A double-blind study of minaprine versus amitriptyline in major depression

The 5HT2b Receptor in Alzheimer's Disease: Increased Levels in Patient Brains and Antagonist Attenuation of Amyloid and Tau Induced Dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Background: Neurodegenerative diseases manifest behavioral dysfunction with disease progression. Intervention with neuropsychiatric drugs is part of most multi-drug treatment paradigms. However, only a fraction of patients responds to the treatments and those responding must deal with drug-drug interactions and tolerance issues generally attributed to off-target activities. Recent efforts have focused on the identification of underexplored targets and exploration of improved outcomes by treatment with selective molecular probes.

Objective

As part of ongoing efforts to identify and validate additional targets amenable to therapeutic intervention, we examined levels of the serotonin 5-HT2b receptor (5-HT2bR) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) brains and the potential of a selective 5-HT2bR antagonist to counteract synaptic plasticity and memory damage induced by AD-related proteins, amyloid-β, and tau.

Methods

This work used a combination of biochemical, chemical biology, electrophysiological, and behavioral techniques. Biochemical methods included analysis of protein levels. Chemical biology methods included the use of an in vivo molecular probe MW071, a selective antagonist for the 5HT2bR. Electrophysiological methods included assessment of long-term potentiation (LTP), a type of synaptic plasticity thought to underlie memory formation. Behavioral studies investigated spatial memory and associative memory.

Results

5HT2bR levels are increased in brain specimens of AD patients compared to controls. 5HT2bR antagonist treatment rescued amyloid-β and tau oligomer-induced impairment of synaptic plasticity and memory.

Conclusions

The increased levels of 5HT-2bR in AD patient brains and the attenuation of disease-related synaptic and behavioral dysfunctions by MW071 treatment suggest that the 5HT-2bR is a molecular target worth pursuing as a potential therapeutic target.

Psychomotor retardation in depression: a systematic review of diagnostic, pathophysiologic, and therapeutic implications

Psychomotor retardation is a central feature of depression which includes motor and cognitive impairments. Effective management may be useful to improve the classification of depressive subtypes and treatment selection, as well as prediction of outcome in patients with depression. The aim of this paper was to review the current status of knowledge regarding psychomotor retardation in depression, in order to clarify its role in the diagnostic management of mood disorders. Retardation modifies all the actions of the individual, including motility, mental activity, and speech. Objective assessments can highlight the diagnostic importance of psychomotor retardation, especially in melancholic and bipolar depression. Psychomotor retardation is also related to depression severity and therapeutic change and could be considered a good criterion for the prediction of therapeutic effect. The neurobiological process underlying the inhibition of activity includes functional deficits in the prefrontal cortex and abnormalities in dopamine neurotransmission. Future investigations of psychomotor retardation should help improve the understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying mood disorders and contribute to improving their therapeutic management.

Psychomotor retardation in depression: a systematic review of diagnostic, pathophysiologic, and therapeutic implications

Psychomotor retardation is a central feature of depression which includes motor and cognitive impairments. Effective management may be useful to improve the classification of depressive subtypes and treatment selection, as well as prediction of outcome in patients with depression. The aim of this paper was to review the current status of knowledge regarding psychomotor retardation in depression, in order to clarify its role in the diagnostic management of mood disorders. Retardation modifies all the actions of the individual, including motility, mental activity, and speech. Objective assessments can highlight the diagnostic importance of psychomotor retardation, especially in melancholic and bipolar depression. Psychomotor retardation is also related to depression severity and therapeutic change and could be considered a good criterion for the prediction of therapeutic effect. The neurobiological process underlying the inhibition of activity includes functional deficits in the prefrontal cortex and abnormalities in dopamine neurotransmission. Future investigations of psychomotor retardation should help improve the understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying mood disorders and contribute to improving their therapeutic management.

Psychomotor retardation in depression: biological underpinnings, measurement, and treatment

Psychomotor retardation is a long established component of depression that can have significant clinical and therapeutic implications for treatment. Due to its negative impact on overall function in depressed patients, we review its biological correlates, optimal methods of measurement, and relevance in the context of therapeutic interventions. The aim of the paper is to provide a synthesis of the literature on psychomotor retardation in depression with the goal of enhanced awareness for clinicians and researchers. Increased knowledge and understanding of psychomotor retardation in major depressive disorder may lead to further research and better informed diagnosis in regards to psychomotor retardation. Manifestations of psychomotor retardation include slowed speech, decreased movement, and impaired cognitive function. It is common in patients with melancholic depression and those with psychotic features. Biological correlates may include abnormalities in the basal ganglia and dopaminergic pathways. Neurophysiologic tools such as neuroimaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation may play a role in the study of this symptom in the future. At present, there are three objective scales to evaluate psychomotor retardation severity. Studies examining the impact of psychomotor retardation on clinical outcome have found differential results. However, available evidence suggests that depressed patients with psychomotor retardation may respond well to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Current literature regarding antidepressants is inconclusive, though tricyclic antidepressants may be considered for treatment of patients with psychomotor retardation. Future work examining this objective aspect of major depressive disorder (MDD) is essential. This could further elucidate the biological underpinnings of depression and optimize its treatment.

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.

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.

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.

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.