Antidepressant efficacy in relation to item analysis and severity of depression: a placebo-controlled trial of fluvoxamine versus imipramine

Suicide and suicide risk

Although recent years have seen large decreases in the overall global rate of suicide fatalities, this trend is not reflected everywhere. Suicide and suicidal behaviour continue to present key challenges for public policy and health services, with increasing suicide deaths in some countries such as the USA. The development of suicide risk is complex, involving contributions from biological (including genetics), psychological (such as certain personality traits), clinical (such as comorbid psychiatric illness), social and environmental factors. The involvement of multiple risk factors in conveying risk of suicide means that determining an individual's risk of suicide is challenging. Improving risk assessment, for example, by using computer testing and genetic screening, is an area of ongoing research. Prevention is key to reduce the number of suicide deaths and prevention efforts include universal, selective and indicated interventions, although these interventions are often delivered in combination. These interventions, combined with psychological (such as cognitive behavioural therapy, caring contacts and safety planning) and pharmacological treatments (for example, clozapine and ketamine) along with coordinated social and public health initiatives, should continue to improve the management of individuals who are suicidal and decrease suicide-associated morbidity.

The pulvinar nucleus and antidepressant treatment: dynamic modeling of antidepressant response and remission with ultra-high field functional MRI

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) successfully disentangled neuronal pathophysiology of major depression (MD), but only a few fMRI studies have investigated correlates and predictors of remission. Moreover, most studies have used clinical outcome parameters from two time points, which do not optimally depict differential response times. Therefore, we aimed to detect neuronal correlates of response and remission in an antidepressant treatment study with 7 T fMRI, potentially harnessing advances in detection power and spatial specificity. Moreover, we modeled outcome parameters from multiple study visits during a 12-week antidepressant fMRI study in 26 acute (aMD) patients compared to 36 stable remitted (rMD) patients and 33 healthy control subjects (HC). During an electrical painful stimulation task, significantly higher baseline activity in aMD compared to HC and rMD in the medial thalamic nuclei of the pulvinar was detected (p = 0.004, FWE-corrected), which was reduced by treatment. Moreover, clinical response followed a sigmoid function with a plateau phase in the beginning, a rapid decline and a further plateau at treatment end. By modeling the dynamic speed of response with fMRI-data, perigenual anterior cingulate activity after treatment was significantly associated with antidepressant response (p < 0.001, FWE-corrected). Temporoparietal junction (TPJ) baseline activity significantly predicted non-remission after 2 antidepressant trials (p = 0.005, FWE-corrected). The results underline the importance of the medial thalamus, attention networks in MD and antidepressant treatment. Moreover, by using a sigmoid model, this study provides a novel method to analyze the dynamic nature of response and remission for future trials.

A Guide to Medications Inducing Salivary Gland Dysfunction, Xerostomia, and Subjective Sialorrhea: A Systematic Review Sponsored by the World Workshop on Oral Medicine VI

BACKGROUND

Medication-induced salivary gland dysfunction (MISGD), xerostomia (sensation of oral dryness), and subjective sialorrhea cause significant morbidity and impair quality of life. However, no evidence-based lists of the medications that cause these disorders exist.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compile a list of medications affecting salivary gland function and inducing xerostomia or subjective sialorrhea.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles published until June 2013. Of 3867 screened records, 269 had an acceptable degree of relevance, quality of methodology, and strength of evidence. We found 56 chemical substances with a higher level of evidence and 50 with a moderate level of evidence of causing the above-mentioned disorders. At the first level of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system, 9 of 14 anatomical groups were represented, mainly the alimentary, cardiovascular, genitourinary, nervous, and respiratory systems. Management strategies include substitution or discontinuation of medications whenever possible, oral or systemic therapy with sialogogues, administration of saliva substitutes, and use of electro-stimulating devices.

LIMITATIONS

While xerostomia was a commonly reported outcome, objectively measured salivary flow rate was rarely reported. Moreover, xerostomia was mostly assessed as an adverse effect rather than the primary outcome of medication use. This study may not include some medications that could cause xerostomia when administered in conjunction with others or for which xerostomia as an adverse reaction has not been reported in the literature or was not detected in our search.

CONCLUSIONS

We compiled a comprehensive list of medications with documented effects on salivary gland function or symptoms that may assist practitioners in assessing patients who complain of dry mouth while taking medications. The list may also prove useful in helping practitioners anticipate adverse effects and consider alternative medications.

A mega-analysis of fixed-dose trials reveals dose-dependency and a rapid onset of action for the antidepressant effect of three selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

The possible dose-dependency for the antidepressant effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) remains controversial. We believe we have conducted the first comprehensive patient-level mega-analysis exploring this issue, one incentive being to address the possibility that inclusion of low-dose arms in previous meta-analyses may have caused an underestimation of the efficacy of these drugs. All company-sponsored, acute-phase, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose trials using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and conducted to evaluate the effect of citalopram, paroxetine or sertraline in adult major depression were included (11 trials, n=2859 patients). The single-item depressed mood, which has proven a more sensitive measure to detect an antidepressant signal than the sum score of all HDRS items, was designated the primary effect parameter. Doses below or at the lower end of the usually recommended dose range (citalopram: 10-20 mg, paroxetine: 10 mg; sertraline: 50 mg) were superior to placebo but inferior to higher doses, hence confirming a dose-dependency to be at hand. In contrast, among doses above these, there was no indication of a dose-response relationship. The effect size (ES) after exclusion of suboptimal doses was of a more respectable magnitude (0.5) than that usually attributed to the antidepressant effect of the SSRIs. In conclusion, the observation that low doses are less effective than higher ones challenges the oft-cited view that the effect of the SSRIs is not dose-dependent and hence not caused by a specific, pharmacological antidepressant action. Moreover, we suggest that inclusion of suboptimal doses in previous meta-analyses has led to an underestimation of the efficacy of these drugs.

Pilot randomized clinical trial of an SSRI vs bupropion: effects on suicidal behavior, ideation, and mood in major depression

Randomized controlled trials in depressed patients selected for elevated suicidal risk are rare. The resultant lack of data leaves uncertainty about treatment in this population. This study compared a serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a noradrenergic/dopaminergic antidepressant in major depression with elevated suicidal risk factors. We conducted a double-blind, randomized, clinical pilot trial of paroxetine (N=36) or bupropion (N=38) in DSM IV major depression with a suicide attempt history or current suicidal ideation. The effects during acute (8 weeks) and continuation treatment (up to 16 weeks) were measured. Main outcomes were suicidal behavior and ideation. The secondary outcome was modified 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score subtracting the suicide item (mHDRS-17). Treatment was not associated with time to a suicidal event and no treatment main effect or treatment × time interaction on suicidal ideation or mHDRS-17 was found. Exploratory model selection showed modest advantages for paroxetine on: (1) mHDRS-17 (p=0.02); and (2) in a separate model adjusted for baseline depression, for suicidal ideation measured with the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation (p=0.03), with benefit increasing with baseline severity. Depressed patients with greater baseline suicidal ideation treated with paroxetine compared with bupropion appeared to experience greater acute improvement in suicidal ideation, after adjusting for global depression. Given the lack of evidence-based pharmacotherapy guidelines for suicidal, depressed patients-an important public health population-this preliminary finding merits further study.

Fluvoxamine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine, one of the oldest selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), is prescribed to patients with major depression in many countries. Several studies have previously reviewed the efficacy and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the treatment of major depression. However, these reviews are now outdated.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability and side effect profile of fluvoxamine for major depression in comparison with other anti-depressive agents, including tricyclics (TCAs), heterocyclics, other SSRIs, SNRIs, other newer agents and other conventional psychotropic drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register. Trial databases and ongoing trial registers in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia, were handsearched for randomised controlled trials. We checked reference lists of the articles included in the review, previous systematic reviews and major textbooks of affective disorder for published reports and citations of unpublished research. The date of last search was 31 August 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials, published in any language, that compared fluvoxamine with any other active antidepressants in the acute phase treatment of major depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors inspected citations and abstracts, obtained papers, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). A random effects model was used to combine studies.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 54 randomised controlled trials (n = 5122) were included. No strong evidence was found to indicate that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to other antidepressants regarding response, remission and tolerability. However, differing side effect profiles were evident, especially with regard to gastrointestinal side effects of fluvoxamine when compared to other antidepressants. For example, fluvoxamine was generally associated with a higher incidence of vomiting/nausea (versus imipramine, OR 2.23, CI 1.59 to 3.14; versus clomipramine, OR 2.13, CI 1.06 to 4.27; versus amitriptyline, OR 2.86, CI 1.31 to 2.63).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no strong evidence that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to any other antidepressants in terms of efficacy and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of depression. However, differing side effect profiles were evident. Based on these findings, we conclude that clinicians should focus on practical or clinically relevant considerations, including these differences in side effect profiles.

Placebo-controlled inpatient comparison of venlafaxine and fluoxetine for the treatment of major depression with melancholic features

The objective of this study was to compare venlafaxine and fluoxetine with placebo in treating major depressive disorder with melancholic features. Adult inpatients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition major depressive disorder with melancholia and 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D₂₁) scores > or =24 (n=289) were randomized to receive (double-blind) venlafaxine 225-375 mg/day, fluoxetine 60-80 mg/day, or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary outcome measures were HAM-D₂₁ total score, HAM-D depressed mood item, Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scores. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) was the primary analysis method. In the LOCF analysis, venlafaxine was statistically superior to placebo on the CGI-S (venlafaxine -1.7, placebo -1.1; P=0.003) and the HAM-D depressed mood item (venlafaxine -1.6, placebo -1.1; P=0.010); and to fluoxetine on the CGI-S (-1.2; P=0.012). No significant differences were observed on the other 12 LOCF primary efficacy comparisons. Increases in pulse and blood pressure, dry mouth, constipation, and lightheadedness were significantly more common with venlafaxine than fluoxetine. Venlafaxine was statistically superior to placebo on two of five primary and two of five secondary outcome measures and to fluoxetine on one primary and one secondary outcome measure (LOCF). Venlafaxine was not superior to fluoxetine or placebo in providing remission.

Suicidal status during antidepressant treatment in 789 Sardinian patients with major affective disorder

OBJECTIVE

Relationships between antidepressant treatment and suicidality remain uncertain in major depressive disorder (MDD), and rarely evaluated in bipolar disorder (BPD).

METHOD

We evaluated changes in suicidality ratings (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale item-3) at the start and after 3.59 +/- 2.57 months of sustained antidepressant treatment in a systematically assessed clinical sample (n = 789) of 605 patients with MDD, 103 patients with BPD-II and 81 patients with BPD-I (based on DSM-IV; 68.1% women; aged 44.3 +/- 16.1 years), comparing suicidal vs. non-suicidal and recovered vs. unrecovered initially suicidal patients.

RESULTS

Suicidal patients (103/789, 16.5%; BPD/MDD risk: 2.2) were more depressed and were ill longer. During treatment, 81.5% of suicidal patients became non-suicidal; 0.46% of 656 initially non-suicidal patients reported new suicidal thoughts, with no new attempts. Becoming non-suicidal was associated with greater depression severity and greater improvement.

CONCLUSION

Suicidal ideation was prevalent in patients with depressed major affective disorder, but most of the initially suicidal patients became non-suicidal with antidepressant treatment, independent of diagnosis, treatment type or dose.

Atypical depression, somatic depression and anxious depression in women: are they gender-preferred phenotypes?

BACKGROUND

Both depression and anxiety disorders affect women at rates significantly greater than men. Women also have a documented higher frequency of comorbid depression and anxiety disorders, and a three-fold higher prevalence of atypical depression.

HYPOTHESES

These gender differences are mainly due to specific depressive phenotypes including anxious depression and atypical depression. The prevalence of comorbid anxiety and depression strongly suggests overlap of pathophysiological mechanisms-which in women are also affected by fluctuations in gonadal hormones. Similar efficacy of serotonergic antidepressants as treatment for anxiety disorders as well as depressions further underscores the blurred boundaries between these two descriptive entities.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptoms of depression and anxiety may be a departure point for differential diagnosis in which dimensionally-based phenotypes substantiated by pathobiology would replace current descriptive entities. It is suggested that at least some biologically-based dysphorias may be specific to women, ensuing from the combination of specific vulnerabilities, and complex interactions between brain mechanisms and gonadal hormones.

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.

A comparative meta-analysis of Clinical Global Impressions change in antidepressant trials

Two scales of the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Scale are frequently used in antidepressant trials. No research has systematically addressed how CGI change compares to change on established measures such as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, or Beck Depression Inventory. The current meta-analysis examined 75 antidepressant trials in which the CGI was used along with at least one other popular depression measure. The CGI-Severity scale was significantly more conservative than the HAM-D in rating change in double-blind trials, but not in open trials. The Beck Depression Inventory was significantly more conservative than the CGI-Severity. The CGI-Improvement scale was significantly more liberal than the HAM-D or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Rater bias or scale content may explain differences between measures. Given the often substantial differences between instruments, researchers should use a variety of measures rather than relying on any single tool in assessing treatment response.

Duloxetine in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: a comparison of efficacy in patients with and without melancholic features

BACKGROUND

The most prominent feature of melancholic depression is a near-total loss of the capacity to derive pleasure from activities or other positive stimuli. Additional symptoms can include psychomotor disturbances, anorexia, excessive guilt, and early awakening from sleep. Melancholic patients may exhibit treatment responses and outcomes that differ from those of non-melancholic patients. Pooled data from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were utilized to compare the efficacy of duloxetine in depressed patients with and without melancholic features.

METHODS

Efficacy data were pooled from 8 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of duloxetine. The presence of melancholic features (DSM-IV criteria) was determined using results from the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Patients (aged >or= 18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) received duloxetine (40-120 mg/d; melancholic, N = 759; non-melancholic, N = 379) or placebo (melancholic, N = 519; non-melancholic, N = 256) for up to 9 weeks. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) total score, HAMD17 subscales (Maier, anxiety, retardation, sleep), the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scales, and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain.

RESULTS

In data from all 8 studies, duloxetine's advantage over placebo did not differ significantly between melancholic and non-melancholic patients (treatment-by-melancholic status interactions were not statistically significant). Duloxetine demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptom severity, compared with placebo, within both melancholic and non-melancholic cohorts (p <or= .001 for HAMD17 total score, CGI-S and PGI-I). When analyzed by gender, the magnitude of improvement in efficacy outcomes did not differ significantly between duloxetine-treated male and female melancholic patients. In the two studies that assessed duloxetine 60 mg once-daily dosing, duloxetine-treated melancholic patients had significantly greater improvement compared with placebo on HAMD17 total score, CGI-S, PGI-I, 3 of 4 subscales of the HAMD17, and VAS overall pain severity (p < .01). Estimated probabilities of response and remission were significantly greater for melancholic patients receiving duloxetine 60 mg QD compared with placebo (response 74.7% vs. 42.2%, respectively, p < .001; remission 44.4% vs. 24.7%, respectively, p = .002.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of pooled data, the efficacy of duloxetine in patients with melancholic features did not differ significantly from that observed in non-melancholic patients.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of tianeptine versus SSRI in the short-term treatment of depression

A meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of tianeptine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) in the short-term treatment of depression. Consecutive selection and inclusion processes allowed five studies to be selected: two studies on tianeptine versus fluoxetine, two studies on tianeptine versus paroxetine, and one study on tianeptine versus sertraline. A total of 1348 patients were included in the five studies; 681 subjects received an SSRI and 667 tianeptine. A strict step-by-step methodology was applied in order to legitimize this meta-analysis and to interpret the results. Considering all the patients or those with a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) inclusion score greater than 28, none of the assessed parameters (MADRS total score and responder rate) revealed any significant difference between the two treatment groups. Further analysis based on clinical global impression (CGI) items found no significant difference, except for CGI item 3 (therapeutic index), where a tendency (P=0.06 or 0.07 depending on the methodology) was found in favor of tianeptine. All in all, this study confirmed that tianeptine is at least as effective as SSRI, with a trend for a better acceptability profile in the treatment of depressed patients.

Australian and New Zealand clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of depression

BACKGROUND

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) is co-ordinating the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in psychiatry, funded under the National Mental Health Strategy (Australia) and the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

METHOD

The CPG team reviewed the treatment outcome literature, consulted with practitioners and patients and conducted meta-analyses of outcome research.

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Establish an effective therapeutic relationship; provide the patient with information about the condition, the rationale for treatment, the likelihood of a positive response and the expected timeframe; consider the patient's strengths, life stresses and supports. Treatment choice depends on the clinician's skills and the patient's circumstances and preferences, and should be guided but not determined by these guidelines. In moderately severe depression, all recognized antidepressants, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) are equally effective; clinicians should consider treatment burdens as well as benefits, including side-effects and toxicity. In severe depression, antidepressant treatment should precede psychological therapy. For depression with psychosis, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) or a tricyclic combined with an antipsychotic are equally helpful. Treatments for other subtypes are discussed. Caution is necessary in people on other medication or with medical conditions. If response to an adequate trial of a first-line treatment is poor, another evidence-based treatment should be used. Second opinions are useful. Depression has a high rate of recurrence and efforts to reduce this are crucial.

Meta-Analysis of Placebo Rates in Major Depressive Disorder Trials

BACKGROUND

Placebo effects in major depressive disorder (MDD) have received much interest in the medical literature. However, few quantitative analyses have been done in homogeneous populations.

OBJECTIVE

To determine efficacy rates for placebo in patients with MDD; to quantify the correlation between efficacy and publication year, as well as between placebo and drug response rates.

DESIGN

Searching MEDLINE (1966-December 2000), EMBASE (1998-February 2001), HealthSTAR (1975-December 2000), and Cochrane (1980-December 2000) databases, randomized, placebo-controlled trials were retrieved including patients with MDD as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd and 4th editions criteria, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score >/=18 or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score >/=16, reporting successes as 50% decreases in scores after 6-8 weeks of treatment. Response rates were summarized using a random effects meta-analysis for per protocol (PP) and intent-to-treat (ITT) results.

RESULTS

We included 24 of 134 potential studies examining 4459 patients, 1786 on placebo and 2673 on an antidepressant. Placebo response rates were 45.5% (PP) and 26.9% (ITT). Correlations were significant between year and rates (PP rho 0.448, p = 0.042; ITT rho 0.557; p = 0.006), but not for active drugs. Placebo and drug rates were correlated (PP r 0.397, p = 0.020; ITT r 0.539; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

These placebo rates confirm those reported previously, but were from a homogeneous population. Although statistically significant, the correlation between drug and placebo rates was lower than others reported. During the study period, placebo rates increased linearly; active drugs did not. Correlations between placebo and drug response rates reflected moderate to strong effect sizes. We suggest that current methodology has been unsuccessful in achieving unbiased double-blind conditions not influenced by extra-trial factors, including time.

Fluvoxamine as effective as clomipramine against symptoms of severe depression: results from a multicentre, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Although selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are better tolerated than tricyclic antidepressants, their efficacy in severe depression remains to be further elucidated.

METHOD

A double-blind, multicentre study was conducted in 86 severely depressed inpatients (>or= 25 on the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale [HAMD] total score) to compare the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine with that of clomipramine. Following placebo run-in, 86 patients were randomised to receive fluvoxamine or clomipramine (100-250 mg/day) for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Fluvoxamine and clomipramine both resulted in marked improvements; there were no statistically significant differences between them on the 17-item HAMD total score, the clinical global impression severity of illness or global improvement items or the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale, at any visit. At the end of the study, 71% in the fluvoxamine group and 69% in the clomipramine group were responders (>or= 50% decrease in 17-item HAMD total score). However, fluvoxamine was better tolerated than clomipramine. Clomipramine was associated with a higher incidence of overall and treatment-related adverse events. In addition, the percentage of patients discontinued prematurely due to adverse events was more than twice as high with clomipramine than with fluvoxamine (24% vs 11%).

CONCLUSION

Fluvoxamine and clomipramine are equally effective in severe depression, but fluvoxamine has a better safety and tolerability profile.

A survey of prescribing practices in the treatment of depression

BACKGROUND

With the increasing number and type of antidepressants available to clinicians, there is a need to better understand current prescribing practices and to what degree these practices reflect research findings. The purpose of this study was to examine prescribing practices in a sample of psychiatrists attending a psychopharmacology review course and compare these results with empirical evidence.

METHOD

439 of 800 clinicians asked (55%) responded to a 10-item questionnaire that was given prior to beginning the review course. Items covered three major content areas: first-line preferences in the treatment of depression, antidepressant agents most associated with certain side effects, and first-line preferences in the treatment of certain depressive subtypes.

RESULTS

214 (49%) clinicians indicated a belief that one antidepressant type is more efficacious than others. Of these 214 clinicians, 103 (48%) indicated selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as being most efficacious, while 53 (25%) indicated venlafaxine as being most efficacious; 378 (93%) clinicians indicated SSRIs as their first-line treatment preference. Mirtazapine (56%) was endorsed as most likely to be associated with weight gain, fluoxetine (57%) with sexual dysfunction, paroxetine (48%) with a discontinuation syndrome, and fluoxetine (52%) with agitation. For the treatment of anxious, atypical, and melancholic depression, SSRIs were the first choice of treatment (58%, 57%, and 57%), and for depression with prominent insomnia, mirtazapine and nefazadone (31% and 27%) were the first choices of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of evidence of a significant difference in efficacy between older and newer agents, clinicians perceive the newer agents to be more efficacious than the older drugs [tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)] even in the melancholic and anxious depressive subtypes. Similarly, although sexual dysfunction and agitation appear to occur at similar rates with all the SSRIs, fluoxetine was perceived to be most likely to cause these side effects. These findings are significant as they highlight the discrepancy between empirical evidence and clinical practices and suggest that other factors influence clinicians' medication choices in the treatment of depression.

Treatment of depression with associated anxiety: comparisons of tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

Evidence indicates that alleviating anxiety symptoms early in the treatment of depression improves treatment compliance, limits treatment discontinuations and contributes to a positive treatment outcome. Because of their sedating effects, the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) have historically been the first-choice agent in treating comorbid depression and anxiety. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can also be suitable therapy.

METHOD

We reviewed literature regarding the use of TCAs and SSRIs in depressed patients with comorbid anxiety.

RESULTS

SSRIs are at least as effective as TCAs in the treatment of both overall depression as well as anxiety symptoms. TCAs can cause significant and sometimes unacceptable side effects which limit their therapeutic potential. SSRIs, on the other hand, have little or no effect on cholinergic, histaminergic or adrenergic receptors, and have a very favourable tolerability profile.

CONCLUSION

The traditional selection of antidepressants based on the presence or absence of anxiety has little scientific support. In considering the overall risk:benefit ratio, SSRIs should be the first line treatment for depression with associated anxiety.

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.

Management of anxiety in late life

Epidemiologic data are used as a framework to discuss the pharmacologic and cognitive-behavioral management of anxiety disorders in late life. Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and phobias account for most cases of anxiety in late life. The high level of comorbidity between GAD and major depression, and the observation that the anxiety usually arises secondarily to the depression, suggests that antidepressant medication should be the primary pharmacologic treatment for many older people with GAD. Most individuals with late-onset agoraphobia do not have a history of panic attacks and the illness often starts after a traumatic event. Exposure therapy is the treatment of choice for agoraphobia without panic. It is uncommon for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and panic disorder to start for the first time in old age, but these disorders can persist from younger years into late life. Case reports and uncontrolled case series suggest that elderly people with OCD or panic disorder can benefit from pharmacologic and cognitive-behavioral treatments that are known to be effective in younger patients. However, it is not known whether the rate of response among elderly patients is adversely affected by the chronicity of these disorders. The prevalence and incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder in late life are not known. Uncontrolled data support the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in war veterans with chronic symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder; other treatments for this condition await evaluation in the elderly.

Pharmacological treatment of severely depressed patients: a meta-analysis comparing efficacy of mirtazapine and amitriptyline

Efficacy data were available from 405 severely depressed patients (baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-HAMD scores > or = 25) participating in randomized, double-blind, amitriptyline-controlled studies of mirtazapine. Main efficacy variable were changes from baseline in the group mean 17-item HAMD scores and responder rates. Secondary efficacy variables were changes in depressed mood item on the HAMD and in factors derived from the 17-item HAMD scale. Treatment with either mirtazapine or amitriptyline resulted in robust reductions of baseline HAMD scores and in similar and high percentages of responders. Both drugs produced favourable effects on depressed mood and on symptoms commonly associated with depression, such as anxiety, sleep and vegetative disturbances. There were neither statistically significant nor clinically relevant differences between mirtazapine and amitriptyline at any assessment point nor at endpoint. The results demonstrate that the new antidepressant mirtazapine and the tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline are equally effective in the treatment of severely depressed patients.

The depressions of Alzheimer's disease: sorting, pharmacotherapy, and clinical advice

Research describing wide prevalence variation of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and comorbid depression is explained in light of subsyndromal depressions, the use of standardized diagnostic instruments and procedures, and the subcortical and cortical components of mood. There appear to be several "depressions" of AD. Against this backdrop, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of antidepressant use in AD are reviewed and methodologic problems identified. Evidence for efficacy in controlled trials is weak, but open-label trials are, as expected, more encouraging. The potential efficacy of new agents for the depressions of AD receive comment. A heuristic model makes use of the conclusions developed, the stage of illness, and a preliminary classification scheme for the depressions of AD; this model provides a rational basis for thinking about medication selection for AD depressions. Clinical decisions are illustrated.

Do SSRIs differ in their antidepressant efficacy

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been extensively studied worldwide and show at least equivalent efficacy to the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). Some of the SSRIs have demonstrated superior efficacy to TCAs in a number of subgroups including patients with severe depression, suicidal thoughts or depression associated with anxiety. There is currently a lack of direct comparative data between the different SSRIs, although the few studies which are available indicate overall equal efficacy. However, the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics may result in different side-effects which might, in turn, lead to a characteristic pattern of use.