Moclobemide in depression: a randomized, multicentre trial against isocarboxazide and clomipramine emphasizing atypical depression

Treatment History Characteristics Associated With Use of Isocarboxazid: A Nationwide Register-Based Study

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

The monoamine oxidase inhibitor isocarboxazid (Marplan) is occasionally used in the treatment of depression, but there is only little knowledge on the nature of the use of isocarboxazid in clinical practice. We aimed to identify treatment history characteristics associated with this use.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

Via the nationwide Danish registers, we identified all adult incident users of isocarboxazid in the period from 2001 to 2018, as well as up to 5 matched controls using another antidepressant (matched on date of redeemed prescription, age, sex, and region of residence). The 5-year treatment history of the isocarboxazid users and the controls was assessed via the Danish registers. The association between treatment history characteristics and isocarboxazid use was examined by multivariate conditional logistic regression.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

We identified 1455 isocarboxazid users and 7045 controls using another antidepressant. The following characteristics were associated with statistically significant increased likelihood of receiving isocarboxazid treatment: Prior treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (odds ratio [OR], 1.80 with 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46-2.23), a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 4.08-5.89), a noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.30-1.88), a tricyclic antidepressant (OR, 5.05; 95% CI, 4.19-6.08), other antidepressants (OR, 4.74; 95% CI, 3.74-6.01), lithium (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 5.08-8.83), an antipsychotic (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19-1.73), and each diagnosis of depression received in relation to psychiatric hospital treatment (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.23-1.39). Forty percent of those initiating isocarboxazid had received treatment with drugs from 5 or more different psychopharmacological classes in the 5 preceding years.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that isocarboxazid is typically used for treatment-resistant depression, consistent with guideline recommendations.

Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs) in Psychiatric Practice: How to Use them Safely and Effectively

Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) were among the first licensed pharmacological treatments for patients with depression but over time have fallen out of mainstream clinical use. This has led to a loss of clinician training opportunities and reduced availability of MAOIs for prescribing. This article provides a concise and practical overview of how to use MAOIs safely and effectively in psychiatric practice. We consider the history of MAOIs, why they are not used more frequently, their mechanisms of action, availability, indications and efficacy, general tolerability, withdrawal symptoms, and safety considerations (including hypertensive reactions and serotonin syndrome). Practical advice is given in terms of dietary restrictions, interactions with other medications (both prescribed and non-prescribed), and how prescribers can stop and switch MAOIs, both within the drug class and outside of it. We also provide advice on choice of MAOI and treatment sequencing. Lastly, we consider emerging directions and potential additional indications.

Xanthoangelol and 4-Hydroxyderricin Are the Major Active Principles of the Inhibitory Activities against Monoamine Oxidases on Angelica keiskei K

Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI) have been widely used as antidepressants. Recently, there has been renewed interest in MAO inhibitors. The activity-guided fractionation of extracts from Angelica keiskei Koidzumi (A. keiskei K.) led to the isolation of two prenylated chalcones, xanthoangelol and 4-hydroxyderricin and a flavonoid, cynaroside. These three isolated compounds are the major active ingredients of A. keiskei K. to inhibit the MAOs and DBH activities. Xanthoangelol is a nonselective MAO inhibitor, and a potent dopamine β-hydroxylase (DBH) inhibitor. IC₅₀ values of xanthoangelol to MAO-A and MAO-B were calculated to be 43.4 μM, and 43.9 μM. These values were very similar to iproniazid, which is a nonselective MAO inhibitor used as a drug against depression. The IC₅₀ values of iproniazid were 37 μM, and 42.5 μM in our parallel examination. Moreover, IC₅₀ value of xanthoangelol to DBH was calculated 0.52 μM. 4-Hydroxyderricin is a potent selective MAO-B inhibitor and also mildly inhibits DBH activity. The IC₅₀ value of 4-hydroxyderricin to MAO-B was calculated to be 3.43 μM and this value was higher than that of deprenyl (0.046 μM) used as a positive control for selective MAO-B inhibitor in our test. Cynaroside is a most potent DBH inhibitor. The IC₅₀ value of cynaroside to DBH was calculated at 0.0410 μM. Results of this study suggest that the two prenylated chalcones, xanthoangelol and 4-hydroxyderricin isolated from A. keiskei K., are expected for potent candidates for development of combined antidepressant drug. A. keiskei K. will be an excellent new bio-functional food material that has the combined antidepressant effect.

The predictive validity of atypical neurovegetative depressive symptoms identified by the first principal component in the DUAG trial of moclobemide versus clomipramine

OBJECTIVE

To investigate to what extent the primary depression subtype atypical depression can predict differential outcome of the mono-amino-oxidase inhibitor (MAO-I) moclobemide and the tricyclic antidepressant clomipramine in the Danish University Antidepressant Group Study (DUAG).

METHODS

In a randomised, double blind trial, a total of 117 patients with major depression were treated over 6 weeks with either 400 mg moclobemide or 150 mg clomipramine. A baseline principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to identify atypical symptoms on the combined depression scales (Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D(17)) and the Quantitative Scale for Atypical Depression (QSAD)). The primary outcome scale was the subscale HAM-D(6) which contains the pure items of depression.

RESULTS

PCA identified two items with loadings opposite to the other depression items within HAM-D(17) and QSAD, namely increased duration of sleep and increased appetite (atypical neurovegetative symptoms). Patients with a positive score at baseline on these items were classified as having atypical depression. In total 13 patients were classified as having atypical depression. Within this group of patients 8 received clomipramine and 5 patients received moclobemide. At endpoint the moclobemide treated patients had a significantly better response than the clomipramine treated (P=0.036), effect size 1.42, when using HAM-D(6) as outcome. However, in the 104 patients classified as having typical depression clomipramine was superior to moclobemide (P=0.034), effect size 0.47.

LIMITATIONS

The number of patients with atypical neurovegetative symptoms was very small and no placebo arm was included.

CONCLUSIONS

It is very important to screen for atypical depression (increased duration of sleep/increased appetite) in the acute therapy of patients with major depression. Our results add to the body of evidence that monoamine oxidase inhibitors are superior to tricyclic antidepressants in this sub-group of patients.

Combined treatment with MAO-A inhibitor and MAO-B inhibitor increases extracellular noradrenaline levels more than MAO-A inhibitor alone through increases in beta-phenylethylamine

Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAO inhibitors) have been widely used as antidepressants. However, it remains unclear whether a difference exists between non-selective MAO inhibitors and selective MAO-A inhibitors in terms of their antidepressant effects. Using in vivo microdialysis methods, we measured extracellular noradrenaline and serotonin levels following administration of Ro 41-1049, a reversible MAO-A inhibitor and/or lazabemide, a reversible MAO-B inhibitor in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) of rats. We examined the effect of local infusion of beta-phenylethylamine to the mPFC of rats on extracellular noradrenaline and serotonin levels. Furthermore, the concentrations of beta-phenylethylamine in the tissue of the mPFC after combined treatment with Ro 41-1049 and lazabemide were measured. The Ro 41-1049 alone and the combined treatment significantly increased extracellular noradrenaline levels compared with vehicle and lazabemide alone. Furthermore, the combined treatment increased noradrenaline levels significantly more than Ro 41-1049 alone did. The Ro 41-1049 alone and the combined treatment significantly increased extracellular serotonin levels compared with vehicle and lazabemide alone, but no difference in serotonin levels was found between the combined treatment group and the Ro 41-1049 group. Local infusion of low-dose beta-phenylethylamine increased extracellular noradrenaline levels, but not that of serotonin. Only the combined treatment significantly increased beta-phenylethylamine levels in tissues of the mPFC. Our results suggest that the combined treatment with a MAO-A inhibitor and a MAO-B inhibitor strengthens antidepressant effects because the combined treatment increases extracellular noradrenaline levels more than a MAO-A inhibitor alone through increases in beta-phenylethylamine.

Atypical depression: a comprehensive review

Despite several decades of research, the characteristics distinguishing atypical depression from other depressive subtypes remain ambiguous. Multiple lines of evidence support the designation of atypical depression as a scientifically and clinically relevant subtype, including differences in hormonal responses, brain laterality, psychological profile and psychiatric co-morbidity and differential treatment response. The evolution of the diagnostic criteria for atypical depression has led to the designation of mood reactivity as the cardinal feature, and the research supporting this conclusion is reviewed. This paper also reviews the evidence for the drug treatment of atypical depression, with a particular focus on research related to the superior efficacy of monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) compared with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). Data relevant to the efficacy of newer antidepressants, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitors, transdermal selegiline and other new agents for atypical depression, are discussed. In summary, the diagnostic reliability and validity of atypical depression still remain elusive and open to further evolution. Currently available findings suggest that atypical depression has preferential response to MAOIs over TCAs. More data are required to determine the efficacy of newer agents relative to MAOIs and TCAs, although limited studies have shown a non-inferior efficacy and better tolerability of newer agents such as SSRIs compared with those of MAOIs and TCAs. Finally, future directions for research include further refinement of the diagnostic criteria for atypical depression, and clarification of the role of newer antidepressants in the treatment of this subtype with evidence from randomized, controlled trials.

Treatment of depression with atypical features: a meta-analytic approach

The present meta-analysis addressed the empirical evidence regarding the treatment of major depression with atypical features. The superiority of monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) compared with other antidepressants in the treatment of major depression with atypical features has been frequently reported. According to the CONSORT Statement, studies included in our meta-analysis had to meet several criteria, especially a double-blind, controlled condition and an operational diagnosis according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III or DSM-IV criteria, respectively. Four databases for research-based evidence were used in a systematic review: Medline, Embase, Psyndex and PsycInfo. Only eight publications met inclusion/exclusion criteria, resulting in 11 comparisons. Our results contrast an effect size of 0.45 (95% confidence interval) for a comparison of MAOIs vs. placebo with an effect size of 0.02 (95% confidence interval: - 0.10-0.14) for a comparison of MAOIs vs. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The effect size for MAOIs vs. tricyclic antidepressants was 0.27 (95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.42). MAOIs may be more effective for atypical major depressive disorder than tricyclic antidepressants. Most clinical research has been conducted on irreversible MAOIs. Additional studies testing more recently developed antidepressants (including reversible MAOIs) with an improved safety profile would be warranted. The available data are insufficient for a direct comparison between MAOIs and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Depressive subtypes and efficacy of antidepressive pharmacotherapy

Efficacy studies suggest that all kinds of treatment have similar efficacy. For instance, according to a meta-analysis from 102 randomised controlled trials in major depression, there is no overall difference in efficacy between SSRIs and TCAs. Taking into consideration the pathophysiological heterogeneity of affective disorders involving a number of neurotransmitters, the different pharmacodynamic profiles of the antidepressant compounds, and the large variety of presentations of depressive illness, it is very simplistic to suppose that all classes of antidepressants are equally effective. Meanwhile, the development of antidepressants with different mechanisms of action provides the opportunity to evaluate whether certain relevant subtypes of depressed patients, based on specific patterns of symptoms, respond preferentially to one class of antidepressants compared with another. The aim of this paper is to review the relationship between the depressive subtypes included in the DSM-IV (melancholic depression, atypical depression, bipolar depression, psychotic bipolar and dysthymia) and the efficacy of antidepressant treatment.

A comparison of active drugs for the treatment of dysthymia

BACKGROUND

Many drug treatments have been proposed for the treatment of dysthymia, but with so many potential comparisons it is not possible at the present time to determine which is the treatment of choice. There is a need to know whether the different classes of antidepressants have similar efficacy. In addition, the tolerability of treatments may be even more important, since dysthymia is a chronic condition characterised by less severe symptoms than major depression.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials comparing two or more active drug treatments for dysthymia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT and LILACS, Biological Abstracts; reference searching; personal communication; unpublished trials from pharmaceutical industry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were included. Trials had to compare at least two active drug treatments in the treatment of dysthymia. Exclusion criteria were: non-randomised studies, studies which included patients with mixed major depression/dysthymia and studies on depression/dysthymia secondary to other disorders (e.g. substance abuse).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The reviewers extracted the data independently and odds ratios, weighted mean difference and number needed to treat were estimated. The reviewers assumed that people who died or dropped out had no improvement and tested the sensitivity of the final results to this assumption.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 14 trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. All studied drugs promoted similar clinical responses, although with different side effect profiles. The evidence for TCAs and SSRIs was the most robust, considering the number of trials and participants.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The conclusion is that the choice of drug must be made based on consideration of drug-specific side effect properties.

Moclobemide: therapeutic use and clinical studies

Moclobemide is a reversible inhibitor of monoamine-oxidase-A (RIMA) and has been extensively evaluated in the treatment of a wide spectrum of depressive disorders and less extensively studied in anxiety disorders. Nearly all meta-analyses and most comparative studies indicated that in the acute management of depression this drug is more efficacious than placebo and as efficacious as tricyclic (or some heterocyclic) antidepressants or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). There is a growing evidence that moclobemide is not inferior to other antidepressants in the treatment of subtypes of depression, such as dysthymia, endogenous (unipolar and bipolar), reactive, atypical, agitated, and retarded depression as with other antidepressants limited evidence suggests that moclobemide has consistent long-term efficacy. However, more controlled studies addressing this issue are needed. For patients with bipolar depression the risk of developing mania seems to be not higher with moclobemide than with other antidepressants. The effective therapeutic dose range for moclobemide in most acute phase trials was 300 to 600 mg, divided in 2 to 3 doses. While one controlled trial and one long-term open-label study found moclobemide to be efficacious in social phobia, three controlled trials subsequently revealed either no effect or less robust effects with the tendency of higher doses (600 - 900 mg/d) to be more efficacious. Two comparative trials demonstrated moclobemide to be as efficacious as fluoxetine or clomipramine in patients suffering from panic disorder. Placebo-controlled trials in this indication are, however, still lacking. A relationship between the plasma concentration of moclobemide and its therapeutic efficacy is not apparent but a positive correlation with adverse events has been found. Dizziness, nausea and insomnia occurred more frequently on moclobemide than on placebo. Due to negligible anticholinergic and antihistaminic actions, moclobemide has been better tolerated than tri- or heterocyclic antidepressants. Gastrointestinal side effects and, especially, sexual dysfunction were much less frequent with moclobemide than with SSRIs. Unlike irreversible MAO-inhibitors, moclobemide has a negligible propensity to induce hypertensive crisis after ingestion of tyramine-rich food ("cheese-reaction"). Therefore, dietary restrictions are not as strict. However, with moclobemide doses above 900 mg/d the risk of interaction with ingested tyramine might become clinically relevant. After multiple dosing the oral bioavailability of moclobemide reaches almost 100%. At therapeutic doses, moclobemide lacks significant negative effects on psychomotor performance, cognitive function or cardiovascular system. Due to the relative freedom from these side effects, moclobemide is particularly attractive in the treatment of elderly patients. Moclobemide is a substrate of CYP2C19. Although it acts as an inhibitor of CYP1A2, CYP2C19, and CYP2D6, relatively few clinically important drug interactions involving moclobemide have been reported. It is relatively safe even in overdose. The drug has a short plasma elimination half-life that allows switching to an alternative agent within 24 h. Since it is well tolerated, therapeutic doses can often be reached rapidly upon onset of treatment. Steady-state plasma levels are reached approximately at one week following dose adjustment. Patients with renal dysfunction require no dose reduction in contrast to patients with severe hepatic impairment. Cases of refractory depression might improve with a combination of moclobemide with other antidepressants, such as clomipramine or a SSRI. Since this combination has rarely been associated with a potentially lethal serotonin syndrome, it requires lower entry doses, a slower dose titration and a more careful monitoring of patients. Combination therapy with moclobemide and other serotonergic agents, or opioids, should be undertaken with caution, although no serious adverse events have been published with therapeutic doses of moclobemide to date. On the basis of animal data the combined use of moclobemide with pethidine or dextropropoxyphene should be avoided. There is no evidence that moclobemide would increase body weight or produce seizures. Some preclinical data suggest that moclobemide may have anticonvulsant property.

A 12-week study comparing moclobemide and sertraline in the treatment of outpatients with atypical depression

One hundred and ninety-seven outpatients with atypical depression [Atypical Depression Diagnostic Scale (ADDS) score=4] were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with sertraline or moclobemide in a multicentre, parallel-group clinical trial. Patients were started on either 50 mg/day sertraline or 300 mg/day moclobemide. If the therapeutic response was not satisfactory after 4 weeks, the dose could be increased to either 100 mg/day sertraline or 450 mg/day moclobemide. Primary efficacy evaluations were the 29-item Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) response rate (much or very much improved) at study endpoint. Secondary efficacy evaluations included the ADDS, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), the Leeds Sleep Scale, and the Battelle Quality of Life Battery (BQOLB). In the analysis of the 172 patient efficacy-evaluable population, there was significant baseline to endpoint improvement in all primary and secondary efficacy assessments after treatment with either sertraline or moclobemide. At the endpoint, the proportion of responders on CGI-I, was 77.5% in the sertraline group and 67.5% in the moclobemide group (p=0.052). The baseline to endpoint mean 29-item HAM-D score decreased from 35.9 to 14.5 in the sertraline group and from 36.3 to 16.1 in the moclobemide group. Sertraline also resulted in a significantly (p < 0.05) greater degree of improvement at the endpoint, compared with moclobemide, in the proportion of remitters on the HAMA (total score < or = 7), ADDS Category IID (Rejection Sensitivity), Leeds Sleep Factor 4 (Integrity of Behaviour Following Awakening), and on three dimensions of the BQOLB (Energy/Vitality, Social Interaction and Life Satisfaction). There were no other significant differences between treatment groups. Overall, both medications were well tolerated. In this study, both sertraline and moclobemide improved the symptoms of atypical depression.

Dimensional assessment of onset of action of antidepressants: a comparative study of moclobemide vs. clomipramine in depressed patients with blunted affect and psychomotor retardation

The onset of action (during the first 2 weeks of treatment) of moclobemide (450 mg/day), a reversible MAO-A inhibitor, was compared in a double-blind, multi-center trial with clomipramine (150 mg/day) on dimensional and global depressive symptoms in 124 hospitalized patients suffering from a major depressive episode according to DSM-III-R criteria and with blunted affect and retardation. An earlier efficacy was found for moclobemide with significant treatment differences in favor of moclobemide, which were detected on negative symptoms (anhedonia, blunted affect and retardation) on days 7 and 10. The overall effect on depression at the end of the 4-week trial period was similar in both groups. However, a higher termination rate due to lack of efficacy was found with moclobemide (10 vs. 3). The tolerability was significantly better for moclobemide, as shown by the lower frequency of adverse events.

The Major Depression Rating Scale (MDS). Inter-rater reliability and validity across different settings in randomized moclobemide trials. Danish University Antidepressant Group

The Major Depression Rating Scale (MDS) has been derived from the Hamilton Depression Scale and the Melancholia Scale. The MDS contains the nine DSM-IV items for major depression which all have anchoring scores from 0 to 4; hence, the theoretical score range is up to 36. The Major Depression Rating Scale has in this study been psychometrically analysed in randomized moclobemide trials. The results showed that the MDS had higher internal validity than the Hamilton Depression Scale. Thus, the homogeneity of the items was higher; factor analysis identified only one general depression factor (after 4 weeks of treatment explaining more than 50% of the variance). The inter-rater reliability of the two scales was of the same high level. The ability to measure changes (external validity) was tested in randomized clinical trials with moclobemide versus tricyclics (clomipramine and notriptyline) performed in Denmark in the psychiatric setting as well as in the general practice. The results showed that in the psychiatric setting tricyclics were superior to moclobemide with effect sizes ranging between 0.43 and 0.53. The highest effect size was obtained with the Melancholia Scale and the Major Depression Rating Scale, while the Hamilton Depression Scale was below 0.50. In the general practice setting no difference was found between moclobemide and clomipramine. In conclusion, the Major Depression Rating Scale has been found to have a more homogeneous factor structure than the Hamilton Depression Scale, but still with the same level of reliability and external validity. However, studies are needed to standardize the scale, especially in the general practice setting.

The validity of atypical depression in DSM-IV

Atypical depression has been included in the DSM-IV as an episode specifier of major depressive episodes and dysthymia. This report will review evidence for the clinical validity of atypical depression using operational criteria for the validation of clinical syndromes. English language articles between 1969 and March 1996 were found using a computerized and manual reference search and were selected according to the following criteria: (1) primary research, (2) definition of atypical depression, which includes depression and not anxiety alone, and (3) relevance of data for validation of atypical depression. Studies were evaluated on Kendall's six criteria for establishing clinical validity. There are supporting data for diagnostic validity of atypical depression in the criteria of clinical description and differential treatment response, with atypical depression having a superior response to monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitors compared to tricyclic antidepressants. There is still only limited support for the validity of atypical depression in the criteria of pathophysiology, points of rarity with other similar diagnoses, distinctive course and outcome, and genetics. Based on the current evidence, atypical depression is a useful diagnostic concept, particularly for predicting differential drug response, but further research is required to conclusively demonstrate its validity as a clinical syndrome.

Antidepressant deaths by overdose

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of antidepressant deaths in South Australia, the relative frequency of each antidepressant used and demographic data of those who died.

METHOD

This was a retrospective, case note study of all cases where death was caused by lethal levels of antidepressants in South Australia for the period from 1986 to 1990. The study occurred at the South Australian coroner's office. Subjects were selected from toxicology data, where serum or liver levels of one or more antidepressant were in the lethal range.

RESULTS

Seventy-one cases were identified and information was obtained on 68 of these cases from the coroner's files. Amitriptyline, Doxepin and Dothiepin accounted for the majority of antidepressant deaths. Women were 2.5 times more likely to use antidepressants to suicide than men. At least 63% had a known psychiatric illness and 45% had previously attempted suicide.

CONCLUSIONS

The older tricyclic antidepressants are a significant cause of suicide. It is recommended that the newer antidepressants, which are as efficacious yet safer in overdose, be prescribed in preference to the older tricyclic antidepressants, as the first line of treatment in newly diagnosed depressed outpatients.

Moclobemide versus clomipramine in nonmelancholic, nonpsychotic major depression. A Study group

The efficacy and the safety of moclobemide (400-600 mg/day), a reversible and selective inhibitor of monoamine oxidase-A (RIMA) and of clomipramine (100-150 mg/day) were compared respectively in 98 and 93 nonmelancholic, nonpsychotic out-patients with a DSM-III major depressive episode over 6 weeks and up to 3 months, in a multi-center double-blind trial. No statistically significant difference between the treatments was found on the number of responders, at 6 weeks and 3 months, to the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), which was the main criterion for efficacy. The sample size was sufficient to detect a difference of approximatively 20% in response rates. Reduction of the total scores on HDRS and Covi anxiety scale was comparable for both treatments, but the reduction on the Retardation Depressive Scale (RDS) was significantly higher with moclobemide at the 1- and 2-week assessments. According to the RDS as well as the global impression of both patient and physician, a somewhat earlier onset of antidepressant action was evident in the moclobemide group. Tolerance was significantly better in the moclobemide group, mainly due to a lower frequency of weight gain, sedation and anticholinergic effects.

Moclobemide versus clomipramine in depressed patients in general practice. A randomized, double-blind, parallel, multicenter study

In a double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial in general practice, lasting 7 weeks, a fixed dose of moclobemide (400 mg daily) was compared with a fixed dose of clomipramine (150 mg daily). A total of 147 patients with DSM-III-R major depression were included in the study. After a 1-week drug-free washout period, patients were stratified, according to total scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), into two groups--HAM-D total scores, 11 to 15 points, and HAM-D total scores, 16 points or more. A comparison of the therapeutic effect of the two treatments was based on HAM-D total scores and the classification of patients into therapeutic response categories defined on the basis of total rating score, complete response, HAM-D < or = 7 points; partial response, HAM-D, 8 to 15 points; or no response, HAM-D > or = 16 points. The Newcastle Diagnostic Rating Scale (1965) was used to classify the patients into two groups, endogenous and nonendogenous. Adverse events were registered by use of the UKU side effect scale. Clinical global assessments of severity, efficacy, and tolerance were completed during the active treatment period. Compliance to treatment was based on levels of the drugs in plasma and the number of returned capsules. One hundred forty-two patients were evaluated for clinical effects. The results of the efficacy analyses showed therapeutic equivalence between moclobemide and clomipramine. There were no differences in the outcome of the two treatment groups or the two diagnostic groups (endogenous and nonendogenous).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Clinical efficacy of reversible and selective inhibitors of monoamine oxidase A in major depression

This article reviews efficacy studies of the reversible selective inhibitor of monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A) moclobemide, which has now received extensive evaluation. Placebo-controlled trials have shown it clearly to be effective. In comparisons with tricyclic and similar antidepressants and with serotonin reuptake inhibitors, it has been found of equal efficacy to these standard drugs. Because of previous suggestions that older MAO inhibitors are particularly effective in depressions characterized as atypical, the effects in subtypes are of particular interest. The evidence indicates that moclobemide is effective in typical severe depression with melancholia rather than being limited to less typical subtypes.

Studies of reversible and selective inhibitors of monoamine oxidase A in dysthymia

Dysthymia is a relatively common disorder and is frequently associated with other mental conditions such as major depression and anxiety. A number of controlled and uncontrolled studies have indicated that conventional as well as more recent antidepressants such as moclobemide, a selective, reversible inhibitor of monoamine oxidase (MAOI), may be effective in dysthymia and dysthymia-like disorders. However, assessment of the results of previous studies is confounded by the relative lack of standards in diagnostic criteria, outcome measures, dosage and duration of treatment. Applying DSM-III-R criteria, the efficacy of moclobemide in dysthymia has been confirmed in a significant study from South America, and other comparable studies are under way. The potential role of selective, reversible MAOIs such as moclobemide can be more firmly established when results of additional investigations have become available.

Moclobemide and nortriptyline in elderly depressed patients. A randomized, multicentre trial against placebo

Moclobemide and nortriptyline were compared with placebo in a double-blind randomized multinational (Canada, Denmark and UK) trial comprising 109 patients of > 60 years of age with major depression (DSM-III-R). Patients were randomized to 7 weeks of treatment with doses of 400 mg/day moclobemide, 75 mg/day nortriptyline or placebo. It was necessary to adjust nortriptyline dosage in < 20% of patients to maintain serum levels within the postulated therapeutic window of 50-170 ng/ml. At end of treatment, the remission rates were 23% for moclobemide, 33% for nortriptyline and 11% for placebo. Anticholinergic and orthostatic events occurred more often with patients on nortriptyline than either moclobemide or placebo.

Moclobemide and fluoxetine in atypical depression: a double-blind trial

The effectiveness of moclobemide or fluoxetine in the treatment of atypical (n = 53) and other depressive patients (n = 156) was compared in a 6-week double-blind randomized trial. HDRS, MARDS, GCI and the Atypical Depression Diagnostic Scale were used in clinical assessment. Significant differences were seen in MADRS and GCI scores in favour of moclobemide in the treatment of atypical depression, but not with HDRS. No major differences were seen between the two drugs in the treatment of other depressive patients. A positive response, defined by a > 50% decrease in HDRS score and a GCI Improvement Score of 1 or 2, was seen among 67% of atypical patients treated with moclobemide and among 55% treated with fluoxetine and in 60 and 48% of other depressive patients, respectively. Both drugs gave results with atypical patients at least as good as with other depressive patients. Our results suggest that patients suffering from atypical depression may respond more favourably to moclobemide than to fluoxetine treatment.

A blinded, controlled evaluation of anxiety and depressive symptoms in patients with fibromyalgia, as measured by standardized psychometric interview scales

The objective of the study was to evaluate the presence of psychopathology in fibromyalgia patients compared with a control group of other rheumatologic patients with pain. Forty-nine fibromyalgia patients and 33 control patients were interviewed blinded, using standardized psychometric scales. Pain was scored on a visual analogue scale. Fibromyalgia patients scored significantly higher than the controls on the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale, the Atypical Depression Scale and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale. On the Newcastle Depression Scale there was no difference. In both groups a correlation was found between pain score and psychometric scoring. The fibromyalgia patients scored significantly higher on pain than the controls. After correcting for this difference, the fibromyalgia patients still scored higher on anxiety and depression.

Moclobemide: a reversible MAO-A-inhibitor showing weaker antidepressant effect than clomipramine in a controlled multicenter study. Danish University Antidepressant Group

Antidepressant and unwanted effects of moclobemide (400 mg/day) and clomipramine (150 mg/day) were compared in a double-blind, randomised, in-patient, fixed-dose study with weekly ratings and drug level measurements. After 1 week of single-blind placebo treatment, 115 patients with major depression fulfilled the criterion of a Hamilton Depression Scale (17-item, HDS) score of > or = 18 and were started on active treatment for 6 weeks. Drop-outs on moclobemide (n = 20) were in particular due to worsening and suicidality (n = 9) whereas drop-outs on clomipramine (n = 12) in particular were due to side effects/adverse events (n = 6) and no drop-outs due to worsening. End-point analysis on the basis of different depression ratings showed consistently a significantly weaker effect of moclobemide (final median HDS: 15) compared with clomipramine (final median HDS: 11). The difference involved both sleep and depression symptoms. These results are generally at variance with the main body of literature on moclobemide, although a higher frequency of drop-out due to worsening in moclobemide-treated patients compared to tricyclic antidepressant-treated patients has been reported in several studies.

Plasma amino acid profiles in relation to clinical response to moclobemide in patients with major depression. Danish University Antidepressant Group

With the aim of identifying predictors of treatment response, plasma levels of tryptophan (Trp) and tyrosine (Tyr) pretreatment and during treatment, and their ratios in plasma to the sum of the other large neutral amino acids (LNAA), were determined in 26 inpatients with major depression. The subjects were treated double-blind on a fixed-dose schedule for 4 weeks with the monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitor moclobemide. The study took place at 4 clinical centers. Endogenous and nonendogenous depressives were comparable in all biochemical variables and were therefore analysed together. The levels of plasma Trp/LNAA were decreased pretreatment and during treatment in the depressives compared with healthy controls. No significant correlation between plasma amino acid levels or ratios, or plasma moclobemide level, and clinical improvement was found, and there were no indications of a specific plasma amino acid profile associating with a favourable clinical response. Endogenous depressives showed significantly greater improvement than nonendogenous depressives; however, neither subgroup showed significant correlations between biochemical and clinical variables. The findings are at variance with a series of studies, which showed significant correlations between plasma amino acid ratios and clinical improvement on a variety of antidepressant treatments.