scholarly journals Citalopram plus low-dose pipamperone versus citalopram plus placebo in patients with major depressive disorder: an 8-week, double-blind, randomized study on magnitude and timing of clinical response

2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 2089-2097 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. Wade ◽  
G. M. Crawford ◽  
C. B. Nemeroff ◽  
A. F. Schatzberg ◽  
T. Schlaepfer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Therapeutic Effect ◽  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Receptor Activation ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Madrs Score ◽  
Antidepressant Effects

BackgroundSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors take several weeks to achieve their full antidepressant effects. Post-synaptic 5-HT2A receptor activation is thought to be involved in this delayed therapeutic effect. Pipamperone acts as a highly selective 5-HT2A/D4 antagonist when administered in low doses. The purpose of this study was to compare citalopram 40 mg once daily plus pipamperone 5 mg twice daily (PipCit) versus citalopram plus placebo twice daily for magnitude and onset of therapeutic effect.MethodAn 8-week, randomized, double-blind study in patients with major depressive disorder was carried out.ResultsThe study population comprised 165 patients (citalopram and placebo, n=82; PipCit, n=83) with a mean baseline Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 32.6 (s.d.=5.5). In the first 4 weeks, more citalopram and placebo than PipCit patients discontinued treatment (18% v. 4%, respectively, p=0.003). PipCit patients had significantly greater improvement in MADRS score at week 1 [observed cases (OC), p=0.021; last observation carried forward (LOCF), p=0.007] and week 4 (LOCF, p=0.025) but not at week 8 compared with citalopram and placebo patients. Significant differences in MADRS scores favoured PipCit in reduced sleep, reduced appetite, concentration difficulties and pessimistic thoughts. Mean Clinical Global Impression–Improvement scores were significantly improved after 1 week of PipCit compared with citalopram and placebo (OC and LOCF, p=0.002).ConclusionsAlthough the MADRS score from baseline to 8 weeks did not differ between groups, PipCit provided superior antidepressant effects and fewer discontinuations compared with citalopram and placebo during the first 4 weeks of treatment, especially in the first week.

Escitalopram Versus SNRI Antidepressants in the Acute Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: Integrative Analysis of Four Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trials

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 326-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan G. Kornstein ◽  
Dayong Li ◽  
Yongcai Mao ◽  
Sara Larsson ◽  
Henning F. Andersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Severe Depression ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Madrs Score ◽  
Treatment Difference

AbstractIntroduction: Recent data suggest that escitalopram may be more effective in severe depression than other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.Methods: Individual patient data from four randomized, double-blind comparative trials of escitalopram versus a serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) (two trials with duloxetine and two with venlafaxine extended release) in outpatients (18–85 years of age) with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder were pooled. The primary efficacy parameter in all four trials was mean change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score.Results: Significantly fewer escitalopram (82/524) than SNRI (114/527) patients prematurely withdrew from treatment due to all causes (15.6% vs. 21.6%, Fisher Exact: P=.014) and adverse events (5.3% vs. 12.0%, Fisher Exact: P <.0001). Mean reduction in MADRS score from baseline to Week 8 was significantly greater for the escitalopram group versus the SNRI group using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach [mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 1.7 points (P <.01)]. Similar results were observed in the severely depressed (baseline MADRS score ≥30) patient subset (mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 2.9 points [P <.001, LOCF]). Observed cases analyses yielded no significant differences in efficacy parameters.Conclusion: This pooled analysis indicates that escitalopram is at least as effective as the SNRIs (venlafaxine XR and duloxetine), even in severe depression, and escitalopram treatment was better tolerated.

Propofol Anaesthesia in Electroconvulsive Therapy

1994 ◽  
Vol 165 (4) ◽  
pp. 506-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher F. Fear ◽  
Carl S. Littlejohns ◽  
Eryl Rouse ◽  
Paul McQuail
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Electroconvulsive Therapy ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Induction Agent ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Seizure Duration ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Induction Agents

BackgroundThe induction agent propofol is known to reduce electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) seizure duration. It is assumed that outcome from depression is adversely affected by this agent. This study compares propofol and methohexitone as induction agents for ECT.MethodIn a prospective, randomised, double-blind study 20 subjects with major depressive disorder (DSM-III-R criteria) received propofol or methohexitone anaesthesia. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Beck Depression Inventory were used to assess depression before therapy, at every third treatment, and at the end of therapy. Seizure duration was measured using the cuff technique.ResultsMean seizure durations (P < 0.01) and mean total seizure duration (P < 0.01) were shorter in the propofol group. There was no difference in outcome.ConclusionsUse of propofol may not adversely affect outcome from depression and it is not necessarily contraindicated as an induction agent for ECT. Our results should be interpreted cautiously, and larger studies are needed.

scholarly journals Efficacy of levomilnacipran extended-release in major depressive disorder: pooled analysis of 5 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart A. Montgomery ◽  
Carl P. Gommoll ◽  
Changzheng Chen ◽  
William M. Greenberg
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Extended Release ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Madrs Score ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Remission Rates

Introduction/ObjectivePost hoc analyses were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) in subgroups of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).MethodsData were pooled from 5 completed Phase II/III studies. Patients were categorized by sex, age, MDD duration, recurrence of MDD, current episode duration, number of prior episodes, and baseline Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. Efficacy was evaluated by MADRS least squares (LS) mean change from baseline, response (MADRS improvement ≥50%), and remission (MADRS ≤10).ResultsIn the pooled population, treatment with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo resulted in greater improvement in MADRS score (−15.8 versus −12.9; LS mean difference, −2.9; P < .001) and higher response rates (44.7% versus 34.5%; P < .001). Comparable treatment effects were found in most subgroups. Remission rates in the overall population were higher for levomilnacipran ER versus placebo (27.7% versus 21.5%; P < .05); notably high remission rates were seen in patients with baseline MADRS score < 30 (48.8% versus 28.9%; P < .001).DiscussionClinically meaningful improvements in depressive symptoms were found across subgroups, including statistically significant outcomes for both response and remission.ConclusionLevomilnacipran ER was efficacious across a wide range of MDD patients, including men and women, ages 18–78, with varying histories and symptom severity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document