Multicenter double blind study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed inpatients

Efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in older patients with major depressive disorder: A systematic review, pairwise and network meta-analysis

As there is currently no comprehensive evaluation about the efficacy and safety of interventions in elderly patients with major depressive disorder, we did a systematic review and network meta-analysis about all interventions in this population. We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane common mental disorders group, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CochraneLibrary, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO registry until Dec 12, 2017 to identify all randomized controlled trials about the treatment of major depressive disorder in patients over an age of 65. The primary outcome was response defined as reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale or any other validated depression scale. Secondary outcomes were remission, depressive symptoms, dropouts total, dropouts owing to inefficacy and dropouts due to adverse events, quality of life and social functioning. Additionally, we analysed 116 adverse events. We identified 129 references from 53 RCTs with 9274 participants published from 1990 to 2017. The mean participant age was 73.7 years. In terms of the primary outcome response to treatment the network-meta-analysis showed significant superiority compared to placebo for quetiapine and duloxetine; in addition, agomelatine, imipramine and vortioxetine outperformed placebo in pairwise meta-analyses, and there were also significant superiorities of several antidepressants compared to placebo in secondary efficacy outcomes. Very limited evidence suggests that competitive memory training, geriatric home treatment group and detached mindfulness condition reduce depressive symptoms. Several antidepressants and quetiapine have been shown to be efficacious in elderly patients with major depressive disorder, but due to the comparably few available data, the results are not robust. Differences in the multiple side-effects analysed should also be considered in drug choice. Although there were significant effects for some non-pharmacological treatments, the overall evidence for non-pharmacological treatments in major depressive disorder is insufficient, because it is based on a few trials with usually small sample sizes.

Comparative efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors in older adults: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To establish the comparative efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors in older adults using the network meta-analysis approach.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged 60 and older.

MEASUREMENTS

Data on partial response (defined as at least 50% reduction in depression score from baseline) and safety (dizziness, vertigo, syncope, falls, loss of consciousness) were extracted. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed on the efficacy and safety outcomes, and relative risks (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were produced.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, duloxetine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and sertraline were represented. Reporting on partial response and dizziness was sufficient to conduct a network meta-analysis. Reporting on other outcomes was sparse. For partial response, sertraline (RR=1.28), paroxetine (RR=1.48), and duloxetine (RR=1.62) were significantly better than placebo. The remaining interventions yielded RRs lower than 1.20. For dizziness, duloxetine (RR=3.18) and venlafaxine (RR=2.94) were statistically significantly worse than placebo. Compared with placebo, sertraline had the lowest RR for dizziness (1.14) and fluoxetine the second lowest (1.31). Citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine all had RRs between 1.4 and 1.7.

CONCLUSION

There was clear evidence of the effectiveness of sertraline, paroxetine, and duloxetine. There also appears to be a hierarchy of safety associated with the different antidepressants, although there appears to be a dearth of reporting of safety outcomes.

Paroxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and 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 paroxetine alone. The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2. To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3. To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR, to 30 September 2012), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies marketing paroxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials allocating participants with major depression to paroxetine versus any other antidepressants (ADs), both conventional (such as TCAs, SSRIs) and newer or non-conventional (such as hypericum). For trials which had a cross-over design, only results from the first randomisation period were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. Data were then entered in RevMan 5.2 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, settings and efficacy, acceptability and tolerability measures.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 115 randomised controlled trials (26,134 participants) were included. In 54 studies paroxetine was compared with older ADs, in 21 studies with another SSRI, and in 40 studies with a newer or non-conventional antidepressant other than SSRIs. For the primary outcome (patients who responded to treatment), paroxetine was more effective than reboxetine at increasing patients who responded early to treatment (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.66, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.87, number needed to treat to provide benefit (NNTb) = 16, 95% CI 10 to 50, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 1375 participants, moderate quality of evidence), and less effective than mirtazapine (OR: 2.39, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.02, NNTb = 8, 95% CI 5 to 14, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 726 participants, moderate quality of evidence). Paroxetine was less effective than citalopram in improving response to treatment (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.28, NNTb = 9, 95% CI 5 to 102, at six to 12 weeks, 1 RCT, 406 participants, moderate quality of evidence). We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute (six to 12 weeks), early (one to four weeks), or longer term follow-up (four to six months). Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline, imipramine and older ADs as a class, but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum. Included studies were generally at unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment, and incomplete reporting of outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some possibly clinically meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist, but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings. In terms of response, there was a moderate quality of evidence that citalopram was better than paroxetine in the acute phase (six to 12 weeks), although only one study contributed data. In terms of early response to treatment (one to four weeks) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine. However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point. Even if some differences were identified, the findings from this review are better thought as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be reassuring to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Finally, most of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and were sponsored by the drug industry. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind.

Efficacy of treatment in older depressed patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials with antidepressants

BACKGROUND

This systematic review evaluated all published double-blind, randomized controlled antidepressant trials (RCTs) of acute phase treatment of older depressed patients.

METHODS

Meta-analyses were conducted in 51 double-blind RCTs of antidepressants in older patients. The results were also compared with 29 double-blind RCTs that did not produce extractable data to enter the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

All classes of antidepressant (TCA's, SSRIs and other antidepressants) were more effective than placebo in achieving response. In achieving remission however, only pooling all 3 classes of antidepressants together showed a statistically significant difference from placebo. No differences were found in remission or response rates between classes of antidepressants. TCAs were also equally effective compared with SSRIs in achieving response in more severely depressed patients. The numbers needed to treat (NNT) were 14.4 (95% CI 8.3-50) for one additional remission to antidepressants compared with placebo and 6.7 (95% CI 4.8-10) for response. The results of the double-blind RCTs that did not produce extractable data to enter the meta-analysis were in concordance with the RCTs that were included in the meta-analysis.

LIMITATIONS

Only 4 RCTs were found that have not been published. Few studies have focused on severely depressed older people.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressant treatment in older depressed patients is efficacious. We could not demonstrate differences in effectiveness between different classes of antidepressants; this was also the case in more severely depressed patients.

Treatment of depression in late life

This paper updates the 1996 review of treatment approaches published in the Am J Geriatr Psychiatry (1996;4[suppl 1]:S51-S65 [see ref33]) and a chapter in A Guide to Treatments that Work (Nathan PE, Gorman JM, eds), Oxford University Press, New York, 1998 [see ref 54]:. The major focus is on psychophannacoiogy with attention also to the évidence for the efficacy of psychotherapeutic and somatic approaches.

Specificity profile of paroxetine in major depressive disorder: meta-regression of double-blind, randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses and reviews are powerful tools to inform clinicians on overall effects of their therapeutic choices, but do not provide practically useful clinical profiles for each drug optimal efficacy. Therefore clinicians in everyday practice have to rely mainly on personal or anecdotic experience. The aim of present study was to define the most suitable sociodemographic and disease-related profile for the use of paroxetine as an antidepressant treatment.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) in English focused on "paroxetine" and "depressive disorder" or "major depression". We also considered reviews and meta-analyses focusing on paroxetine. Fifty-five total unique RCTs were included and sociodemographic and clinical data as moderator of efficacy measures (standardized mean difference based on Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) were investigated via meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Paroxetine was significantly characterized by better response in females and in Caucasians, whilst for patients who have been ill for a longer time before treatment, the smaller was the antidepressant effect. Other disease-related variables were not found to be significant moderators in clinical outcome.

LIMITATIONS

Meta-regression may lack sufficient sensibility to detect specific subtle features, so a failure to find significant effect is not definitive evidence of a lack of effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results, though significant, were generally observed with small estimate values, their clinical relevance is subtle since each feature is expected to influence marginally the whole outcome, and probably a more pronounced effect could result only by analyzing very large samples.

Paroxetine: safety and tolerability issues

Paroxetine is a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) available in immediate release and controlled release (CR) formulations. Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of serotonin re-uptake among the now available SSRIs. Paroxetine has been approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder (PD), generalised anxiety disorder, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and social anxiety disorder (SAD) in adults, whereas paroxetine CR is approved for the treatment of MDD, SAD, PD and premenstrual dysphoric disorder in adults. The overall efficacy of paroxetine seems to be comparable to other SSRIs in the treatment of approved indications, although paroxetine treatment induces more sedation, constipation, sexual dysfunction, discontinuation syndrome and weight gain than other SSRIs. Recent data suggest that paroxetine treatment leads to increased rates of congenital malformations, although this evidence is not conclusive. Paroxetine and paroxetine CR are not indicated for use in the paediatric population and are categorised as Pregnancy Class D. In conclusion, whether the tolerability profile of paroxetine differs substantially from other new antidepressants (including other SSRIs) needs to be determined in adequately powered well-designed randomised controlled comparative clinical trials.

Relationship between the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale in depressed elderly: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the sensitivity of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) to treatment effects are comparable in geriatric antidepressant randomized controlled trials by developing and validating an equation that links between the two instruments.

METHODS

Literature search for this meta-analysis was based on three sources: MEDLINE, a recent related meta-analysis, and experts in geriatric antidepressant trials. The search resulted in 11 relevant geriatric antidepressant trial studies that administered both instruments for symptom ratings. The authors used baseline ratings as a model-building sample and postrandomization ratings as a validation sample. HDRS scores were prorated into HDRS17, a 17-item HDRS, for analysis. The development and validation was based on a total number of 1,874 subjects.

RESULTS

The correlations were high between baseline mean HDRS17 and MADRS ratings (r = 0.80; Fisher's z = 1.09, N = 25, p <0.0001) and between postrandomization ratings (r = 0.88, Fisher's z = 1.39, N = 65, p <0.0001). The following equation was derived: HDRS17 = -1.58 + 0.86 x MADRS. The difference between observed and estimated HDRS17 in a validation sample consisting of postrandomization follow-up means did not depend on magnitudes of HDRS17.

CONCLUSION

Although generalizability of findings into a broader population could be limited, and the authors could not assess concordance of changes of particular item constructs between HDRS and MADRS ratings, both ratings are comparable in assessing changes in overall depressive symptom severity in response to antidepressants in depressed elderly at aggregated group mean levels.

Advances in the treatment of geriatric depression

Late-life depression is a rather difficult and complicated issue. Although there have been significant advances in our knowledge in this area, a large number of questions still remain unanswered. The aim of this review is a critical presentation of the current evidence for treatment of depression in the elderly. We summarize the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of a range of proposed treatments, including pharmacological, psychological and alternative therapies and lifestyle changes. The treatments with best evidence of effectiveness are antidepressant pharmacotherapy, electroconvulsive therapy, cognitive–behavioral therapy, psychodynamic psychotherapy, reminiscence therapy, problem-solving therapy and exercise. Implications for future research are discussed.

WITHDRAWN: Treatment discontinuation with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs)

BACKGROUND

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are thought to have better discontinuation rates (i.e. less people dropping out) than tricyclic and heterocyclic antidepressant drugs. It is important to quantify the drop-out rates of different antidepressant drugs in order to have a better understanding of the relative tolerability of these drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressant drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Registers (1997 to 1999), MEDLINE (1966 to 1999), EMBASE (1974 to 1999) We also searched specialist journals, the reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews, conference abstracts and government documents. Representatives of the pharmaceutical industry were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel group randomised controlled trials comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors with tricyclic or heterocyclic antidepressants in people with depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and a third reviewer checked any cases of disagreement.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 136 trials. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors showed less participants dropping out compared to the tricyclic/heterocyclic group (odds ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.30). A statistically significant difference was found in total drop-outs between the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and the old tricyclics as well as the newer tricyclics. When the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were compared to the heterocyclic antidepressants, there was a non significant difference favouring the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The poor tolerability profile of the old tricyclics was explained by differences in drop-outs for side-effects, but not for inefficacy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Whilst selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors do appear to show an advantage over tricyclic drugs in terms of total drop-outs, this advantage is relatively modest. This has implications for pharmaco-economic models, some of which may have overestimated the difference of drop-out rates between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants. These results are based on short-term randomised controlled trials, and may not generalise into clinical practice.

Amitriptyline for depression

BACKGROUND

For many years amitriptyline has been considered one of the reference compounds for the pharmacological treatment of depression. However, new tricyclic drugs, heterocyclic compounds and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been introduced on the market with the claim of a more favourable tolerability/efficacy profile.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the tolerability and efficacy of amitriptyline in comparison with the other tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressants and with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies) was searched on 28-11-2005. Reference lists of all included studies were checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials were included. Study participants were of either sex and any age with a primary diagnosis of depression. Included trials compared amitriptyline with another tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressant or with one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using a standardised form. The number of patients undergoing the randomisation procedure, the number of patients who completed the study and the number of improved patients were extracted. In addition, group mean scores at the end of the trial on Hamilton Depression Scale or any other depression scale were extracted. In the tolerability analysis, the number of patients failing to complete the study and the number of patients complaining of side-effects were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

A total number of 194 studies were included in the review. The estimate of the overall odds ratio (OR) for responders showed that more subjects responded to amitriptyline in comparison with the control antidepressant group (OR 1.12 to 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.23, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 50). The estimate of the efficacy of amitriptyline and control agents on a continuous outcome revealed an effect size which also significantly favoured amitriptyline (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23). Whilst these differences are statistically significant, their clinical significance is less clear. When the efficacy analysis was stratified by drug class, no difference in outcome emerged between amitriptyline and either tricyclic or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor comparators. The dropout rate in patients taking amitriptyline and control agents was similar; however, the estimate of the proportion of patients who experienced side-effects significantly favoured control agents in comparison with amitriptyline (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.74). When the tolerability analysis was stratified by drug class, the dropout rate in patients taking amitriptyline and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors significantly favoured the latter (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95, number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 40). When the responder analysis was stratified by study setting amitriptyline was more effective than control antidepressants in inpatients (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42, NNTB = 24), but not in outpatients (OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.17, NNTB = 200).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This present systematic review indicates that amitriptyline is at least as efficacious as other tricyclics or newer compounds. However, the burden of side-effects in patients receiving it was greater. In comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors amitriptyline was less well tolerated, and although counterbalanced by a higher proportion of responders, the difference was not statistically significant.

WITHDRAWN: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus other antidepressants for depression

BACKGROUND

The relatively new class of antidepressant, the selective serotonin reputake inhibitors (SSRIs), may be better tolerated than the older tricyclic antidepressants. This review compares the efficacy of SSRIs with other antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared to other antidepressants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy included a search of (a) Electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE); (b) reference lists of related reviews (c) reference lists of all located studies (d) contact with the manufacturer and (e) the Cochrane Group register of controlled trials

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors with other kinds of antidepressants in the treatment of patients with depressive disorders. The outcome measures assessed included measures of the severity of depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected from each study the main outcome measurefrom each study. These included: mean Hamilton depression rating scale, mean Montgomery & Asberg depression rating scale, Clinical Global Impression rating scale. An analysis of standardised mean difference of these scales was performed using Review Manager 3.1 software. The presence of heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-eight trials contributed data to the analysis of the relative efficacy of SSRIs and related drugs with comparator antidepressants (Figure 3 & Appendix 3). Analysis of efficacy was based upon 5044 patients treated with an SSRI or related drug, and 4510 treated with an alternative antidepressant. The standardised effect size for SSRIs and related drugs together versus alternative antidepressants using a fixed effects model was 0.035 (95% CI -0.006 to 0.076; Q = 149.25, df = 97, p < 0.001).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no clinically significant differences in effectiveness between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants. Treatment decisions need to be based on considerations of relative patient acceptability, toxicity and cost.

Antidepressants for depressed elderly

BACKGROUND

Depression is a relatively common experience in older adults. The syndrome is associated with considerable distress, morbidity and service commitment. Approximately two thirds of patients presenting with severe forms will respond to antidepressant treatment and the last twenty years has witnessed a great increase in the number of these drugs. Older, frail people are particularly vulnerable to side effects.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to examine the efficacy of antidepressant classes, to compare the withdrawal rates associated with each class and describe the side effect profile of antidepressant drugs for treating depression in patients described as elderly, geriatric, senile or older adults, aged 55 or over.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies) was searched (2003-08-13). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand searched for published reports and citations of unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials were included. Trials had to compare at least two active antidepressant drugs in the treatment of depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reviewers extracted data independently. In examining efficacy, the reviewers assumed that people who died or dropped out had no improvement. Withdrawal rates irrespective of cause and specifically due to side effects were compared between drug classes. Relative risk (RR) for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Qualitative side effect data were reported in terms of ratios of side effects and percentage of patients experiencing specific side effects.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 29 trials provided data for inclusion in the review. We were unable to find any differences in efficacy when comparing classes of antidepressants. However, as the trials contained relatively small numbers of patients, these findings may be explained by a type two error. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) compared less favourably with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in terms of numbers of patients withdrawn irrespective of reason (RR: 1.24, CI 1.04, 1.47) and number withdrawn due to side effects (RR: 1.30, CI 1.02, 1.64). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that TCA related antidepressants had similar withdrawal rates to SSRIs irrespective of reason of withdrawal (RR: 1.49, CI 0.74, 2.98) or withdrawal due to side effects (RR: 1.07, CI 0.43, 2.70). The qualitative analysis of side effects showed a small increased profile of gastro-intestinal and neuropsychiatric side effects associated with classical TCAs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that SSRIs and TCAs are of the same efficacy. However, we have found some evidence suggesting that TCA related antidepressants and classical TCAs may have different side effect profiles and are associated with differing withdrawal rates when compared with SSRIs. The review suggests that classical TCAs are associated with a higher withdrawal rate due to side effect experience, although these results must be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small size of the review and the heterogeneity of the drugs and patient populations.

A review on hyponatremia associated with SSRIs, reboxetine and venlafaxine

Hyponatremia, defined as serum sodium below 135 mmol/l, is a potentially life-threatening condition and was shown to be more frequent in elderly and psychiatric patients. In the last years numerous case reports on SSRI- and venlafaxine-induced hyponatremia were published indicating a higher incidence than previously thought. Only few studies have been performed and the incidence reported varies widely from 4.6/1000 people to 25%. It is still unclear if any single SSRI shows a higher incidence of hyponatremia than the others. Some data suggest that venlafaxine may have a stronger association to hyponatremia than SSRIs. Risk factors include age, female sex, low body mass index, severe physical illness, history of former hyponatremia and co-medications known to induce hyponatremia, especially thiazide diuretics. Symptoms of hyponatremia are usually neuropsychiatric (e.g. restlessness, lethargy, cognitive impairment), and any worsening in psychiatric symptoms in patients with a corresponding risk-profile receiving SSRIs or venlafaxine should give cause to check serum electrolytes. Usually SSRI-induced hyponatremia occurs within approximately 30 days and is reported to improve after withdrawal of the drug. Further controlled studies to confirm the true incidence of hyponatremia due to SSRI or venlafaxine and to define predictors more precisely are needed.

Evidence of a role for the 5-HTTLPR genotype in the modulation of motor response to antidepressant treatment

RATIONALE

Serotonergic mechanisms are thought to play an important role in the regulation of mood, motor activity and sleep patterns. Serotonin reuptake is controlled by the serotonin transporter (5-HTT) and by a common functional insertion/deletion polymorphism in the corresponding gene's promoter region (5-HTTLPR). Homozygosity for the long variant may confer a favourable response to treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and to sleep deprivation.

OBJECTIVES

The study assessed the role of the 5-HTTLPR genotype in determining motor side effects of antidepressant medication.

METHODS

Motor activity patterns of 62 patients with major depression who were being treated with either SSRIs or tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were monitored over a 24-h period using a wrist-actograph. Additionally, motor activity was rated in a semi-structured interview using the motor agitation and retardation scale (MARS).

RESULTS

Night-time motor activity was significantly increased in homozygous carriers of the long 5-HTTLPR allele (LL-genotype) who were being treated with SSRIs in comparison to short allele carriers (LS-genotype and SS-genotype), regardless of the type of antidepressant treatment (P<0.001). It was also significantly increased in comparison to patients with the LL-genotype who were being treated with TCAs (P<0.01). Differences in actographic motor activity were most prominent between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m. Clinical ratings of motor activity also showed a trend toward higher agitation scores in patients with the LL-genotype who received SSRI treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Homozygosity for the long variant of the 5-HTTLPR may cause a predisposition to increased night-time motor activity in conjunction with SSRI treatment.

Paroxetine: a review of its pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and utility in the treatment of a variety of psychiatric disorders

Paroxetine is a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI). In vitro studies show that it is able to produce a concentration-dependent competitive inhibition of serotonin uptake into brain synaptosomes. This effect can also be demonstrated following in vivo administration of the compound to animals. Paroxetine is almost completely absorbed following oral administration. However, the drug undergoes extensive first pass metabolism. As a result, less than 50% of a single dose of paroxetine reaches the general circulation. Paroxetine is primarily metabolised by the cytochrome P4502D6 isoenzyme. The compound has also been shown to inhibit the activity of this enzyme. As a result, plasma levels of compounds metabolised by the cytochrome P4502D6 isoenzyme can be increased in patients given paroxetine. Paroxetine has been extensively evaluated in clinical studies in depressed patients. The compound shows efficacy superior to placebo, and similar to that obtained with standard tricyclic or tetracyclic agents. Paroxetine also appears to be as efficacious as other SSRIs. The efficacy seen in short-term studies with paroxetine in the treatment of depression is maintained when the drug is given chronically. More recently, paroxetine has been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and social anxiety disorder. Nausea, headache and somnolence are the most common adverse events reported by patients given paroxetine. As with other selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, a significant percentage of men under therapy with paroxetine report abnormal ejaculation. Paroxetine is well-tolerated by elderly patients, and appears to be associated with few serious adverse events.

Immobilization stress elevates tryptophan hydroxylase mRNA and protein in the rat raphe nuclei

BACKGROUND

Stress triggers adaptive and maladaptive changes in the central nervous system, including activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, and can trigger mood disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder. We examined the effect of immobilization stress (IMO) on gene expression of tryptophan hydroxylase (TPH), the rate-limiting enzyme in serotonin biosynthesis, and the role of cortisol in that response.

METHODS

Regular and adrenalectomized Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed to various repetitions of IMO. Tryptophan hydroxylase messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) was determined by competitive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and TPH protein was examined by immunoblot and immunocytochemistry.

RESULTS

Elevation of TPH mRNA by IMO was tissue-specific and dose-dependent. A single IMO elicited a threefold rise in TPH mRNA in median raphe nucleus (MRN), but repeated (3x) IMOs were needed for similar response in dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN). Repeated daily IMO, up to 7 days, triggered a robust induction (6-10-fold) in TPH mRNA, accompanied by corresponding rise in TPH protein levels in raphe nuclei but not in the pineal gland. The rise in TPH immunoreactivity was widespread throughout the DRN and MRN. Bilateral adrenalectomy did not prevent the IMO-triggered increase in TPH immunoreactive protein in the raphe nuclei.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals adrenal glucocorticoid-independent induction of TPH gene expression in raphe nuclei in response to immobilization stress.

Serotonin transporter polymorphisms and adverse effects with fluoxetine treatment

BACKGROUND

The short (S) allele of the serotonin transporter gene-linked polymorphic region (5HTTLPR) has been associated with poorer antidepressant response in major depressive disorder (MDD) and with antidepressant-induced mania. This study investigated a possible association with treatment-emergent insomnia or agitation.

METHODS

Thirty-six outpatients with MDD were genotyped at 5HTTLPR and treated with open-label fluoxetine up to 60 mg/day. Treatment-emergent adverse effects were assessed at each study visit.

RESULTS

Of nine subjects homozygous for the "S" allele, seven (78%) developed new or worsening insomnia, versus 6 of 27 (22%) non-"S"-homozygous subjects (Fisher's exact p =.005). Similarly, six of nine subjects homozygous for the "S" allele (67%) developed agitation, versus 2 of 27 (7%) of non-"S"-homozygous subjects (Fisher's exact p =.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The "S" allele of the 5HTTLPR may identify patients at risk for developing insomnia or agitation with fluoxetine treatment. This preliminary result requires confirmation in larger samples.

Use of paroxetine for the treatment of depression and anxiety disorders in the elderly: a review

Paroxetine is a potent selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) with indications for the treatment of depression, obsessive- compulsive disorder, panic disorder and social phobia. It is also used in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, premenstrual dysphoric disorder and chronic headache. There is wide interindividual variation in the pharmacokinetics of paroxetine in adults as well as in the elderly with higher plasma concentrations and slower elimination noted in the latter. Elimination is also reduced in severe renal and hepatic impairment, however, serious adverse events are extremely rare even in overdose. A Pub Med search was used to collect information on the efficacy and tolerability in elderly patients. There are few studies of depression in the elderly and only one study in the old-old. In anxiety disorders including general anxiety disorder, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and social anxiety, there are no studies at all in the elderly. However, the safety of the drug allows its prescription in the elderly. In summary, paroxetine is well tolerated in the treatment of depression in those between the ages of 65 and 75, although few studies have examined its use in those of 75 and older.

Amitriptyline versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

BACKGROUND

For many years amitriptyline has been considered one of the reference compounds for the pharmacological treatment of depression. However, new tricyclic drugs, heterocyclic compounds and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been introduced on the market with the claim of a more favourable tolerability/efficacy profile.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the tolerability and efficacy of amitriptyline in comparison with the other tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressants and with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (2002-3) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Key journals and conference abstracts were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies were contacted for information on unpublished materials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials were included. Study participants were of either sex and any age with a primary diagnosis of depression. Included trials compared amitriptyline with another tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressant or with one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using a standardised form. The number of patients undergoing the randomisation procedure, the number of patients who completed the study and the number of improved patients were extracted. In addition, group mean scores at the end of the trial on Hamilton Depression Scale or any other depression scale were extracted. In the tolerability analysis, the number of patients failing to complete the study and the number of patients complaining of side-effects was extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

The estimate of the overall odds ratio for responders showed that more subjects responded to amitriptyline in comparison with the control antidepressant group (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.01, 1.23, number needed to treat 50). The estimate of the efficacy of amitriptyline and control agents on a continuous outcome revealed an effect size which also significantly favoured amitriptyline (Standardised Mean Difference 0.13, 95% confidence interval 0.04, 0.23). Whilst these differences are statistically significant, their clinical significance is less clear. When the efficacy analysis was stratified by drug class, no difference in outcome emerged between amitriptyline and either tricyclic or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor comparators. The dropout rate in patients taking amitriptyline and control agents was similar; however, the estimate of the proportion of patients who experienced side-effects significantly favoured control agents in comparison with amitriptyline (odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.56, 0.71). When the tolerability analysis was stratified by drug class, the dropout rate in patients taking amitriptyline and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors significantly favoured the latter (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.75,0.95, number needed to harm 40). When the responder analysis was stratified by study setting amitriptyline was more effective than control ADs in inpatients (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.04, 1.42, number needed to treat 24), but not in outpatients (odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.88, 1.17, number needed to treat = 200).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

This present systematic review indicates that amitriptyline is at least as efficacious as other tricyclics or newer compounds. However, the burden of side-effects in patients receiving it was greater. In comparison with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors amitriptyline was less well tolerated, and although counterbalanced by a higher proportion of responders, the difference was not statistically significant.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for late-life depression: a comparative review

Late-life depression is a serious health problem that is challenging to manage but generally responds well to pharmacotherapy. Selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine: 5-HT) reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the most commonly prescribed antidepressants, are usually used as first-line agents for elderly patients with depression. Like most drugs, SSRIs have not been widely tested in clinical trials that approximate 'real-life' geriatric situations. However, studies completed to date provide valuable information about the efficacy, safety and tolerability of this class of antidepressants among older patients with depression, including those with depression secondary to stroke or dementia and those with other comorbid physical disorders. Although one SSRI may be more efficacious or better tolerated by elderly patients than another, existing data do not support such claims. However, other distinguishing features may influence the choice of agent. For example, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine and paroxetine are more likely to be involved in significant drug-drug interactions than are citalopram or sertraline. In contrast to the other SSRIs, fluoxetine has a half-life well in excess of 1 day, which can be an advantage when weaning the patient off therapy in that it may reduce the incidence of discontinuation symptoms, but a significant disadvantage if the patient cannot tolerate the drug or experiences an adverse drug-drug interaction.

Bupropion SR in the naturalistic treatment of elderly patients with major depression

INTRODUCTION

Bupropion immediate release (IR) and bupropion sustained release (SR) are frequently used to treat geriatric depression, as they have few cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and sexual adverse effects. We sought to examine the efficacy and dosing patterns of bupropion in a naturalistic cohort of elderly subjects with major depression (MD).

METHODS

31 elderly ( > 60 years) patients with unipolar MD (DSM-IV) who were enrolled in Duke's Mental Health Clinical Research Center for the Study of Depression in Later Life were prescribed bupropion SR or IR, alone or in combination with other antidepressant agents, for 12 weeks. Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) scores and clinical global impression (CGI) severity scores were used to define response.

RESULTS

74% (23/31) of the sample were responders (MADRS < 15) and 53% (16/30) achieved a partial (CGI = 2) or complete (CGI = 1) remission of MD at week 12. Among patients treated with bupropion SR monotherapy, the mean (range) maximal daily dose achieved was 240 mg (150-400 mg). Among those treated with bupropion IR, the mean (range) maximum daily dose achieved was 258 mg (150-450 mg). In subjects on monotherapy, 67% (10/15) of MD subjects were responders (MADRS < 15) and 50% (7/14) achieved full or partial remission. Response rates did not differ statistically among those with high and low medical comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

In this naturalistic 12-week study, geriatric MD patients with high and low medical comorbidity responded well to bupropion and bupropion SR. In elderly patients, four to eight week acute treatment periods may be insufficient. Our findings suggest that nearly 50% of elderly depressed subjects at a tertiary center may need combination therapy over the course of their illness. Controlled randomized studies to establish the long-term efficacy and optimal dose of the newer antidepressants in geriatric depression are urgently needed.

Assessment of clinical guidelines for continuation treatment in major depression

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to assess the appropriateness of the existing Dutch clinical guidelines for the treatment of depression from a health-economic perspective. The existing guidelines recommend continuation treatment for a period up to 9 months.

METHODS

The assessment was based on a Markov model using decision-analytic techniques. For this analysis we defined six mutually exclusive states defined by the existence of depression and type of treatment. The outcomes for the model were defined as: time without depression (TWD), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and cost of lost productivity. The primary perspective of the study was that of the third-party payer, while the secondary perspective was that of the society in 1999. The probabilities of clinical events and therapeutic choices as well as the utilities were based on published literature. The medical resource use related to each state was abstracted from published literature and expert opinion. The associated 1999 unit costs of the used medical resources were derived from official Dutch tariff lists of allowable reimbursements. Indirect costs in this model were based on lost productivity only.

RESULTS

The results of the primary analysis showed that the use of the guidelines is not cost-effective. Continuation treatment for a period of 9 months increases the total direct medical costs (NLG 1276 vs. NLG 474), decreases the costs resulting from lost productivity (NLG 304 vs. NLG 909), increases total costs (NLG 1580 vs. NLG 1383) and increases TWD (96.9% vs. 86.4%). However, continuation treatment does not change the utility outcomes (0.60 vs. 0.61 QALYs) for both treatment strategies. Hence continuation treatment is not cost-effective from either a third-party payer perspective or a societal perspective. A scenario analysis showed that an extension of the continuation treatment to maintenance treatment might result in a favorable cost-effectiveness outcome of the treatment guideline.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, based on the assumptions used in the model, the current Dutch treatment guidelines for depression are only appropriate from a health-economic perspective if continuation treatment is extended to maintenance treatment.

Amitriptyline v. the rest: still the leading antidepressant after 40 years of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Tricyclic antidepressants have similar efficacy and slightly lower tolerability than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). However, there are no systematic reviews assessing amitriptyline, the reference tricyclic drug, v. other tricyclics and SSRIs directly.

AIMS

To review the tolerability and efficacy of amitriptyline in the management of depression.

METHOD

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline with other tricyclics/heterocyclics or with an SSRI.

RESULTS

We reviewed 186 RCTs. The overall estimate of the efficacy of amitriptyline revealed a standardised mean difference of 0.147 (95% CI 0.05-0.243), significantly favouring amitriptyline. The overall OR for dropping out was 0.99 (95% CI 0.91-1.08) and that for side-effects was 0.62 (95% CI 0.54-0.70), favouring the control drugs. With drop-outs included as treatment failures, the estimate of the effectiveness of amitriptyline v. tricyclics/heterocyclics and SSRIs showed a 2.5% difference in the proportion of responders in favour of amitriptyline (number needed to treat 40, CI 21-694; OR 1.12 (95% CI 1.01-1.24)).

CONCLUSIONS

Amitriptyline is less well tolerated than tricyclics/heterocyclics and SSRIs, but slightly more patients treated on it recover than on alternative antidepressants.

Paroxetine: a review

Paroxetine is a potent and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) with currently approved indications for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder and social phobia. It is also used in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, premenstrual dysphoric disorder and chronic headache. Paroxetine, a phenylpiperidine derivative, is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT) of all the currently available antidepressants including the class of SSRIs. It is a very weak inhibitor of norepinephrine (NE) uptake but it is still more potent at this site than the other SSRIs. The selectivity of paroxetine, i.e., the ratio of inhibition of uptake of norepinephrine to serotonin (NE/5-HT) is amongst the highest of the SSRIs. Paroxetine has little affinity for catecholaminergic, dopaminergic or histaminergic systems and by comparison with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) has, therefore, a reduced propensity to cause central and autonomic side effects. Paroxetine exhibits some affinity for the muscarinic cholinergic receptor but much less than the TCAs. In addition, the adaptive changes of somatodendritic (5-HT(1A)) and terminal (5-HT(1B/1D)) autoreceptors observed with paroxetine are different to those observed with TCAs; it also inhibits nitric oxide synthase. It is both a substrate and an inhibitor of cytochrome isoenzyme P450 2D6. Paroxetine is well absorbed orally and undergoes extensive first pass metabolism that is partially saturable. Its metabolites are pharmacologically inactive in vivo. Steady state levels are achieved after 4-14 days and an elimination half-life of 21 h is consistent with once-daily dosing. There is wide inter-individual variation in the pharmacokinetics of paroxetine in adults as well as in the young and the elderly with higher plasma concentrations and slower elimination noted in the latter. Elimination is also reduced in severe renal and hepatic impairment. Serious adverse events are, however, extremely rare even in overdose. In summary, paroxetine is well tolerated and effective in the treatment of both depressive and anxiety disorders across the age range.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus tricyclic antidepressants: a meta-analysis of efficacy and tolerability

BACKGROUND

A meta-analysis of the efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) against tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in depressed patients was carried out.

METHODS

Efficacy data from 102 randomised controlled trials (10706 patients) were pooled to provide a summary variance-weighted effect size. Tolerability data from 95 studies (10553 patients) were combined to give variance-weighted relative risk of drop out for all reasons and for adverse effects from each study. The effect of age, treatment setting, severity and TCA dose were examined as well as the performance of individual SSRIs and TCAs where there were sufficient studies.

RESULTS

There is no overall difference in efficacy between SSRIs and TCAs (effect size -0.03, 95% confidence interval -0.09 to 0.03). TCAs do appear more effective in in-patients (-0.23, -0.40 to -0.05) and amitriptyline is more effective than SSRI comparators (-0.14, -0.25 to -0.03) but publication bias cannot be excluded. The SSRIs are better tolerated, with significantly lower rates of treatment discontinuations overall (relative risk 0.88, 0.83 to 0.93; number needed to treat 26) and due to side effects (0.73, 0.67 to 0.80; number needed to treat 33). Individual SSRIs show a similar advantage except for fluvoxamine which does not differ from the TCAs. Individual TCAs show a similar disadvantage in tolerability compared to SSRIs except for dothiepin against which SSRI treatment results in more side-effect related drop outs (2.64, 1.50 to 4.63; number needed to harm 12).

LIMITATIONS

The evidence is from short-term studies and subgroup analyses may result in chance results.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall efficacy between the two classes is comparable but SSRIs are not proven to be as effective as TCAs in in-patients and against amitriptyline. SSRIs have a modest advantage in terms of tolerability against most TCAs.

SSRIs versus other antidepressants for depressive disorder

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared to other antidepressants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy included a search of (a) Electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE); (b) reference lists of related reviews (c) reference lists of all located studies (d) contact with the manufacturer and (e) the Cochrane Group register of controlled trials

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors with other kinds of antidepressants in the treatment of patients with depressive disorders. The outcome measures assessed included measures of the severity of depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected from each study the main outcome measurefrom each study. These included: mean Hamilton depression rating scale, mean Montgomery & Asberg depression rating scale, Clinical Global Impression rating scale. An analysis of standardised mean difference of these scales was performed using Review Manager 3. 1 software. The presence of heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-eight trials contributed data to the analysis of the relative efficacy of SSRIs and related drugs with comparator antidepressants (Figure 3 & Appendix 3). Analysis of efficacy was based upon 5044 patients treated with an SSRI or related drug, and 4510 treated with an alternative antidepressant. The standardised effect size for SSRIs and related drugs together versus alternative antidepressants using a fixed effects model was 0. 035 (95% CI -0.006 to 0.076; Q = 149.25, df = 97, p < 0.001).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There are no clinically significant differences in effectiveness between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants. Treatment decisions need to be based on considerations of relative patient acceptability, toxicity and cost.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus tricyclic and heterocyclic antidepressants: comparison of drug adherence

BACKGROUND

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are thought to have better discontinuation rates (i.e. less people dropping out) than tricyclic and heterocyclic antidepressant drugs. It is important to quantify the drop-out rates of different antidepressant drugs in order to have a better understanding of the relative tolerability of these drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressant drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Registers (1997 to 1999), MEDLINE (1966 to 1999), EMBASE (1974 to 1999) We also searched specialist journals, the reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews, conference abstracts and government documents. Representatives of the pharmaceutical industry were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel group randomised controlled trials comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors with tricyclic or heterocyclic antidepressants in people with depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and a third reviewer checked any cases of disagreement.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 136 trials. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors showed less participants dropping out compared to the tricyclic/heterocyclic group (odds ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.30). A statistically significant difference was found in total drop-outs between the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and the old tricyclics as well as the newer tricyclics. When the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were compared to the heterocyclic antidepressants, there was a non significant difference favouring the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The poor tolerability profile of the old tricyclics was explained by differences in drop-outs for side-effects, but not for inefficacy.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Whilst selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors do appear to show an advantage over tricyclic drugs in terms of total drop-outs, this advantage is relatively modest. This has implications for pharmaco-economic models, some of which may have overestimated the difference of drop-out rates between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antdepressants. These results are based on short-term randomised controlled trials, and may not generalise into clinical practice.

Paroxetine and amitriptyline augmentation of lithium in the treatment of major depression: a double-blind study

To study the efficacy and safety of antidepressant augmentation of ongoing lithium therapy, lithium-maintained patients suffering from an breakthrough episode of major depression were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive paroxetine 20 mg/day (N = 19) or amitriptyline 75 mg/day (N = 23). The initial dosages could be increased after 2 weeks to 40 mg/day and 150 mg/day, respectively, and the patients were treated for a total of 6 weeks. Efficacy was assessed weekly with the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI), and safety was assessed with the Dosage Record and Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale. After 4 weeks, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the paroxetine group had achieved a 50% reduction in baseline HAM-D scores, and the mean improvement in CGI severity of illness was significantly greater in the paroxetine group at weeks 3 and 5. The type and number of emergent events occurring during study treatment corresponded to the known side effect profiles of paroxetine and amitriptyline. Serum lithium levels were not affected by either antidepressant. The authors proposed that the more rapid improvement demonstrated by the group receiving the combination of lithium and paroxetine may be due to the synergistic serotonergic effects of these two medications.

Comparison of extended-release venlafaxine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of depression: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The purpose of this study was to summarize and compare the clinical success rates of extended-release venlafaxine, some selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and certain tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). A meta-analytic approach was used to synthesize outcomes from published randomized controlled trials involving patients scoring > or =15 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) or > or =18 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases were performed, as were searches of references from retrieved articles and reviews. Drugs included in the comparison were extended-release venlafaxine (venlafaxine-XR); the SSRIs citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, and sertraline; and the TCAs amitriptyline, imipramine, desipramine, and nortriptyline. Therapeutic success was defined as a 50% decrease in the HAM-D or MADRS score. Data were extracted by 2 independent evaluators, with differences resolved through consensus discussions. Weighted mean success rates were calculated for each drug class, using a random-effects model. The resulting data represent 44 trials with 63 study arms and 4033 patients with depression. Venlafaxine-XR demonstrated a 73.7% success rate, which was statistically significantly greater than that of the studied SSRIs (61.1%) and TCAs (57.9%) (P<0.001). Thus this meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies of patients with depression suggests that venlafaxine-XR is clinically superior in efficacy to SSRIs and TCAs. Venlafaxine-XR also had universally lower, though nonsignificant, dropout rates.

Antidepressants in the elderly: a review

The elderly constitute a growing proportion of our population for whom depression represents a significant problem. The choice of antidepressants available to the clinician is huge, and this article reviews the available literature on this important subject to facilitate evidence-based treatment decisions.

Paroxetine. An update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in depression and a review of its use in other disorders

Paroxetine is a potent and selective inhibitor of the neuronal reuptake of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT), which was previously reviewed as an antidepressant in Drugs in 1991. Since then, more comparative trials with other antidepressants have become available, and its use in the elderly and as long term maintenance therapy has been investigated. Paroxetine has also been studied in several other disorders with a presumed serotonergic component, primarily obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and panic disorder. In short term clinical trials in patients with depression, paroxetine produced clinical improvements that were significantly greater than those with placebo and similar to those achieved with other agents including tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), maprotiline, nefazodone and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fluoxetine, fluvoxamine and sertraline. Long term data suggest that paroxetine is effective in preventing relapse or recurrence of depression in patients treated for up to 1 year. In the elderly, the overall efficacy of paroxetine was at least as good as that of comparator agents. In short term clinical trials involving patients with OCD or panic disorder, paroxetine was significantly more effective than placebo and of similar efficacy to clomipramine. Limited long term data show that paroxetine is effective in maintaining a therapeutic response over periods of 1 year (OCD) and up to 6 months (panic disorder). Preliminary data suggest that paroxetine has potential in the treatment of social phobia, premenstrual dysphoric disorder and chronic headache. Like the other SSRIs, paroxetine is better tolerated than the TCAs, causing few anticholinergic adverse effects. The most commonly reported adverse event associated with paroxetine treatment is nausea, although this is generally mild and subsides with continued use. Fewer withdrawals from treatment due to adverse effects occurred with paroxetine treatment than with TCAs. The adverse events profile of paroxetine appears to be broadly similar to that of other SSRIs, although data from comparative trials are limited. Serious adverse effects associated with paroxetine are very rare. In conclusion, paroxetine is effective and well tolerated, and suitable as first-line therapy for depression. It also appears to be a useful alternative to other available agents for the treatment of patients with OCD or panic disorder.

Health of older women

Older persons are the fastest growing segment of the American population, and older women significantly outnumber men. The health status of older women is influenced by disease and psychosocial factors. Comprehensive geriatric assessment is a tool which takes into account the many aspects of health and provides a framework for developing individualized goals of care. Cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, hormonal treatment, urinary incontinence, mental health, sexuality, substance abuse, cancer and exercise are discussed.

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of antidepressants in late life depression: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To determine the efficacy, safety and tolerability of antidepressants in depressed elderly patients.

METHODS

Search for randomized controlled double-blind studies evaluating atypical antidepressants (ATYPs), reversible inhibitors of monoamine oxidase-A, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants in moderate/severe depressed patients > or = 60 years for > or = four weeks. The random effects model (single-arm; comparative) was used to aggregate efficacy, safety and dropout.

RESULTS

No difference in single-arm aggregation of outcomes for four antidepressant classes. Comparative analyses showed no statistical difference between outcomes, except SSRIs had a higher response rate than ATYPs.

CONCLUSION

Elderly show no differences in antidepressant class outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity and lack of power.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

There is little advantage for antidepressant classes over another in the aged.