included. For trials that had a cross-over design only results from the first randomisation period were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two review authors using a standard form. Responders to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis: dropouts were always included in this analysis. When data on dropouts were carried forward and included in the efficacy evaluation, they were analysed according to the primary studies; when dropouts were excluded from any assessment in the primary studies, they were considered as treatment failures. Scores from continuous outcomes were analysed by including patients with a final assessment or with the last observation carried forward. Tolerability data were analysed by calculating the proportion of patients who failed to complete the study due to any causes and due to side effects or inefficacy. For dichotomous data, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. Continuous data were analysed using standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 171 studies were included in the analysis (24,868 participants). The included studies were undertaken between 1984 and 2012. Studies had homogenous characteristics in terms of design, intervention and outcome measures. The assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool revealed that the great majority of them failed to report methodological details, like the method of random sequence generation, the allocation concealment and blinding. Moreover, most of the included studies were sponsored by drug companies, so the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be considered in interpreting the results. Fluoxetine was as effective as the TCAs when considered as a group both on a dichotomous outcome (reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale) (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.22, 24 RCTs, 2124 participants) and a continuous outcome (mean scores at the end of the trial or change score on depression measures) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.14, 50 RCTs, 3393 participants). On a dichotomousoutcome, fluoxetine was less effective than dothiepin or dosulepin (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.20; number needed to treat (NNT) =6, 95% CI 3 to 50, 2 RCTs, 144 participants), sertraline (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.74; NNT = 13, 95% CI 7 to 58, 6 RCTs, 1188 participants), mirtazapine (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.04; NNT = 12, 95% CI 6 to 134, 4 RCTs, 600 participants) and venlafaxine(OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51; NNT = 11, 95% CI 8 to 16, 12 RCTs, 3387 participants). On a continuous outcome, fluoxetine was more effective than ABT-200 (SMD -1.85, 95% CI -2.25 to -1.45, 1 RCT, 141 participants) and milnacipran (SMD -0.36, 95% CI-0.63 to -0.08, 2 RCTs, 213 participants); conversely, it was less effective than venlafaxine (SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0 to 0.19, 13 RCTs,3097 participants). Fluoxetine was better tolerated than TCAs considered as a group (total dropout OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96;NNT = 20, 95% CI 13 to 48, 49 RCTs, 4194 participants) and was better tolerated in comparison with individual ADs, in particular amitriptyline (total dropout OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.85; NNT = 13, 95% CI 8 to 39, 18 RCTs, 1089 participants), and among the newer ADs ABT-200 (total dropout OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 144 participants), pramipexole(total dropout OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42, NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 105 participants), and reboxetine (total dropout OR0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82, NNT = 9, 95% CI 6 to 24, 4 RCTs, 764 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The present study detected differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability between fluoxetine and certain ADs, but the clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain.Moreover, the assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool showed that the great majority of included studies failed to report details on methodological procedures. Of consequence, no definitive implications can be drawn from the studies' results. The better efficacy profile of sertraline and venlafaxine (and possibly other ADs) over fluoxetine may be clinically meaningful,as already suggested by other systematic reviews. In addition to efficacy data, treatment decisions should also be based on considerations of drug toxicity, patient acceptability and cost.

Milnacipran: a unique antidepressant?

Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are among the most effective antidepressants available, although their poor tolerance at usual recommended doses and toxicity in overdose make them difficult to use. While selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are better tolerated than TCAs, they have their own specific problems, such as the aggravation of sexual dysfunction, interaction with coadministered drugs, and for many, a discontinuation syndrome. In addition, some of them appear to be less effective than TCAs in more severely depressed patients. Increasing evidence of the importance of norepinephrine in the etiology of depression has led to the development of a new generation of antidepressants, the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Milnacipran, one of the pioneer SNRIs, was designed from theoretic considerations to be more effective than SSRIs and better tolerated than TCAs, and with a simple pharmacokinetic profile. Milnacipran has the most balanced potency ratio for reuptake inhibition of the two neurotransmitters compared with other SNRIs (1:1.6 for milnacipran, 1:10 for duloxetine, and 1:30 for venlafaxine), and in some studies milnacipran has been shown to inhibit norepinephrine uptake with greater potency than serotonin (2.2:1). Clinical studies have shown that milnacipran has efficacy comparable with the TCAs and is superior to SSRIs in severe depression. In addition, milnacipran is well tolerated, with a low potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. Milnacipran is a first-line therapy suitable for most depressed patients. It is frequently successful when other treatments fail for reasons of efficacy or tolerability.

Milnacipran: beyond a role of antidepressant

Milnacipran is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with negligible effects on any presynaptic or postsynaptic receptors. Milnacipran has unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics that distinguish it from the other marketed serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine, and duloxetine such as equipotent serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition and a linear dose-concentration trend at therapeutic doses. The half-life of milnacipran is approximately 8 hours. In addition, milnacipran does not inhibit the cytochrome P 450 system, indicating minimal propensity for drug-drug interactions. The antidepressant efficacy of milnacipran has been clearly established in a number of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials, and it has been widely used for treating major depressive disorder. Moreover, evidence suggests that milnacipran is effective and tolerable in the treatment of fibromyalgia and may have usefulness for fatigue and anxiety symptoms. The current paper reviews researches conducted to date that is relevant to the efficacy, tolerability, and mechanism of action of milnacipran in the treatment of depression, fibromyalgia, and other psychiatric syndromes. Future directions of research are also identified.

Milnacipran versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, antidepressant drugs are frequently used as first-line treatment in primary and secondary care settings. Milnacipran, a dual serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), is one of the antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of milnacipran in comparison with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), heterocyclics, SSRIs and other newer antidepressive agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety & Neurosis review group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) were electronically searched in August 2008. References of relevant trials and other reviews were also checked. Trial databases of the drug-approving agencies and ongoing clinical trial registers for all published and unpublished trials were hand-searched in 2007. All relevant authors were contacted for supplemental data. No language restriction was applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing milnacipran with any other active antidepressive agents (including non-conventional agents such as herbal products like hypericum) as monotherapy in the acute phase of major depression were selected.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently checked eligibility, assessed methodological quality and extracted data from the eligible trials using a standardised data extraction form. The number of participants who responded to treatment or those who achieved remission were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, combining data from the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (n=2277) were included in the meta-analysis.Despite the size of this sample, the pooled 95% confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy, acceptability and tolerability when comparing milnacipran with other antidepressive agents. However, compared with TCAs, patients taking milnacipran were associated with fewer dropouts due to adverse events (OR 0.55; 95%CI 0.35 to 0.85). There was also some weak evidence to suggest that patients taking milnacipran experienced fewer adverse events of sleepiness/ drowsiness, dry mouth or constipation compared with TCAs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is inadequate evidence to conclude whether milnacipran is superior, inferior or the same as other antidepressive agents in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of major depression. However, there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of dropouts due to adverse events (acceptability) and the rates of experiencing adverse events (tolerability). Information about other clinically meaningful outcomes such as cost-effectiveness and social functioning, including the ability to return to work, is lacking. Further study is needed to answer whether milnacipran would be the better choice of antidepressant for acute major depression.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results for efficacy of second-generation antidepressants. We therefore did a multiple-treatments meta-analysis, which accounts for both direct and indirect comparisons, to assess the effects of 12 new-generation antidepressants on major depression.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed 117 randomised controlled trials (25 928 participants) from 1991 up to Nov 30, 2007, which compared any of the following antidepressants at therapeutic dose range for the acute treatment of unipolar major depression in adults: bupropion, citalopram, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who responded to or dropped out of the allocated treatment. Analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis.

FINDINGS

Mirtazapine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, and sertraline were significantly more efficacious than duloxetine (odds ratios [OR] 1.39, 1.33, 1.30 and 1.27, respectively), fluoxetine (1.37, 1.32, 1.28, and 1.25, respectively), fluvoxamine (1.41, 1.35, 1.30, and 1.27, respectively), paroxetine (1.35, 1.30, 1.27, and 1.22, respectively), and reboxetine (2.03, 1.95, 1.89, and 1.85, respectively). Reboxetine was significantly less efficacious than all the other antidepressants tested. Escitalopram and sertraline showed the best profile of acceptability, leading to significantly fewer discontinuations than did duloxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, reboxetine, and venlafaxine.

INTERPRETATION

Clinically important differences exist between commonly prescribed antidepressants for both efficacy and acceptability in favour of escitalopram and sertraline. Sertraline might be the best choice when starting treatment for moderate to severe major depression in adults because it has the most favourable balance between benefits, acceptability, and acquisition cost.

Efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran in the treatment of major depression in comparison with other antidepressants : a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Milnacipran, a dual serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, is one of the newer antidepressants that clinicians use for the routine care of patients with major depression. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran with other antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran in comparison with TCAs, SSRIs and other drugs in the acute phase of treatment for major depression.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials registers, journals, conference proceedings, trial databases of the drug-approving agencies and ongoing clinical trial registers for all published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and adverse events of milnacipran versus any other antidepressant. The search was conducted in December 2006 and updated in May 2007. No language restrictions were applied. All relevant authors were contacted to supplement any incomplete reporting in the original papers. Randomized controlled trials comparing milnacipran with any other active antidepressants as monotherapy in the acute phase of treatment for major depression were selected. Participants were aged > or =18 years, of both sexes and with a primary diagnosis of unipolar major depression. Studies were excluded when the participants had specific psychiatric and medical co-morbidities. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of trials for inclusion, and subsequently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses were conducted for efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Sixteen randomized controlled trials (n = 2277) were included in the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

No differences were found in achieving clinical improvement, remission or overall tolerability when comparing milnacipran with other antidepressants. However, compared with the TCAs, fewer patients taking milnacipran were early treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm (NNH) = 15; 95% CI 10, 48). Significantly more patients taking TCAs experienced adverse events compared with milnacipran (NNH = 4; 95% CI 3, 7).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall effectiveness and tolerability of milnacipran versus other antidepressants does not seem to differ in the acute phase of treatment for major depression. However, there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of premature withdrawal due to adverse events and the rates of patients experiencing adverse events. Milnacipran may benefit some patient populations who experience adverse effects from other antidepressants in the acute phase of treatment for major depression.

Are antidepressant drugs that combine serotonergic and noradrenergic mechanisms of action more effective than the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treating major depressive disorder? A meta-analysis of studies of newer agents

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with newer antidepressant drugs that simultaneously enhance norepinephrine and serotonin neurotransmission might result in higher response and remission rates than the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). The goal of our work was to compare response rates among patients with MDD treated with either of these two broad categories of antidepressant drugs.

METHODS

Medline/Pubmed, EMBase, clinical trial registries, program syllabi from major psychiatric meetings held since 1995, and documents from relevant pharmaceutical companies were searched for double-blind, randomized trials comparing a newer serotonergic-noradrenergic antidepressant drug (venlafaxine, duloxetine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, mianserin, or moclobemide) with an SSRI for MDD.

RESULTS

Ninety-three trials (n = 17,036) were combined using a random-effects model. Treatment with serotonergic + noradrenergic antidepressant drugs was more likely to result in clinical response than the SSRIs (risk ratio [RR] = 1.059; response rates 63.6% versus 59.3%; p = .003). There was no evidence for heterogeneity among studies combined (p = 1.0). Excluding each individual agent did not significantly alter the pooled RR. With the exception of duloxetine (.985), RRs for response for each individual serotonergic + noradrenergic antidepressant drug were within the 95% confidence interval of the pooled RR (1.019-1.101).

CONCLUSIONS

Serotonergic-noradrenergic antidepressant drugs seem to have a modest efficacy advantage compared with SSRIs in MDD. With the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) statistic as one indicator of clinical significance, nearly 24 patients would need to be treated with dual-action antidepressant drugs instead of SSRIs in order to obtain one additional responder. This difference falls well below the mark of NNT = 10 suggested by the United Kingdom's National Institute of Clinical Excellence but nonetheless might be of public health relevance given the large number of depressed patients treated with SSRI /serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) antidepressant drugs. Further research is needed to examine whether larger differences between classes of antidepressant drugs might exist in specific MDD sub-populations or for specific MDD symptoms.

A meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing milnacipran, a serotonin--norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor for the treatment of major depressive disorder

CONTEXT

Over the past few years, a number of studies have emerged suggesting that the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with antidepressants which enhance both noradrenergic as well as serotonergic neurotransmission may result in higher response or remission rates than treatment with antidepressants which selectively enhance serotonergic neurotransmission.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to compare response rates among patients with MDD treated with either milnacipran, an antidepressant thought to simultaneously enhance both noradrenergic and serotonergic neurotransmission, or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).

DATA SOURCES

Medline/Pubmed were searched. No year of publication or language limits were used.

STUDY SELECTION

Double-blind, randomized clinical trials comparing milnacipran with an SSRI for the treatment of MDD.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted with the use of a pre-coded form.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Analyses were performed comparing response rates between the two antidepressant agents. Data from 6 reports involving a total of 1082 outpatients with MDD were identified and combined using a random-effects model. Patients randomized to treatment with milnacipran were as likely to experience clinical response as patients randomized to treatment with an SSRI according to the MADRS (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.88-1.23, p = 0.533) or the HDRS (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.90-1.24, p = 0.456) for the random effects model. Simply pooling MADRS-based response rates between the two agents revealed a 58.9% response rate for milnacipran and a 58.3% response rate for the SSRIs. Similarly, HDRS-based response rates were 59.7% and 57.5%. There was also no difference in overall discontinuation rates (RR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.76-1.14; p = 0.506), the rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (RR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.55-1.1; p = 0.157), or the rate of discontinuation due to inefficacy (RR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.7-1.38; p = 0.95) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that milnacipran and the SSRIs do not differ with respect to their overall efficacy in the treatment of MDD.

Remission, dropouts, and adverse drug reaction rates in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of head-to-head trials

OBJECTIVE

To summarize remission rates and dropouts due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) or lack of efficacy (LoE) of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in treating major depressive disorder.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, IPA, and the Cochrane International Library from 1980-2005. Meta-analysis summarized outcomes from head-to-head randomized clinical trials comparing >or= 2 drugs from three antidepressants classes (SNRIs, and/or SSRIs, and/or TCAs) followed by >or= 6 weeks of treatment. Remission was a final Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score <or= 7 or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) <or= 12. Intent-to-treat data were combined across study arms using random effects models, producing point estimates with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

We obtained data from 30 arms of 15 head-to-head trials with 2458 patients. SNRIs had the highest ITT remission rate (49.0%), then TCAs (44.1%), and SSRIs (37.7%) (p > 0.05 for SNRIs versus TCAs; p < 0.001 for TCAs versus SSRIs and SNRIs versus SSRIs). When categorized as inpatients (n = 582) and outpatients (n = 1613), SNRIs had the highest remission rates (52.0% for 144 inpatients and 49.3% for 559 outpatients). SNRIs had lowest overall dropouts (26.1%), followed by SSRIs (28.4%), and TCAs (35.7%). Dropouts due to ADRs and LoE were 10.3% and 6.2% for SNRIs, 8.3% and 7.2% for SSRIs, and 19.8% and 9.9% for TCAs, respectively (p > 0.05 for ADR dropouts only). One limitation was the inclusion of only venlafaxine-XR; results may not be the same for immediate release forms. In addition, few studies reported remission rates.

CONCLUSIONS

SNRIs had the highest efficacy remission rates (statistically significant for inpatients and outpatients), and the lowest overall dropout rates, suggesting clinical superiority in treating major depression.

Effects of Milnacipran in Animal Models of Anxiety and Memory

Serotonin (5-HT) and noradrenaline (NA) are involved in both pathogenesis and recovery from depression and anxiety. We examined the effects of acute and chronic treatment with milnacipran, a serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) antidepressant, on anxiety and memory retention in rats. Male Wistar rats received acute or chronic administration of milnacipran (12.5, 25 or 50 mg/kg) or saline (control group). The animals were separately submitted to elevated plus-maze, inhibitory avoidance and open-field tasks 1 h after injection, in the acute group, or 23 h after last injection, in the chronic group. Our results showed an anxiolytic-like effect after chronic administration of milnacipran at doses of 25 and 50 mg/kg. The treatment does not interfere in memory retention and habituation to a novel environment at any doses studied. These findings support that milnacipran, an established SNRIs antidepressant, can also be useful in the treatment of anxiety disorders.

Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

BACKGROUND

Depression is common in primary care and it is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, and creates significant demands on service providers in terms of workload. Treatment is predominantly pharmaceutical or psychological. Fluoxetine, the first of a group of antidepressant (AD) agents known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in comparison with tricyclic (TCA), heterocyclic and related ADs, and other SSRIs. These comparative studies provided contrasting findings. In addition, systematic reviews of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group, and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to fluoxetine alone. The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of fluoxetine in comparison with TCAs, SSRIs and newer agents.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of fluoxetine, compared with other ADs, in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression, and to review its acceptability.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant studies were located by searching the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline (1966-2004) and Embase (1974-2004). Non-English language articles were included.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only RCTs were included. For trials which have a crossover design only results from the first randomisation period were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using a standard form. Responders to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis: drop-outs were always included in this analysis. When data on drop-outs were carried forward and included in the efficacy evaluation, they were analysed according to the primary studies; when dropouts were excluded from any assessment in the primary studies, they were considered as treatment failures. Scores from continuous outcomes were analysed including patients with a final assessment or with the last observation carried forward. Tolerability data were analysed by calculating the proportion of patients who failed to complete the study and who experienced adverse reactions out of the total number of randomised patients. The primary analyses used a fixed effects approach, and presented Peto Odds Ratio (PetoOR) and Standardised Mean Difference (SMD).

MAIN RESULTS

On a dichotomous outcome fluoxetine was less effective than dothiepin (PetoOR: 2.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.05), sertraline (PetoOR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.76), mirtazapine (PetoOR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.65) and venlafaxine (Peto OR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70). On a continuous outcome, fluoxetine was more effective than ABT-200 (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) random effects: - 1.85, 95% CI - 2.25 to - 1.45) and milnacipran (SMD random effects: - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.06); conversely, it was less effective than venlafaxine (SMD random effect: 0.11, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.23), however these figures were of borderline statistical significance. Fluoxetine was better tolerated than TCAs considered as a group (PetoOR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89), and was better tolerated in comparison with individual ADs, in particular than amitriptyline (PetoOR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.85) and imipramine (PetoOR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99), and among newer ADs than ABT-200 (PetoOR: 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.41), pramipexole (PetoOR: 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47) and reboxetine (PetoOR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.94).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are statistically significant differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability between fluoxetine and certain ADs, but the clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain, and no definitive implications for clinical practice can be drawn. From a clinical point of view the analysis of antidepressants' safety profile (adverse effect and suicide risk) remains of crucial importance and more reliable data about these outcomes are needed. Waiting for more robust evidence, treatment decisions should be based on considerations of clinical history, drug toxicity, patient acceptability, and cost. We need for large, pragmatic trials, enrolling heterogeneous populations of patients with depression to generate clinically relevant information on the benefits and harms of competitive pharmacological options. A meta-analysis of individual patient data from the randomised trials is clearly necessary.

International dosage differences in fluoxetine clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

International differences are thought to exist in dosages used by clinicians treating mood disorders. This study examined international dosage differences in antidepressant clinical trials, using a database formed and maintained as a component of a Cochrane review of comparative clinical trials of fluoxetine.

METHODS

This systematic review included 132 studies. A detailed set of methodological features and results were abstracted from the original publications and entered into an electronic database. Mean and maximum fluoxetine dosages were compared across countries. To evaluate the dosages of comparison medications, a defined daily dosage (DDD) ratio was calculated as the trial mean dosage divided by the DDD for that drug.

RESULTS

Both the maximum and mean dosages for fluoxetine and comparison medications were higher in trials conducted in the US (fluoxetine weighted mean dosage 49.18 mg; 95% CI, 41.30 to 57.05), compared with trials conducted in Europe (fluoxetine weighted mean dosage 29.98 mg; 95% CI, 25.28 to 34.68). Since most clinical trials were conducted in Europe or the US, we could not determine whether different dosages tended to be used in other regions.

CONCLUSIONS

International differences in prescriber behaviour may influence, and in turn be influenced by, the conduct of clinical trials. It is difficult to reconcile such differences with the principles of evidence-based medicine.

Comparaison de deux outils de mesure des effets indésirables d’un traitement antidépresseur : la notification spontanée et l’échelle UKU

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY

Overall, the efficacy of the newer antidepressants: serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) and tianeptine is similar to that of the tricyclics, and so their acceptability/safety becomes a selection criterion for the clinician. However, side-effect assessment comes up against several difficulties: distinguishing between somatic symptoms caused by the depression and those caused by the treatment -- which assessment tool to use (spontaneous notification, standardized scales that are not specific for the side effects caused by psychotropic drugs, standardised scales specific for the side effects caused by psychotropic drugs, meta-analysis, etc.) -- which data sources to consult (anecdotal reports, reviews, prospective studies), and which data set to use, etc. As a result, the question of the exhaustiveness and reliability of the data consulted by the clinician can arise. We therefore conducted a comparative study in patients treated with these newer antidepressants, of 2 antidepressants side-effect assessment tools: spontaneous notification (SN) versus the UKU scale, a standardised scale specific for the side effects of psychotropic drugs.

METHODOLOGY

The depressed outpatients were selected from a psychiatric unit in a French psychiatric hospital and from a non-hospital consulting room. The main inclusion criteria were: male or female subjects, suffering from major depression without melancholia or psychotic features or suffering from mood disorders (according to DSM IV criteria), who had been treated for at least 4 weeks with one of the newer antidepressants. The main exclusion criteria were: any other psychiatric disorder, a serious physical disorder, treatment with neuroleptics, mood-changing drugs or other antidepressants, and patients who were not able to understand the questionnaire. The investigation was carried out by a clinical pharmacist.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included in the study. There were 18 men and 32 women. The mean age was 53.5 15.9 years [22 - 77], the mean period of treatment was 24 30.5 months [1 - 127] and 52% of the patients received concomitant medication with anxiolitic or hypnotic drug(s). The percentage of patients who reported at least one side effect was significantly higher for the UKU scale than for SN (84% vs 58%, p<0.01). The ratio between SN and UKU scale scores was 2/3. A similar pattern was found for the total number of side effects (n=177 vs n=47, p<0.001). The ratio between the total number of side effects for the SN and UKU scale was 1/4. The side effects were divided into five subgroups: psychiatric, neurovegetative, sexual, neurological and others. In all these subgroups, the number of side effects reported was significantly higher when the UKU scale was used than when SN was used. The values were as follows: psychiatric (n=44 vs n=15, p<0.001), neurovegetative (n=59 vs n=15, p<0.001), sexual (n=36 vs n=10, p<0.001), neurological (n=11 vs n=2, p<0.001) and other side effects (n=27 vs n=5, p<0.001). Nineteen side effects were only reported when SN was used (for example: dry eyes, incompatibility with alcohol, euphoria...). Twenty-four side effects were only reported when the UKU scale was used (for example: increased libido, loss of bodyweight...). The side effects had no impact on daily life in most of 80% of the patients; there was no significant difference between the patient's assessment of the discomfort caused by side effects and the clinician's assessment. In 90% of cases, the side effects did not lead to any change in the treatment.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study show that the collection of data regarding side effects depends on the assessment tool used: the number of side effects reported was significantly higher when the UKU scale was used than when SN was used. However, this finding must viewed with caution, because it has been showed that checklists can induce symptoms in suggestible patients. Neurovegetative troubles are the most commonly reported side effects, and neurological troubles the least often reported. This matches the tolerability profile of these antidepressants. The disorders that were least frequently spontaneously reported were the neurological, sexual and "other" side effects. These emerged only when the clinician asked the patient about them. The 19 side effects that were only reported when SN was used were side effects that were not included in the UKU scale or that had not been present during the three days before we started the investigation. The 34 side effects that were only reported when the UKU scale was used were either side effects with no apparent link with the treatment (for example: micturition troubles) or embarrassing effects (such as increased libido).

CONCLUSION

Our findings show that the collection of data on side effects depends on the assessment tool used. These findings need to be confirmed by large-scale comparative studies, and the standardization of the assessment of side effects is a question that needs to be raised.

Differential period of onset of action of fluvoxamine, paroxetine and milnacipran for depression

INTRODUCTION

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and dual serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants, yet it is not known whether one is superior to another.

AIMS

The purpose of this clinical practice was to compare the periods of onset of action of fluvoxamine, paroxetine and milnacipran.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was carried out among out-patients with depression treated in the Department of Psychiatry, Kawasaki Medical School Hospital, Kurashiki, Japan, in 2000 and 2001. A total of 206 patients receiving fluvoxamine, paroxetine and milnacipran were identified.

RESULTS

The cumulative percentage of responders receiving milnacipran reached over 80% after 4 weeks, but it did reach this level for fluvoxamine or paroxetine until after 6 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The differential period of onset of action should help guide clinicians in determining a suitable duration of antidepressants for depression.

Synthesis of derivatives of (1S,2R)-1-phenyl-2-[(S)-1-aminopropyl]-N,N-diethylcyclopropanecarboxamide (PPDC) modified at the 1-aromatic moiety as novel NMDA receptor antagonists: the aromatic group is essential for the activity

(1S,2R)-1-Phenyl-2-[(S)-1-aminopropyl]-N,N-diethylcyclopropanecarboxamide (PPDC, 4a), which is a conformationally restricted analogue of antidepressant milnacipran [(+/-)-1], is a new class of potent noncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonists. A series of PPDC analogues modified at the 1-phenyl moiety, that is, the analogue 6 lacking 1-phenyl group, the 1-(fluorophenyl) analogues 4b,c,d, the 1-(methylphenyl) analogues 4e-g and the 1-(naphthyl) analogues 4h,i were synthesized. Analogue 6, lacking the 1-phenyl group, was completely inactive showing that the aromatic moiety is essential for the NMDA receptor binding. Among the analogues synthesized, the 1-o-fluorophenyl and 1-m-fluorophenyl analogues 4b and 4c showed potent affinities for the NMDA receptor [IC(50)=0.16+/-0.001 microM (4b), 0.15+/-0.02 microM (4c)], which were improved to some extent compared to those of the parent compound PPDC (IC(50)=0.20+/-0.02 microM). On the other hand, compounds 4b and 4c showed none of the 5-HT-uptake inhibitory effect, while PPDC turned out to be a weak 5-HT-uptake inhibitor.

Conformational analysis of the NMDA receptor antagonist (1S,2R)-1-phenyl-2-[(S)-1-aminopropyl]-N,N-diethylcyclopropanecarboxamide (PPDC) designed by a novel conformational restriction method based on the structural feature of cyclopropane ring

(1S,2R)-1-phenyl-2-[(S)-1-aminopropyl]-N,N-diethylcyclopropanecarboxamide (2b, PPDC), a new class of potent N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor antagonist, was designed based on a new method for restricting the conformation of compounds having a cyclopropane ring. The three-dimensional structures of PPDC obtained by the three different methods of X-ray crystallographic analysis, usual MM2-calculations in vacuum, and MM2 calculations based on the nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE) data in D2O are similar, which are in accord with that hypothesized. These results suggest that this conformational restriction method is particularly effective in designing novel biologically active molecules.

Differential effects of milnacipran and fluvoxamine, especially in patients with severe depression and agitated depression: a case-control study

We attempted to compare the antidepressant efficacy of milnacipran and fluvoxamine in 202 outpatients with major depression, using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Special attention was paid to the difference of responsiveness as a function of the severity of depression and individual HDRS factors. As a result, while no significant difference between the treatment groups was found overall, a positive response (50% or more decrease in total score from the baseline) was recorded significantly more often with milnacipran than fluvoxamine recipients whose baseline HDRS total score was greater than 19 points. Furthermore, there was a significant difference of response for the 'agitation' and 'insomnia' factors in favour of milnacipran. In both treatment groups, the incidence of adverse events, characteristic of tricyclic antidepressants such as dry mouth, constipation, somnolence and postural hypotension, was low. While complaints concerning the upper intestinal tract, such as epigastric distress, were predominant in the fluvoxamine group, urological complications and palpitations were reported only in the milnacipran group. In conclusion, we suggest that milnacipran is preferred to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of depressed patients with agitation as well as severely depressed patients.

Antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran, a dual serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor: a comparison with fluvoxamine

The antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran, a dual action serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, were compared with those of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, fluvoxamine, in 113 patients with moderate to severe major depression. Treatment with milnacipran, 50 mg b.d. for 6 weeks, produced a significantly greater reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores than fluvoxamine, 100 mg b.d. (P = 0.007; 65.4% versus 49.9%, respectively); significantly greater decreases were also seen on days 7 (P = 0.04) and 28 (P = 0.03). The response rate (the proportion of patients showing a decrease in MADRS scores of at least 50%) was 78.9% in patients receiving milnacipran, compared with 60.7% in fluvoxamine-treated patients (P = 0.04). Milnacipran also produced greater improvements in 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (P = 0.05). On the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale, 77.2% of milnacipran-treated patients were rated as considerably or markedly improved, compared with 60.7% of patients receiving fluvoxamine (P = 0.06 chi-squared). Both treatments were well tolerated; the only significant difference between the two groups was a higher incidence of tremor and drowsiness in patients treated with fluvoxamine. It is concluded that milnacipran may offer some advantages over selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as fluvoxamine, in the treatment of moderate to severe major depression.

Milnacipran: an antidepressant with dual selectivity of action on noradrenaline and serotonin uptake

Milnacipran is a new antidepressant which possesses potent and doubly selective action in that it inhibits both the re-uptake of serotonin and noradrenaline without any effect on other neurotransmitter systems. The almost equipotent inhibition of serotonin and noradrenaline by milnacipran is functionally reflected in the several-fold and long-lasting increase of the levels of these monoamines in the brain and in antidepressant-like effects in animals. In man, milnacipran distinguishes itself from many other antidepressants by its simple pharmacokinetics. It shows linear dose-concentration relationship over a dose range of 25-200 mg/day. It is rapidly and extensively absorbed and almost completely eliminated after 12 h (t1/2 approx. 8 h). Steady-state plasma levels are reached within 32-48 h after twice daily oral administration. Milnacipran is highly bioavailable (>85 per cent) and its metabolism does not involve the cytochrome P450 enzyme system. In clinical studies, milnacipran showed antidepressant efficacy similar to that of TCAs and SSRIs and superior to that of placebo. At the optimum dose of 100 mg/day, after 4-8 weeks of treatment, 60-64 per cent of in- or out-patients with major depression improve (>/=50 per cent reduction of HAMD and MADRS score) and about 32-39 per cent of them achieve full remission (HAMD score</=7). Milnacipran has proved to be a very safe drug with a benign adverse event profile clearly superior to that of TCAs and, to a certain extent, that of SSRIs. Only about 10 per cent of patients experience side-effects and only dysuria occurred more frequently (2 per cent) with milnacipran than with TCAs or SSRIs. Milnacipran appears therefore to be an antidepressant with a very favourable benefit/risk ratio. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Pharmacodynamics of milnacipran in young and elderly volunteers

AIMS

To investigate the pharmacodynamics of milnacipran in healthy young and elderly volunteers.

METHODS

Randomized double-blind crossover designs were employed and a standardized psychometric battery was administered pre and post dose for both studies. In the first study 10 healthy young volunteers received milnacipran 12.5 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg as a single dose or matched placebo. The test battery was administered at baseline and at 1, 2, 4 and 6 h post dose. The second study compared the effects of milnacipran 75 mg (50 mg+25 mg) per day, amitriptyline 50 mg (25 mg+25 mg) per day and placebo for 3 days' dosing in healthy volunteers aged over 65 years. The test battery was administered at baseline and at 2, 10 and 24 h post dose. The psychometric battery included critical flicker fusion (CFF), choice reaction time (CRT), compensatory tracking (CTT) and tests of short-term memory (STM), subjective sedation (LARS) and subjective sleep (LSEQ).

RESULTS

Milnacipran produced no significant dose related effects in the young volunteers. For the elderly, milnacipran significantly (P<0.05) raised CFF scores compared with placebo but had no significant effects on any of the other measures used. Amitriptyline, in contrast, significantly (P<0. 05) lowered CFF threshold, lengthened CRT and increased error on the CTT. On the subjective variables, LARS and LSEQ, amitriptyline increased ratings both of sedation and of difficulty in waking from sleep.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that milnacipran at single doses of up to 100 mg in healthy young volunteers is free from disruptive effects on cognitive function and psychomotor performance. In addition, milnacipran 75 mg (50+25 mg) appears to be free of negative effects on cognitive function in elderly volunteers, where it seemingly improves performance on CFF. In contrast, the tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline, used here as a positive internal control, significantly impaired performance in the elderly on the majority of psychometric measures used in this study. This finding not only validated the sensitivity of this current test battery but also indicates the potential behavioural toxicity of amitriptyline in clinical use in the elderly.

The determination of the optimal dose of milnacipran in the olfactory bulbectomized rat model of depression

Olfactory bulbectomy (OB) is associated with a variety of behavioral abnormalities such as hyperactivity in the "open-field" test. Previous studies have shown that chronic administration of antidepressants can reverse this behavioral deficit. The activity of milnacipran (20, 30, and 40 mg/kg, PO bid) administered in two equally divided doses twice daily was assessed in the olfactory bulbectomized rat model of depression. It was found that chronic treatment with milnacipran at the doses of 30 and 40 mg/kg, but not 20 mg/kg, attenuated the lesion-induced hyperactivity of the OB rat in the "open-field" test following 14 days of treatment. In the step-through passive avoidance test, administration of milnacipran at doses of 20, 30, and 40 mg/kg had no effect on the performance deficit associated with olfactory bulbectomy. Olfactory bulbectomy reduced the concentration of noradrenaline (NA) in the frontal cortex. However, chronic milnacipran treatment did not significantly alter this deficit. It is concluded that milnacipran, when administered chronically at doses of 30 and 40 mg/kg, are effective at reversing the "open-field" deficit associated with olfactory bulbectomy, and that a dose of 30 mg/kg is an optimal dose.

Synthesis and biological activity of conformationally restricted analogues of milnacipran: (1S, 2R)-1-phenyl-2-[(R)-1-amino-2-propynyl]-N,N- diethylcyclopropanecarboxamide is a novel class of NMDA receptor channel blocker

Conformationally restricted analogues of (+/-)-(Z)-2-aminomethyl-1-phenyl-N,N-diethylcyclopropanecarboxamide++ + [milnacipran, (+/-)-1] were designed on the basis of its characteristic cyclopropane structure and were synthesized enantioselectively to develop efficient NMDA receptor antagonists. Among these analogues, (1S,2R)-1-phenyl-2-[(R)-1-amino-2-propynyl]-N, N-diethylcyclopropanecarboxamide (2d) had one of the most potent affinities for the receptor, with a Ki value of 0.29 microM. The blockade of NMDA receptor channels expressed by Xenopus oocytes by 2d was investigated in detail, and 2d was identified as a new class of open channel blocker against this receptor.

Differential inhibition of serotonin release by 5-HT and NA reuptake blockers after systemic administration

The inhibition of serotonin (5-HT) release produced by antidepressants varying in relative selectivity for blocking uptake of 5-HT and noradrenaline (NA) was compared. Release was measured by microdialysis in anesthetized rats with nerve terminal 5-HT uptake inhibited by local infusion of citalopram (1 microM) through a dialysis probe in hippocampus. With 5-HT uptake first blocked in hippocampus, systemic injection of uptake inhibitors produced decreases in dialysate 5-HT, presumably due to autoreceptor stimulation in the raphe. The largest decreases (about 60-70%) in 5-HT were produced by the selective 5-HT uptake inhibitors sertraline, paroxetine and citalopram. Nonselective blockers caused less suppression of release. Thus, the maximum decrease in 5-HT was 35% after clomipramine, a less selective 5-HT uptake inhibitor, and < or = 30% after the nonselective 5-HT/NA uptake blockers imipramine and amitriptyline, 5-HT was not decreased after maprotiline, a selective NA uptake blocker. Pretreatment with (+)WAY100135 to block 5-HT1A autoreceptors, abolished the inhibition of 5-HT release produced by systemic sertraline, clomipramine and imipramine. One explanation for the difference between selective and nonselective inhibitors with respect to central 5-HT release, is the excitatory effect of (alpha 1) adrenergic receptor stimulation on 5-HT neuronal discharge. However, pretreatment with alpha-methyl-p-tyrosine to deplete NA, did not influence the inhibition of 5-HT release produced by imipramine.