Fluoxetine versus amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression with associated anxiety (anxious depression): a double-blind comparison

Imipramine and amitriptyline ameliorate the rotenone model of Parkinson's disease in rats

Amitriptyline (AMI), a commonly prescribed tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) to parkinsonian patients, specifically showed a significant delay in dopaminergic therapy initiation and improvement in motor disability in parkinsonian patients. Moreover, it was recently shown that AMI has neuroprotective properties; however, the mechanisms underlying this effect in Parkinson's disease (PD) are not fully understood. The current study aimed to investigate the possible neuroprotective mechanisms afforded by AMI in the rotenone model of PD and to assess whether another TCA member, imipramine (IMI), shows a corresponding effect. Rats were allocated into seven groups. Four groups were given either saline, dimethyl sulfoxide, AMI or IMI. Three rotenone groups were either untreated or treated with AMI or IMI. Rats receiving rotenone exhibited motor impairment in open field and rotarod tests. Additionally, immunohistochemical examination revealed dopaminergic neuronal damage in substantia nigra. Besides, striatal monoamines and brain derived neurotrophic factor levels were declined. Furthermore, oxidative stress, microglial activation and inflammation were evident in the striata. Pretreatment of rotenone groups with AMI or IMI prevented rotenone-induced neuronal degeneration and increased striatal dopamine level with motor recovery. These effects were accompanied by restoring striatal monoamines and brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels, as well as reducing oxidative damage, microglial activation and expression of proinflammatory cytokines and inducible nitric oxide synthase. The present results suggest that modulation of noradrenaline and serotonin levels, up-regulation of neurotrophin, inhibition of glial activation, anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory activities could serve as important mechanisms underlying the neuroprotective effects of the used drugs in the rotenone model of PD.

Pharmacologic treatment of dimensional anxious depression: a review

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacologic treatment of dimensionally defined anxious depression.

DATA SOURCES

English-language, adult human research articles published between 1949 and February 2013 were identified via PUBMED and EMBASE. The search term was treatment of anxious depression.

STUDY SELECTION

We identified and reviewed 304 original articles. Of these, 31 studies of patients with anxious depression, who were treated with an antidepressant or antipsychotic, are included in this review.

DATA EXTRACTION

All studies explicitly used a dimensional definition of anxious depression. All patients were treated with either antidepressants or antipsychotic medications.

RESULTS

Of the 31 relevant psychopharmacologic studies identified, 7 examined patients receiving only 1 medication, 2 studied cotherapeutic strategies, 1 examined antipsychotic augmentation, and 21 compared multiple medications. Eleven were pooled analyses from several studies. All studies were of adults (18-92 years old). The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Anxiety/Somatization Factor Score was used to define anxious depression in 71% of the studies, and 77.4% were post hoc analyses of previous datasets. Seventeen studies found selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and/or tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) to be useful for successfully treating anxious depression. However, patients with anxious depression were less likely to experience sustained response or remission. Furthermore, baseline anxious depression puts patients at greater risk for side effect burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite achieving response with SSRIs, SNRIs, and TCAs, patients with dimensionally defined anxious depression do not maintain response or remission and often report a larger burden of side effects compared to nonanxious depressive patients, suggesting that it is a harder-to-treat subtype of major depressive disorder.

Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Neuromuscular blocking effect of fluoxetine and its interaction with rocuronium

As selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have an inhibitory effect on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, they may affect the neuromuscular transmission and interact with neuromuscular blockers. This study was designed to observe the effect of fluoxetine on neuromuscular transmission and its interaction with rocuronium using the rat phrenic nerve hemidiaphragm and rabbit head drop methods. Rat phrenic nerve hemidiaphragms were mounted and stimulated using a train of four pulses (TOF). The effect of fluoxetine was studied on both indirectly and directly stimulated basal twitch responses by plotting cumulative dose response curves (DRCs). DRCs of rocuronium were obtained in the absence, and presence of 5 μm and 20 μm fluoxetine to study its interaction. ED5 , ED50 and ED95 values of rocuronium DRCs in absence and presence of fluoxetine were calculated. Fluoxetine significantly inhibited twitch responses in both indirect and directly stimulated preparations. Fluoxetine (20 μm) caused an increase in the potency of rocuronium such that the ED50 and ED95 values of rocuronium DRCs were significantly decreased. Partially inhibited twitch responses by fluoxetine (100 μm) were not reversed by neostigmine (3.3 μm) or 3,4 diaminopyridine (0.25 μm). Rabbits were given fluoxetine 0.25 mg kg(-1) and 1 mg kg(-1) orally for 15 days, and on 15th day, rocuronium infusion was given, and time for head drop was recorded. The time of head drop was significantly reduced in fluoxetine pretreated as compared to control group. Fluoxetine blocks the neuromuscular transmission and increases the potency of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block.

Biological variations in depression and anxiety between East and West

Ethnicity and culture represent important factors in shaping psychopathology as well as pharmacotherapeutic responses in psychiatric patients. A large body of literature, accumulated over the past several decades, demonstrates that these factors not only determine the metabolism and disposition of medications (pharmacokinetics), but also their interactions with therapeutic targets (pharmacodynamics). This article focuses on the impact of such variations on the diagnosis and treatment of depression and anxiety disorders between East and West. Genes controlling the expression of drug metabolizing enzymes as well as the function of the brain are highly polymorphic, and the patterns and distribution of these polymorphisms are typically divergent across ethnic groups. To the extent that these genetic patterns determine drug response, ethnic variations in these genetic dispositions will lead to differential responses in clinical settings. In addition, the expression of these genes is significantly influenced by environmental factors including diet as well as exposure to other natural products. Superimposed on these biological influences, culturally determined beliefs and behavioral patterns also profoundly influence patients' expectations of treatment response, adherence, and interactions with clinicians. In addition to pharmacotherapeutic responses, emerging data also indicate that significant ethnic variations exist in genetic polymorphisms and neurobiologic correlates (biomarkers) that may be associated with the vulnerability to psychiatric disorders. These considerations argue for the importance of examining biological variations across ethnic groups, especially in the clinical context, in terms of the assessment and treatment of psychiatric patients, and in our understanding of psychiatric phenomenology and nosology.

Sleep and headache

There is a strong interaction between sleep and headache. Sleep and headache disorders overlap epidemiologically, and share elements of anatomy and physiology. Perhaps as a result, their treatment is often mutually interdependent. Despite this, headache and sleep disorders tend to be treated separately, by different subspecialties of neurology. The headache disorders and their relationship to sleep, the commonalities of headache and sleep pathophysiology, and headache disorders that are particularly susceptible to sleep modulation (and vice versa) are reviewed. Practical management advice for sleep-modulated headaches is provided.

Latino versus Caucasian response to atomoxetine in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

ABSTRACT We examined the effects of atomoxetine in Latino (n = 108) versus Caucasian (n = 1090) pediatric outpatients (aged 6 to <18 years) during the first 10-11 weeks of treatment in two multicenter, open-label trials. Mean modal doses were not significantly different in Latinos (1.22 mg/kg per day) versus Caucasians (1.27 mg/kg per day; p = 0.22). Both groups showed significant and similar improvements: Mean ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version: Investigator Administered and Scored (ADHDRS-IV-P:I) scores decreased by 54% in Latinos (40.9-18.9; p < 0.001) and by 52% in Caucasians (37.7-18.2; p < 0.001). Other efficacy measures, such as Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised: Short Form (CPRS-R:S) and Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity (CGI-ADHD-S), demonstrated similar and significant decreases. The only significant between-group difference was a greater decrease in the ADHDRS-IV-P:I Hyperactive/Impulsive subscale at weeks 8-11 for Latinos; however, Latinos had higher baseline scores compared with Caucasians. This was not demonstrated in the CPRS-R:S Hyperactivity subscale. There was a significantly higher frequency of CYP2D6 slow metabolizers in Caucasians compared with Latinos. Caucasians reported significantly more abdominal and throat pain, whereas Latinos reported more decreased appetite and dizziness, but no differences in other common adverse events were reported. No suicidal behavior was reported in either group. We found that Latino and Caucasian children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) exhibit a similar pattern of efficacy and tolerability with atomoxetine. The lack of placebo controls was a limitation of this study.

Effect of comorbid anxiety on treatment response in bipolar depression

BACKGROUND

This secondary analysis from a randomized double-blind study of acute bipolar depression compared olanzapine monotherapy, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC) and placebo in patients with or without comorbid anxiety.

METHODS

Patients with bipolar disorder and a current depressive episode received olanzapine (5-20 mg/day), OFC (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day), or placebo in an 8-week trial. Two populations were defined: comorbid (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, HAM-A > or =18) or non-comorbid (HAM-A <18) anxiety. Changes in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and HAM-A total scores, and rates of response (> or =50% decrease from baseline to endpoint) and remission (MADRS < or =12 or HAM-A < or =7) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Baseline MADRS and YMRS scores were significantly higher in patients with comorbid anxiety relative to those without. Patients without comorbid anxiety were more likely to achieve MADRS response and remission than those with comorbid anxiety (relative risk, RR: 1.21 and 1.29, respectively). Patients with comorbid anxiety had greater rates of response and remission with olanzapine and OFC relative to placebo (response RR:1.45 and 2.14; remission RR:1.96 and 2.32, respectively). Response and remission rates on the HAM-A scale were greater for OFC relative to placebo (RR: 2.00 and 3.20). Weight gain was greater for olanzapine (2.59+/-3.24 kg) and OFC (2.79+/-3.23 kg) relative to placebo, as were baseline to endpoint changes in cholesterol levels (6+/-31 and 10+/-67 mg/dL, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbid anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar depression have a negative impact on treatment outcome. Olanzapine and, to a greater extent, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination were effective in reducing both depressive and anxiety symptoms in these patients. The significantly greater changes in weight, glucose and cholesterol parameters observed in the olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination groups should be entered into the risk-benefit assessment in determining appropriate treatment options for these patients.

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.

A randomized, controlled, trial of controlled release paroxetine in fibromyalgia

PURPOSE

We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine controlled release, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in fibromyalgia.

METHODS

After excluding patients with current major depression and anxiety disorders, 116 subjects with fibromyalgia were enrolled in a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial of paroxetine controlled release (12.5-62.5 mg/day). The primary outcome measure was proportion of responders as defined as a> or =25% reduction in scores on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) from randomization to end of treatment. Secondary outcome measures included changes in FIQ scores, Clinical Global Impression -Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity (CGI-S) scores, Visual Analogue Scale for pain scores, number of tender points, and scores on the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS).

RESULTS

Significantly more patients in paroxetine controlled release group (57%) showed a> or =25% reduction in FIQ compared to placebo (33%) (P=.016). Paroxetine controlled release was significantly superior to placebo in reducing the FIQ total score (P =.015). The CGI-I ratings significantly favored the drug over placebo (P<.005). The improvements on other secondary outcome measures between the 2 groups were not statistically significant. Drowsiness, dry mouth, blurred vision, genital disorders, and anxiety were reported more frequently with paroxetine controlled release. The mean dose of paroxetine controlled release was 39.1 mg/day.

CONCLUSIONS

Paroxetine controlled release appears to be well-tolerated and improve the overall symptomatology in patients with fibromyalgia without current mood or anxiety disorders. However, its effect on pain measures seems to be less robust.

Outcomes for Latin American versus White patients suffering from acute mania in a randomized, double-blind trial comparing olanzapine and haloperidol

Data from a published double-blind randomized trial comparing olanzapine versus haloperidol in acute mania were used to address the response and tolerability of Latin American patients. Primary efficacy end point was the remission rate (Young Mania Rating Scale score <or=12 and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of <or=8). Patients were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. The mean modal doses (milligrams per day) were similar in Latin American (OL) (14.2; n = 51) and white (OC) (15.1; n = 120) patients treated with olanzapine, and in Latin American (HL) (7.1; n = 48) and white (HC) (8.5; n = 113) patients treated with haloperidol. At week 6, remission rates were similar among the OL and HL patients (64.7% vs. 68.8%) but were higher in the OC than in HC (49.2% vs. 32.7%; P = 0.012). Significantly more HL than OL patients experienced extrapyramidal symptoms such as akathisia and tremor. Tremor was significantly higher in HL than in HC patients, whereas a significant increase in the Barnes Akathisia Scale and Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale scores was observed in HC versus HL. Somnolence and weight gain were significantly higher in OL than in OC patients, and more OL and OC patients experienced weight gain in comparison with the HL and HC groups, respectively. The incidence of nonfasting glucose levels above normal levels did not statistically differ between groups. In conclusion, in contrast to our findings among white patients, the Latin American patients who have acute mania did not differ in overall response to olanzapine or haloperidol. The pattern of adverse events differed between treatment groups. Prospective clinical trials in Latin American bipolar populations are justified.

Antidepressants and their effect on sleep

Given the relationship between sleep and depression, there is inevitably going to be an effect of antidepressants on sleep. Current evidence suggests that this effect depends on the class of antidepressant used and the dosage. The extent of variation between the effects of antidepressants and sleep may relate to their mechanism of action. This systematic review examines randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) that have reported the effect that antidepressants appear to have on sleep. RCTs are not restricted to depressed populations, since several studies provide useful information about the effects on sleep in other groups. Nevertheless, the distinction is made between those studies because the participant's health may influence the baseline sleep profiles and the effect of the antidepressant. Insomnia is often seen with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), with all tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) except amitriptyline, and all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with venlafaxine and moclobemide as well. Sedation has been reported with all TCAs except desipramine, with mirtazapine and nefazodone, the TCA-related maprotiline, trazodone and mianserin, and with all MAOIs. REM sleep suppression has been observed with all TCAs except trimipramine, but especially clomipramine, with all MAOIs and SSRIs and with venlafaxine, trazodone and bupropion. However, the effect on sleep varies between compounds within antidepressant classes, differences relating to the amount of sedative or alerting (insomnia) effects, changes to baseline sleep parameters, differences relating to REM sleep, and the degree of sleep-related side effects.

Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

[Fluoxetine: an update of its use in major depressive disorder in adults]

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have emerged as a major therapeutic advance in psychiatry. They have emphasized the pathophysiological role of serotonin (5-HT) in affective disorders. Indeed, SSRIs were developed for inhibition of the neuronal uptake for serotonin (5-HT), a property shared with the TCAs (tricyclic anti-depressants), but without affecting the other various central neuroreceptors (ie, histamine, acetylcholine and adrenergic receptors) that are responsible for many of the safety and tolerability problems with TCAs. In this way, fluoxetine and other SSRIs represent a major advance over tricyclics, because of their lower toxicity. While the position of fluoxetine relative to other selective serotoninergic antidepressants requires further investigation, fluoxetine has a more favorable tolerability profile for a similar efficacy in comparison to tricyclic antidepressants. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fluoxetine are well described. After oral administration, fluoxetine is almost completely absorbed. Due to hepatic first-pass metabolism, the oral bioavailability is < 90%. Fluoxetine has a half-life of 2-7 days, whereas the half-life of norfluoxetine ranges between 4 and 15 days. This long half-life of fluoxetine may be advantageous when the patient omits a dose since drug concentrations decrease slightly. On the other hand, in the case of fluoxetine non-response, long washout periods are necessary before switching the patient to a TCA or a MAO inhibitor to avoid drug interactions or the development of a 5-HT syndrome. As a class, SSRIs are considerably more selective in comparison to TCAs in terms of their central nervous system mechanisms, but differ in other clinically relevant aspects. This action affects several specific 5-HT receptors, which, in turn, effects a multitude of neural systems and signalization pathways. However, despite the facilitating serotoninergic neurotransmission, the direct mechanism by which a SSRI exerts its anti-depressant activity remains uncertain. The therapeutic response in major depression for SSRIs (ie 15-20 days) maybe due to a progressive desensitization of somatodendritic 5-HT autoreceptors in the midbrain raphe nucleus. On the other hand, it has also been postulated that 5-HT is a modulator of several neurophysiological pathways, including dopamine, noradrenaline, but also neurotrophic factors, intra-cytoplasmic phosphorylations and nuclear genes expression. Therapeutic activity of SSRIs may finally results in a complex modulation and homeostasis between monoaminergic neurotransmisson and neuronal plasticity. In term of health-care, the introduction of fluoxetine and other SSRIs in the 1980s has radically changed the treatment of depressive disorder worldwide and they have emerged as the first line of treatment for depressive disorders. The efficacy of fluoxetine is now well established in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Indeed, this efficacy has been assessed in numerous clinical controlled trials involving patients with major depressive disorders. Meta-analysis were carried out and confirmed that fluoxetine was as effective as the tricyclic antidepressants, and appeared more effective than placebo in improving the symptoms of depression. However, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that any one SSRI is more effective than another, but not all patients respond to the same agent. Looking to the future, we need further comparative studies of the SSRIs with the next generation of antidepressants such as 5-HT noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs, Venlafaxine). Actually, it is interesting to note that, whereas the emphasis with the SSRIs has been on their selectivity, recent developments have tended to move towards less selective agents, and now to other neurobiological pathways (ie neurotrophic factors). Finally, fluoxetine, in common with other SSRIs, remains today a first-line treatment option for major depressive disorder.

Are SSRIs really more effective for anxious depression?

BACKGROUND

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) are well-established first-line agents for Anxiety Disorders. Anxiety is also a frequent manifestation of major depression. Many psychiatrists assume that anxious depression is more responsive to SSRIs than to other antidepressants. The purpose of this literature review was to determine if SSRIs or any other antidepressants are superior.

METHODS

A computerized search was conducted of double-blind, English-language studies comparing antidepressants available in the United States. Databases searched included Medline and PsycINFO.

RESULTS

SSRIs were not found to be superior to other antidepressants in the treatment of anxious depression.

CONCLUSIONS

The above assumption is not supported. Treatment implications are discussed.

International dosage differences in fluoxetine clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

"Wish bias" in antidepressant drug trials?

The present study investigated whether the outcome of randomized clinical trials studying fluoxetine favored fluoxetine, where this was the experimental agent, and favored comparator antidepressants in trials where fluoxetine was the reference agent. A systematic review of all double-blind, randomized clinical trials comparing fluoxetine with any other antidepressant drug in patients suffering from depression was carried out. Thirty-seven studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. A metaregression analysis indicated that, after adjusting for possible confounders, studies where fluoxetine was the experimental agent were positively associated with treatment effect, indicating a significant advantage for fluoxetine. The evidence that the outcome of fluoxetine trials varied according to whether this drug was used as a new compound or a reference one suggests the presence of bias.

Defining anxious depression: going beyond comorbidity

OBJECTIVE

Since publication of the DSM-IV, there remains a group of patients with depression and anxiety symptoms who are not well classified. We therefore wanted to determine more accurately the type of patients best described by the term "anxious depression." We also wanted to review the literature to assess the most appropriate treatment(s) for these patients.

METHOD

We surveyed the medical literature published after 1994 for all articles containing the relevant terms and assessed all possible articles in detail to determine those relevant to the diagnosis and those that involved relevant clinical studies.

RESULTS

The term anxious depression can encompass 3 groups of patients: those with comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD) and an anxiety disorder, those with MDD but with subthreshold anxiety symptoms, and those with subthreshold depressive and subthreshold anxiety symptoms (also called mixed anxiety and depressive disorder).

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon our literature review, we believe that the term anxious depression should only be used for the second group; that is, those patients with an MDD and subthreshold anxiety symptoms. From our literature review to determine the most appropriate treatment for this group of patients, it appears likely that drugs inhibiting the reuptake of both noradrenaline and serotonin may have greater clinical utility than single-action drugs such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). However, it is also clear that much more research needs to be undertaken in this important patient group so that we can better understand its prevalence, clinical features, and treatment.

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.

Fluoxetine alone in the treatment of first episode anxious-depression: an open clinical trial

Many studies have reported the effectiveness of antidepressants in patients with so-called "anxious depression". This is the first report aimed at studying the beneficial therapeutic effects of fluoxetine alone on anxiety dimension in first episode drug naive patients suffering from DSM-IV major depression (MDD) and double depression (DD). Twenty-two outpatients (11 women and 11 men) were recruited in a University clinic for the treatment of a first episode pure MDD (n = 13) or DD (n = 9). All of the patients were drug naive, had Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and Anxiety (HRSA) scores > or = 15, and were interviewed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-Patient edition. Fluoxetine alone (20 mg daily) was used in an attempt to treat depression with comorbid anxiety symptoms. A series of clinical- and self-rating scales (i.e., HRSD, HRSA, Beck Depression Inventory, and Stait Trait Anxiety Inventory) were used to measure the psychopathology at day 0, and every 10 days until day 50. In the whole group, there were statistically significant changes, starting from the baseline, in depression and anxiety symptoms after 10 days of treatment. Self evaluated anxiety, however, improved after 20 days. Furthermore, at day 50, the patients with comorbid DD experienced a major improvement (diminished anxiety symptoms) compared to pure MDD patients. This open study suggests that depression and anxiety symptoms in first-episode drug-naive patients with anxious depression diminished very quickly with fluoxetine.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, flexible-dose study of fluoxetine in the treatment of women with fibromyalgia

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy of fluoxetine in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Sixty outpatients (all women, aged 21-71 years) with fibromyalgia were randomly assigned to receive fluoxetine (10-80 mg/d) or placebo for 12 weeks in a double-blind, parallel-group, flexible-dose study. The primary outcome measures were the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire total score (score range, 0 [no impact] to 80) and pain score (score range, 0-10). Secondary measures included the McGill Pain Questionnaire, change in the number of tender points, and total myalgic score.

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat analysis, women who received fluoxetine (mean [+/- SD] dose, 45 +/- 25 mg/d) had significant (P = 0.005) improvement in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire total score compared with those who received placebo, with a difference of -12 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -19 to -4). They also had significant (P = 0.002) improvement in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire pain score (difference, -2.2 [95% CI: -3.6 to -0.9]), as well as in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire fatigue (P = 0.05) and depression (P = 0.01) scores and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (P = 0.01), when compared with subjects who received placebo. Although counts for the number of tender points and total myalgic scores improved more in the fluoxetine group than in the placebo group, these differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In a 12-week, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled trial, fluoxetine was found to be effective on most outcome measures and generally well tolerated in women with fibromyalgia.

Noradrenergic dysfunction and antidepressant treatment response

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in outcome following treatment with two different antidepressants in depressed patients according to their pretreatment hormonal response to clonidine. In all, 62 drug-free DSM-IV recurrent major depressed patients and 20 normal controls were studied. Patients were subsequently treated for 4 weeks with fluoxetine (n=28), or amitriptyline (n=34), and were then classified as responders or nonresponders according to their final Hamilton depression scale score. Compared to controls, depressed patients showed lower GH response to CLO (DeltaGH) (P<0.0002). One control (5%) and 35 depressed patients (56%) had blunted DeltaGH values. The efficacy of the two antidepressants was not significantly different: 15 patients responded to AMI (44%), seven patients responded to FLUOX (25%) (P>0.15). However, in the subgroup of patients with blunted DeltaGH levels, the rate of responders was higher for AMI (11/21) compared to FLUOX (1/14) treated patients (P<0.01). These results suggest that in depressed patients a blunted GH response to CLO could predict antidepressant response.

Changes in energy during treatment of depression: an analysis of fluoxetine in double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

More than two thirds of patients with depression present with symptoms of fatigue, low energy, and listlessness. Because daytime sedation may be a concern in such patients, a "nonsedating" antidepressant should be considered. The authors examined the effects of fluoxetine on depression-related disturbances in energy. Data from seven double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials in 2,075 patients with major depression were retrospectively analyzed. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) Retardation factor score (total of items 1, 7, 8, and 14) was used as the primary measure of energy improvement, whereas the HAM-D-17 total score was used to assess changes in overall depression. Elderly patients (aged 60 years and older) were included in the overall group and were also analyzed separately. In addition, a subgroup analysis was performed using the HAM-D Retardation factor score to categorize patients as having low (score < 8) or high (score > or = 8) levels of retardation at baseline. Beginning at week 3, fluoxetine-treated patients experienced statistically significant reductions in their HAM-D Retardation factor score compared with placebo-treated patients. The reductions for the elderly subgroup were less than those for the overall population, but they were still statistically significant beginning at week 4. Patients in both the low and high baseline retardation groups improved significantly. HAM-D-17 total scores for fluoxetine-treated patients in all groups (total, elderly, high retardation, and low retardation) improved significantly compared with placebo-treated patients. These findings demonstrate that fluoxetine-treated patients experience an improvement in energy symptoms as their overall depression improves.

Palliative care in inflammatory bowel disease: an evidence-based approach

The management of the patient with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is challenging for both the physician and the patient. IBD imposes both a physical and emotional burden on patients' lives. Palliative care is important for IBD patients because it focuses on improving quality of life. While palliative care does not change the natural history of the disease, it provides relief from pain and other distressing symptoms. This article focuses on various aspects of care for IBD patients including pain control, management of oral and skin ulcerations, stomal problems in IBD patients, control of nausea and vomiting, management of chronic diarrhea and pruritus ani, evaluation of anemia, treatment of steroid-related bone disease, and treatment of psychological problems associated with IBD. Each of these areas is reviewed using an evidence-based approach. Evidence in category A refers to evidence from clinical trials that are randomized and well controlled. Category B Evidence refers to evidence from cohort or case-controlled studies. Category C is evidence from case reports or flawed clinical trials. Evidence from category D is limited to the clinical experience of the authors. Evidence labelled as category E refers to situations where there is insufficient evidence available to form an opinion. Algorithms for management of pain and nausea in IBD patients are presented.