Double-blind, multicenter comparison of sertraline and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. Amoxapine and amitriptyline: serum levels and clinical response in patients with primary unipolar depression. Double-blind multicenter study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed inpatients. Is anxious-agitated major depression responsive to fluoxetine? A double-blind comparison with amitriptyline. Double-blind, multicenter comparative study of sertraline and amitriptyline in hospitalized patients with major depression. Amitriptyline in depressive states:a controlled trial. Double-blind comparison of nortriptyline and amitriptyline in depressive illness. A multicentre double blind trial of fluoxetine versus amitriptyline in the treatment of depressive illness. A comparison of two drug treatments in depressive illness. A double-blind study to compare trazodone with amitriptyline in depressed patients. A controlled comparison of trimipramine and amitriptyline. Viloxazine and amitriptyline in depressive illness. A double blind controlled trial in general practice. Fluoxetine compared with amitriptyline in elderly depression: a controlled clinical trial. Clomipramine and amitriptyline in depressed outpatients. A controlled study. [A new antidepressive agent: C 34,276-Ba or maprotyline, 1st tetracyclic thymoanaleptic. Clinical study]. Costs and outcomes of use of amitriptyline, citalopram and fluoxetine in major depression: exploratory study. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the effects of sertraline versus amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression. Treatment of anxiety/depressive conditions in the elderly: a double-blind comparative study of Motival and amitriptyline. Amoxapine versus amitriptyline for continuation therapy of depression. [Lofepramine: a comparative clinical study with amitriptyline]. Perspectives in clinical psychopharmacology of amitriptyline and fluvoxamine. A double-blind study in depressed inpatients. Doxepin and amitriptyline-perphenazine in mixed anxious-depressed neurotic outpatients: a collaborative controlled study. A comparison of maprotiline and amitriptyline in the treatment of depression in general practice. Tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of depressions. A double-blind clinical comparison of clomipramine (Anafranil) and amitriptyline. A multinational, double-blind trial with a new antidepressant maprotiline (Ludiomil) and amitriptyline. [Monitoring of the treatment of endogenous depression with imipramine and amitriptyline (preliminary report)]. A comparison study of amitriptyline and nortriptyline with plasma levels. A multicenter double-blind trial of paroxetine versus amitriptyline in depressed inpatients. A controlled trial of maprotiline (Ludiomil) in depressed outpatients. A double-blind comparison of dothiepin and amitriptyline in patients with primary affective disorder: serum levels and clinical response. A re-examination of the clinical effects of imipramine and amitriptyline in depressive illness. Preliminary double-blind clinical trial with a new antidepressive doxepin. Comparison of the tolerability and efficacy of citalopram and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients treated in general practice. Viloxazine in the treatment of endogenous depression. A standard (amitriptyline) controlled clinical study. Tianeptine and amitriptyline. Controlled double-blind trial in depressed alcoholic patients. A controlled trial of maprotiline (Ludiomil) and amitriptyline in general practice. Fluoxetine vs amitriptyline in the treatment of depressed out-patients. Trazodone in the treatment of neurotic depression. A comparison of the onset of action and therapeutic efficacy of amoxapine and amitriptyline. Comparison of the efficacy of sustained-release amitriptyline with maprotiline in the treatment of depressive illness. A double-blind sequential comparison of doxepin with amitriptyline in depressed patients. Trazodone and amitriptyline in treatment of depressed inpatients. A double-blind study. A comparison of amitriptyline and a fluphenazine/nortriptyline preparation in anxiety-depressive states. [Comparative clinical study of nomifensine and amitriptyline in the treatment of endogenous depression]. COMPARATIVE TRIAL OF NORTRIPTYLINE AND AMITRIPTYLINE. Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity and tricyclic response in major depression. Alprazolam, amitriptyline, doxepin, and placebo in the treatment of depression. Controlled clinical trial of a new antidepressant (Org. GB 94) of novel chemical formulation. Trazodone in depressed outpatients. The efficacy and safety of tianeptine in the treatment of depressive disorder: results of a controlled double-blind multicentre study vs. amitriptyline. A comparison of maprotiline (Ludiomil) and amitriptyline (1). A double-blind comparison of a new antidepressant, protryptiline, with imipramine and amitryptiline. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing mianserin and amitriptyline in moderately depressed outpatients. Double-blind, multicenter comparative study of sertraline versus amitriptyline in outpatients with major depression. Clinical evaluation of the antidepressants: maprotiline and amitriptyline. A double-blind controlled trial. Does lofepramine have fewer side effects than amitriptyline? Results of a comparative trial. Double-blind comparative study of the antidepressant, unwanted and cardiac effects of minaprine and amitriptyline. A controlled trial of antidepressant medication in elderly in-patients. Minaprine in depression. A controlled trial with amitriptyline. Treatment of severe depressive illness: a double-blind comparison of mianserin and long-acting amitriptyline. Antidepressant response to tricyclics and urinary MHPG in unipolar patients. Clinical response to imipramine or amitriptyline. A double-blind comparative trial with mianserin and amitriptyline in outpatients with major depressive disorders. Comparative effects of amitriptyline and amineptine in patients affected by anxious depression. A double-blind trial with amitriptyline and lofepramine in the treatment of endogenous depression. Comparative effects of fluoxetine and amitriptyline on cardiac function. Dopaminergic agonist nomifensine compared with amitriptyline: a double-blind clinical trial in acute primary depressions. Doxepin versus amitriptyline in depression: a sequential double-blind study. A comparison of desipramine and amitriptyline plasma levels and therapeutic response. Paroxetine in the treatment of elderly depressed patients in general practice: a double-blind comparison with amitriptyline. [Psychotropic drugs in medical practice. Double-blind studies of lofepramine against amitriptyline]. A general practitioner double-blind study of dothiepin hydrochloride ('Prothiaden') and amitriptyline in depression. A double blind comparative trial of viloxazine and amitriptyline in patients suffering from endogenous depression. Blood levels of mianserin and amitriptyline and clinical response in aged depressed patients. The comparative antidepressant value of lofepramine and amitriptyline. Results of a controlled trial with comments on the scales used. A double-blind study of dothiepin hydrochloride (Prothiaden) and amitriptyline in out-patients with masked depression. A comparative double-blind controlled study of trimipramine and amitriptyline in major depression: lack of correlation with 5-hydroxytryptamine reuptake blockade. Urinary MHPG excretion and treatment with desipramine or amitriptyline: prediction of response, effect of treatment, and methodological hazards. Efficacy of tianeptine in anxious-depressed patients: results of a controlled multicenter trial versus amitriptyline. A double-blind multicentre study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed outpatients. Italian Paroxetine Study Group. Clinical activity and tolerability of trazodone, mianserin, and amitriptyline in elderly subjects with major depression: a controlled multicenter trial. Double-blind clinical trial of the antidepressant action of amineptine. Amoxapine and amitriptyline in the outpatient treatment of endogenous depression. Double-blind trial of sustained-release amitriptyline compared with viloxazine in moderate to severe depressive illness. A comparative study of amoxapine and amitriptyline for depressive illness. d-AMPHETAMINE AS A PREDICTOR FOR RESPONSE TO IMIPRAMINE AND AMITRIPTYLINE. A comparison of nortriptyline and amitriptyline in depression. [Single-blind comparative study between patients with ludiomil (Ciba 34,276-Ba) and its evaluation with Hamilton's scale]. Paroxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of depression in general practice. A behavioral and clinical evaluation of two psychotropic agents: doxepin-hydrochloride and perphenazine-amitriptylin hydrochloride. Acute, subchronic and withdrawal sleep EEG changes during treatment with paroxetine and amitriptyline: a double-blind randomized trial in major depression. A comparative trial of doxepin and amitriptyline in depressive illness. Experimental comparison between the effect of standardized trazodone-amitriptyline and placebo treatment in vitalized depressive patients. A double-blind trial of maprotiline (Ludiomil) and amitriptyline in depressed outpatients. Amitriptyline and nortriptyline response profiles in unipolar depressed patients. Comparison of effects of desipramine and amitriptyline on EEG sleep of depressed patients. Multicenter double blind study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed inpatients. A comparative clinical trial of mianserin (Norval) and amitriptyline in the treatment of depression in general practice. A double-blind, comparative clinical trial with ludiomil (CIBA 34,276-Ba) and amitriptyline in newly admitted depressed patients. Mianserin versus amitriptyline for depression: a double-blind 6-week trial. Imipramine and amitriptyline plasma concentrations and clinical response in major depression. An evaluation of fluphenazine with nortriptyline in anxiety and depression. A comparative trial of amitriptyline and trimipramine in the treatment of depression. A double-blind, multicentre study to assess the tolerability and efficacy of paroxetine compared with amitriptyline in the treatment of depressed patients in Australian general practice. A double-blind comparative clinical study of amoxapine and amitriptyline in depressed, hospitalised patients. A double-blind comparison of dothiepin and amitriptyline for the treatment of depression with anxiety. A comparison of the antidepressant action of citalopram and amitriptyline. Clinical comparative evaluation of maprotiline, a new antidepressant drug. A multicentre study. Amoxapine versus amitriptyline combined with perphenazine in the treatment of psychotic depression. Three double-blind comparative trials of mianserine (ORG GB 94) and amitriptyline in the treatment of depressive illness. A double-blind controlled study of clinical efficacy of maprotiline and amitriptyline in depression. A comparison of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression. Dexamethasone suppression test status does not predict differential response to nortriptyline versus amitriptyline. Reduced REM latency predicts response to tricyclic medication in depressed outpatients. The drug treatment of depression in general practice: a comparison of nocte administration of trazodone with mianserin, dothiepin and amitriptyline. A controlled study of mianserin in moderately to severely depressed outpatients. Mianserin in the treatment of depressive illness: a comparison with amitriptyline. [Comparative clinical study of the association of chlordiazepoxide-amitriptyline and maprotiline in patients suffering from depression with anxiety components]. [Clinical and comparative trial of dosulepin and amitriptyline]. A controlled study of the efficacy and safety of mianserin and amitriptyline in depressive inpatients. Once-daily treatment for mixed anxiety/depressive states: a comparison of slow release amitriptyline and fluphenazine with nortriptyline. Clinical evaluation of doxepin and amitriptyline in depressed patients. Clinical assessment and performance tasks in depression: a comparison of amitriptyline and trazodone. Pharmacokinetics and efficacy of maprotiline and amitriptyline in endogenous depression: a double-blind controlled trial. An evaluation of trazodone in the treatment of depression. A comparison of maprotiline (Ludiomil) and amitriptyline (2). A single-blind comparative study of once daily dothiepin ("Prothiaden") and divided daily doses of amitriptyline. A double-blind study of the comparative antidepressant effect of paroxetine and amitriptyline. [Therapy of elderly depressive patients. Lofepramine and amitriptyline under double-blind conditions]. A COMPARATIVE TRIAL OF IMIPRAMINE, AMITRIPTYLINE, ISOCARBOXAZID AND TRANYLCYPROMINE IN OUT-PATIENT DEPRESSIVE ILLNESS. Clinical evaluation of doxepin in anxious depressed outpatients. Antidepressant efficacy of sertraline: a double-blind, placebo- and amitriptyline-controlled, multicenter comparison study in outpatients with major depression. Amitriptyline-perphenazine and doxepin in depressed outpatients: a controlled double-blind study. Trazodone. A comparative clinical and predictive study. Which tricyclic for depressed outpatients, imipramine pamoate or amitriptyline? Double-bind comparison of maprotiline with amitriptyline in the treatment of depressive illness. A controlled double-blind clinical trial between maprotiline and amitriptyline in depressive illness. Amoxapine versus amitriptyline in endogenous depression. A double-blind study. Maprotiline-a double-blind study of a new tetracyclic antidepressant in severe depression. A double-blind study of minaprine versus amitriptyline in major depression. A double-blind evaluation of trazodone in the treatment of depression in the elderly. A double-blind comparison of citalopram (Lu 10-171) and amitriptyline in depressed patients. Paroxetine in the treatment of depression--a randomized comparison with amitriptyline. A double-blind clinical trial of mianserin versus amitriptyline: differentiation by adverse symptomatology. Double-blind comparative study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed patients of a university psychiatric outpatient clinic (pilot study). Fluoxetine versus amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression with associated anxiety (anxious depression): a double-blind comparison.
Two hundred forty-one elderly depressed patients entered the 8-week, double-blind phase of this parallel-group, multicenter study; 161 patients were randomized to receive sertraline (50-200 mg/day) and 80 were randomized to receive amitriptyline (50-150 mg/day). Among evaluable patients, there were no statistically significant differences between treatments in any of the primary efficacy variables: change in total Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score (17 items), percentage change in HAM-D score, change in HAM-D Item 1, change in Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Severity score, change in the Depression Factor of the 56-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist, and the CGI Improvement score at the last visit. Similar results were obtained using data from all patients (intention-to-treat analysis), except that amitriptyline was superior in HAM-D Total score (p = .044). The two drugs produced a similar degree of response: on the basis of the HAM-D criterion, 69.4% of sertraline patients and 62.5% of amitriptyline patients responded, and, on the basis of CGI criterion, 79.5% of sertraline and 73.4% of amitriptyline patients responded. Twenty-eight percent of the sertraline patients withdrew from the study because of a treatment-related side effect and 2.5% (4) because of a laboratory abnormality. In comparison, 35% of the amitriptyline patients withdrew because of treatment-related side effects. Sertraline was associated with a statistically lower frequency of somnolence, dry mouth, constipation, ataxia, and pain and a higher frequency of nausea, anorexia, diarrhea/loose stools, and insomnia; thus, anticholinergic effects were less common and gastrointestinal effects were more common with sertraline than with amitriptyline.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Amoxapine, a new antidepressant of the dibenzoxazepine class, was compared with amitriptyline in 80 patients with primary unipolar depressive disorders. In a four-week double-blind trial, the two medications were equally effective and had similar onsets of therapeutic action. The range of side effects was similar, although there was a trend for fewer side effects in the amoxapine group. Serum levels were not related to therapeutic response for either medication. Paroxetine is a new compound in the group of the selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors. The results of several open and double-blind control-group studies demonstrate clear antidepressive efficacy of paroxetine. However, most data were collected in samples of outpatients. To overcome this restriction, a six-week double-blind control-group study, comparing 30 mg paroxetine with 150 mg amitriptyline per day, was performed in a sample of inpatients suffering from major depression. Generally speaking, the efficacy analysis of 160 patients was not able to demonstrate statistically significant differences in the antidepressive activity of paroxetine or amitriptyline, either with respect to the total score on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) and the Clinical Global Impressions or with respect to the subscores of the HAMD. One exception was the retardation subscore, in which amitriptyline showed a greater degree of reduction. Both drugs had a characteristic side-effect profile. Paroxetine was characterized by a lack of anticholinergic side-effects and a higher rate of nausea. Whether fluoxetine (FX) is effective in the treatment of anxious depression is still debated. In the present study, after one week of placebo (single blind), 142 outpatients affected by major depression with relevant anxiety and agitation were randomly assigned (double blind) to either FX (20 mg/day) (n. 67) or amitriptyline (AM) (daily dose: 115+/-39.2mg) (n.75) for a period of 10 weeks. Between groups, the mean score of Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) was significantly different only after 3 weeks of treatment (AM 14.7+/-5.7 vs FX 17.3+/-6.2 (p = 0.02), whereas at the end of the trial it was similar (AM 8.15+/-6.9; FX 8.96+/-6.6). At each visit, no significant difference between groups was found regarding the scores of the HRSD items "psychic anxiety", "somatic anxiety", "agitation". Furthermore, the FIX treatment did not increase the scores of the items "suicide", "psychic anxiety", "somatic anxiety", "agitation" and "insomnia". These findings suggest that patients affected by major depression with anxiety and/or agitation were effectively and safely treated with FX without increasing risks. Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) for which marketing approval has been obtained recently in Germany. The results of several double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that sertraline has a clear antidepressive effect. However these studies have been conducted in outpatient populations. In the context of this multicenter study, a total of 160 inpatients were treated with sertraline 50-150 mg or amitriptyline 75-225 mg over a period of 6 weeks in a double-blind fashion. Sixty-two patients in the sertraline and 59 patients in the amitriptyline group were evaluated for efficacy in the according-to-protocol (ATP) population; 80 sertraline and 75 amitriptyline patients were evaluated for safety in the Intention-to-treat population (ITT). No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups in the efficacy analysis performed on the basis of the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) total score and Clinical Global Impression (CGI). Due to its sedating properties, amitriptyline was found to be significantly more effective with regard to the HAM-D factor "sleep disturbance". The safety analysis, which was based on the CGI, the global assessment at the end of study and a score for somatic adverse events (FSUCL) revealed statistically significant advantages of sertraline over amitriptyline. Amitriptyline was associated with more autonomic and circulatory side effects, while epigastric complaints occurred more often with sertraline. The incidence of nausea - a typical SSRI side effect - was the same in both groups. nan nan The antidepressant efficacy and side effect profile of a fixed dose of 20 mg/day of fluoxetine, a specific serotonin reuptake inhibitor, were compared to those of amitriptyline. Fifty-eight patients with DSM-III-R depression were randomly assigned to receive either fluoxetine or amitriptyline. Fifty-six patients (fluoxetine N = 23, amitriptyline N = 23) completed the 6 week study. Comparable antidepressant efficacy was demonstrated for the two drugs. Patients taking fluoxetine reported less side-effects than those taking amitriptyline. nan nan Depressed patients seen in a private psychiatric practice (N = 41) were randomly assigned to receive trimipramine or amitriptyline over a study period of at least 4 weeks. Patients in both groups showed significant improvement over time on measures of mood and depression, and on psychological scales. Only one variable, the global improvement rating, showed a significant overall between-groups difference, which favored amitriptyline treatment. This difference may reflect the presence of significantly less baseline symptomatology in the amitriptyline group. Trimipramine patients were more seriously ill on initial diagnosis and showed significantly more improvement at week 2 than amitriptyline patients and a trend toward fewer side effects. Thus, trimipramine may be useful for patients particularly sensitive to side effects in whom evidence of early response is important. nan Twenty-eight elderly inpatients suffering from major depressive episodes (diagnosed according to DSM III) received randomly, on a double-blind basis, amitriptyline (75 mg/die) or fluoxetine (20 mg/die) for five weeks. There were four drop-outs in the amitriptyline group and two drop-outs in the fluoxetine group. Both groups showed a significant amelioration at the end point for Hamilton Rating Scale of Depression scores compared to the baseline value. Anticholinergic side-effects were significantly more severe in the amitriptyline group. Weight gain was detected only in patients receiving amitriptyline. nan nan The increasing cost of pharmaceuticals in the Czech Republic has led to the restriction on prescriptions of expensive new antidepressants. The aim of the study was to compare the costs and outcomes of using amitriptyline, citalopram and fluoxetine in the treatment of major depression.
                Ninety patients (69 women) with a mean age of 44.5 years (S.D. = 14.3) suffering from major depression were treated with amitriptyline (N = 31), citalopram (N = 29) and fluoxetine (N = 30). Direct medical costs and effectiveness (indicated by the number of hospitalization-free days) were assessed in a prospective, open, intent-to-treat study.
                Neither cost nor effectiveness were significantly different among the treatment groups.
                Amitriptyline treatment is not less expensive nor more effective than citalopram or fluoxetine therapies. There is no advantage in restricting patients from treatment with SSRIs, which have fewer adverse effects and a decreased risk of a lethal overdosage in comparison with tricyclic antidepressants. This study was designed to compare the efficacy, safety, tolerability profiles, and effects on quality of life of the serotonin selective reuptake inhibitor antidepressant sertraline versus the nonselective tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline and placebo in patients with major depression.
                Outpatients with DSM-III-R major depression were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 8 weeks with sertraline (50-200 mg daily), amitriptyline (50-150 mg daily), or matching placebo. Assessments included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale, Global Assessment Scale, Profile of Mood States, Beck Depression Inventory, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Health-Related Quality of Life battery.
                All treatment groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement from baseline in depression ratings by Week 1 and thereafter. The antidepressant effects of amitriptyline and sertraline were significantly (p < .05) greater than placebo and did not differ significantly from each other. Sertraline was associated with significantly (p < .05) greater subjective (i.e., patient-rated) improvement in mood than amitriptyline or placebo. Both active drugs were associated with greater improvements than placebo on most quality of life measurements. On several items, sertraline, but not amitriptyline, was superior to placebo. There was a discernible effect of sertraline earlier than amitriptyline on most quality of life scales. Amitriptyline therapy was associated with significantly more treatment-related adverse events, and discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events, in comparison to both sertraline and placebo therapy.
                Sertraline and amitriptyline each were effective treatments for major depression as assessed by both physician- and patient-rated scales. These results show that sertraline therapy is better tolerated than amitriptyline therapy. Quality of life was also improved by effective antidepressant treatment, with sertraline showing a tendency to produce greater improvements on quality of life measures. A double-blind two-group comparison of fluphenazine/nortriptyline (F/N) with amitriptyline in 72 patients aged 65 or over suffering from mixed states of anxiety and depression, each treated for four weeks, showed F/N to be significantly superior to amitriptyline by Day 7 in terms of patients' self-ratings and clinicians' ratings. Patients' preference for F/N was even more pronounced by Day 28 (P less than 0.001), when the improvement in symptoms relating to depression was rated by the clinicians as significantly greater for the patients receiving F/N (P less than 0.025). The incidence of drowsiness was significantly greater (P less than 0.05) in the amitriptyline group than the F/N group. The implications of these results for the treatment of emotional disturbances in the elderly are discussed. The efficacy of continuation therapy with tricyclic antidepressants has been established in a number of controlled trials. This study investigated the efficacy of continuation therapy with a relatively new antidepressant, amoxapine, using a double-blind controlled comparison with amitriptyline. Subjects met DSM-III criteria for major depressive disorder and were randomized to treatment with either amoxapine 400 mg (N = 47) or amitriptyline 300 mg (N = 45). The acute phase lasted up to 8 weeks. Responders were continued on the same drug at the same dose for a 16-week continuation phase. Some measures found more rapid onset for amitriptyline, which is inconsistent with findings from some prior studies. Amitriptyline was more effective in inducing full recovery. There was a trend for higher relapse rates on amoxapine, perhaps related to the fact that there were more partial responders entering continuation therapy from this group. Side effect rates were equivalent in the two drugs. However, physicians rated amoxapine's side effects as more frequently interfering with its therapeutic effect. These data suggest that amoxapine does not offer any clear advantage over amitriptyline for continuation therapy in patients who have major depressive disorder. Of potential clinical relevance is the finding that achieving full recovery in the acute phase may reduce the likelihood of relapse in the continuation phase, regardless of the type of antidepressant medication prescribed. Lofepramine, a new tricycle antidepressant, is compared with amitriptyline in a double-blind study. A brief pharmacological description of the drug is made emphasizing its low toxicity and anticholinergic peripheral effects, high plasmatic concentration levels and good tolerance and elimination in comparison with some other known tricycle antidepressants. Sixty depressive outpatients of a Mental Health Service in Lima, 5 male and 55 female, aging 16 to 65, 29 endogenous and 31 neurotic were studied with both drugs in a equimolar dosage. Through the chi square test, no statistical significance was found in maximal therapeutic response, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores, type of depression, and side-effects xerostomy which is lesser with lofepramine. A discussion of these results is made and it is concluded that in the present study lofepramine compared with amitriptyline has a similar therapeutic effect. Though not statistically significant, lofepramine seems to be better for neurotic depression and patients sensitive to anticholinergic side-effects. The efficacy of fluvoxamine was compared to that of amitriptyline in a double-blind 6-week fixed-dose trial of 56 inpatients with major depressive episode. The two drugs were comparable in their antidepressant efficacy. We tested the percentage of improvement in Hamilton-D scores during the first and the second weeks of treatment as predictors of efficacy for the last week. Improvement rates during the second week significantly predicted the outcome. We also investigated whether or not some symptomatological characteristics would permit prior prediction of the outcome with amitriptyline or fluvoxamine, dividing our sample into responders and nonresponders to the two drugs. The four groups showed differences in their symptomatological profiles. nan nan The clinical efficacy of oral clomipramine and amitriptyline treatment (50--125 mg/day) was compared over a period of 2 months in 72 depressive patients visiting a psychiatric out-patient clinic. Both drugs were equally effective as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. According to a nurse's independent evaluation of 13 items the two drugs were equipotent in relieving depressive symptoms and no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups were found in the global evaluation by the investigator and the patient. A trend in favour of clomipramine was, however, seen in several parameters. The declines in the Hamilton Rating Scale scores and the nurse's evaluation scores were highly significant during the first 2 weeks of treatment (P less than 0.001) in both groups and the scores continued to decrease during the 2nd month of the study. The most common unwanted effects were dryness of the mouth and fatigue. The frequency of side effects was 51% in the clomipramine group and 43% in the amitriptyline group. The side effects were generally mild and transient and called for discontinuation of treatment in only one case in each group. nan Monitored treatment of a depressed phase of unipolar affective disorder was conducted in 11 female patients receiving imipramine and in 12 females taking amitriptyline. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the drug and in 6 patients the drugs were switched because of the lack of response to the first used compound. In the imipramine treated group a satisfactory response after 4 weeks of management (less than 6 points on Hamilton's depression scale) was observed in 6 patients and in amitriptyline treated group in 5 patients. Patients displaying a satisfactory response to amitryptyline had significantly higher--as compared to remaining patients in the group--plasma levels of the drug after two and four weeks of treatment. Such an association was not observed in patients treated wtih imipramine. Severity of depression and motor retardation before the treatment was similar both in patients with satisfactory and with poor response to imipramine as well as to amitriptyline. However the intensity of anxiety symptoms was higher in patients exhibiting poor response to treatment with amitriptyline and imipramine as well. Forty-one depressed outpatients were treated for six weeks after random assignment to amitriptyline hydrochloride (N = 22) or nortriptyline hydrochloride (N = 19). On a mean daily dose of 119 mg, amitriptyline-treated patients had a mean tricyclic level (amitriptyline plus nortriptyline) of 120 ng/ml. Nortriptyline-treated patients on a mean dose of 117 mg/day had a mean nortriptyline level of 141 ng/ml. The two drugs were equally effective in the treatment of depression. The correlation between the Hamilton Score and the mean tricyclic level was negative in the amitriptyline-treated patients (r = -0.54, P less than .025) and positive in the nortriptyline-treated patients (r = -0.49, P less than .05). Patients treated with amitriptyline or nortriptyline with plasma levels within the therapeutic range, defined in other laboratories, had a better response, as measured by the Hamilton Score (P less than .001), Zung Score (P less than .01), and percent recovered (P less than .001), than those above or below the therapeutic range. The phenylpiperidine derivative paroxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. In a double-blind 6-week trial, paroxetine was compared with amitriptyline in hospitalized patients suffering from major depression (DSM-III). One hundred fifty-three patients were enrolled in the study in seven centers in Austria and Germany. Results showed similar efficacy of both drugs after 6 weeks. The differences between groups in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression ratings did not reach statistical significance at any time. Side effects were distributed similarly but with a significantly higher incidence of anticholinergic effects in patients treated with amitriptyline (p < or = 0.001), whereas agitation and insomnia were registered more often in the paroxetine group. This study supports the antidepressive efficacy of paroxetine in a sample of severely depressed inpatients. A double blind comparison is reported of a new tetracyclic antidepressant, maprotiline, with amitriptyline and placebo in psychiatric outpatients. Amitriptyline was significantly more effective than placebo in its global effect on depression. Maprotiline emerged as neither inferior to amitriptyline nor superior to placebo. Methodological difficulties prevented an adequate assessment of the anxiolytic activity of maprotiline. In a double-blind parallel group study, thirty-two patients suffering from a primary affective disorder received either dothiepin or amitriptyline. Serum concentrations of total dothiepin plus northiaden or amitriptyline and nortriptyline were estimated. A similar therapeutic response was seen with both drugs but there was no correlation with serum concentrations of amitriptyline or nortriptyline, whereas serum dothiepin correlated positively with clinical response. A double-blind trial of amitriptyline and imipramine was conducted in patients suffering from depressive illness. The results failed to confirm the prevalent belief that amitriptyline has a greater sedative effect and superior anxiolytic properties than imipramine. The therapeutic effect of these drugs was not shown to be related to their sedative properties and with regard to anxiety the reverse appeared to be true. nan The enhanced sensitivity of the elderly to the side effects produced by tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and the frequency and type of adverse events, have made the treatment of depression in this group difficult. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been reported to produce significantly fewer undesirable side effects and display better tolerance than TCAs. We compared the therapeutic actions and side effects produced by citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, with amitriptyline in a group of elderly patients (aged 65 and older) diagnosed with major depression. In a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter comparison of citalopram (20 or 40 mg/day) and amitriptyline (50 or 100 mg/day), patients who did not respond to placebo during a 1-week single-blind phase were randomly assigned to receive citalopram or amitriptyline for 8 weeks. Efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), and Clinical Global Impressions. Both drug treatments produced equivalent time-related declines in severity of depression, so that by 8 weeks slightly more than 50% of the patients in each group experienced marked recovery, defined as MADRS scores < or = 12. Amitriptyline produced a greater overall incidence of adverse events, including a significantly higher (P < 0.001) percentage of patients reporting dry mouth (34% vs. 7%), as well as a significantly higher (P < 0.02) incidence of somnolence. Constipation and fatigue also occurred more frequently in the amitriptyline than in the citalopram group. For only one event (nausea) did the citalopram group report a significantly greater (P = 0.012) incidence (12.8% vs. 4.8%). On the basis of these results, it was concluded that citalopram is as effective an antidepressant as amitriptyline in the treatment of the depressed elderly. Because of its low incidence and low magnitude of side effects, citalopram seems especially useful in private practice. In a double-blind clinical trial with 20 patients suffering from endogenous depression statistically significant changes (improvement) were present in the scores of all assessment instruments. Although no statistically significant differences occurred between the groups, significant improvement on the HAM-D occurred earlier for amitriptyline and significant improvement occurred earlier on HAM-A for viloxazine. 2 patients were discontinued due to adverse reactions; one for nausea and vomiting while receiving viloxazine and one for paroxysmal atrial tachycardia while receiving amitriptyline. The same number of TES occurred for each group with seven unique to viloxazine (numbness, tingling, palpitation, ejaculation difficulty, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, epigastric pain and gustatory disturbances) and seven unique to amitriptyline (insomnia, irritability, syncope, tremor, nasal congestion, orthostatic hypertension and paroxysmal atrial tachycardia). Other than for 1 patient who developed syncope and orthostatic hypotension and the patient who developed paroxysmal atrial tachycardia, there were no clinically significant changes in pulse rate, blood pressure and weight. There were no clinical laboratory findings with either drug that were judged to be pathological. 129 chronic alcoholic patients, withdrawn from alcohol and presenting major depression or dysthymic disorder, were treated for 4-8 weeks under double-blind conditions either with a new antidepressant, tianeptine (37.5 mg per day), or with amitriptyline (75 mg per day). Both groups presented steady improvement of the symptoms of depression during treatment, as scored on the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist self-evaluation; for the latter scale, the improvement was significantly greater in the tianeptine group. In addition to the improvement of mood, tianeptine also produced significant reduction of the somatic complaints of the depressed patients. Furthermore, tianeptine possesses anxiolytic activity, as shown by the change of the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale global score, similar to that produced by amitriptyline. The anxiolytic activity of tianeptine was not accompanied by any impairment of vigilance, unlike that of amitriptyline. Tianeptine produced rare, mild anticholinergic effects. The results obtained show that tianeptine is an effective anxiolytic antidepressant, with better safety than amitriptyline, suitable for use in the treatment of mood disorders following alcohol withdrawal. nan nan A double-blind study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of trazodone vs. amitriptyline and placebo in 184 patients suffering from neurotic depression. All patients were evaluated for safety and 127 patients who completed 12 to 42 days' therapy were evaluated for efficacy. Trazodone was found to be significantly better than placebo on almost every rating scale, particularly on those items or factors related to depression and associated anxiety. Trazodone was superior to amitriptyline in some patients while amitriptyline was only occasionally better than placebo. Significant improvement was noted in trazodone patients within the first seven days of therapy. Trazodone produced a low level of side effects compared to amitriptyline. A total of 61 moderately to severely depressed outpatients were treated for four weeks with either amoxapine (a dibenzoxapine tricyclic) or amitriptyline. This double blind study showed that amoxapine was as effective as amitriptyline and had an earlier onset of action. Maximum doses used were 300 mg of amoxapine and 150 mg of amitriptyline. Side effects were similar for the two drugs, except for impotence or loss of libido in eight male amoxapine, as against three amitriptyline patients. Laboratory, EKG, and vital signs findings showed no pathological trends. Forty consecutive psychiatric patients referred to hospital with a diagnosis of depressive illness were randomly allocated to double-blind treatment with either 50 mg sustained-release amitriptyline or 75 mg maprotiline in night-time dosage. The dosage was doubled after 1 week. Rating scale assessments were carried out regularly over a 5-week period. The results indicated that there was a significant improvement with both drugs which occurred at approximately the same speed and to the same extent. Side-effects were complained of by approximately as many patients on both forms of treatment. nan Trazodone (TZ), a 'new generation' antidepressant and amitriptyline (AMT) were administered in a double-blind controlled study to 43 depressed inpatients. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), the AMDP-system and the Bf-s self-rating questionnaire were used for documentation of psychopathological changes and autonomic side effects. The Newcastle-Scale for definition of a neurotic and an endogenous subgroup of depression was retrospectively applied. No significant improvement was noticed on the Bf-s self-rating questionnaire in the TZ group as compared to the AMT group (p less than 0.001). The global HAM-D score decreased significantly in the TZ group (p less than 0.05) as well as in the AMT group difference (p less than 0.01) emerged during the trial in favour of AMT. Core symptoms of depression were significantly improved in the AMT group but not in the TZ group: depressed mood (p less than 0.001), psychic anxiety (p less than 0.001) and retardation (p less than 0.05). TZ was faster actin than AMT in controlling agitation. Results of this clinical study demonstrate TZ to have sedative and some anxiolytic properties but only negligible antidepressant efficacy. Patients suffering from mixed anxiety/depressive reactions, referred to the out-patient department of a large psychiatric hospital, were treated with either amitriptyline tablets or fluphenazine with nortriptyline (f/n) tablets for a period of four weeks. The study utilized a double-blind, completely randomised design, and patients' progress was assessed by means of the Wing Present State Examination, the Wakefield Self-Assessment Depression Inventory, and a side effects inventory. Both the symptom rating scales showed that purely depressive symptomatology improved significantly in each treatment group, but the patients' self-ratings showed that only f/n produced a significant alleviation of anxiety symptoms and panic attacks. The patients receiving f/n rated themselves as significantly (p less than 0.05) less irritable, as well as less anxious, after 4 weeks treatment, than those receiving amitriptyline. The PSE schedule did not differentiate between the 2 treatment groups, but self-rating, which is a more sensitive method of eliciting drug effectiveness in patients suffering from mild psychiatric disorders, did demonstrate patient preference for f/n. This should have important implications for compliance with treatment. nan nan Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity was studied in 28 endogenously depressed, hospitalized patients. Measures of HPA activity obtained were baseline serum cortisol level, 24-hour urinary free cortisol excretion, and an overnight 2-mg dexamethasone suppression test. The patients then received double-blind and randomized treatment with imipramine hydrochloride, 150 mg daily, or amitriptyline hydrochloride, 150 mg daily, for four weeks. Four-week treatment response of all patients was compared with pretreatment HPA axis variables, and higher cortisol values after dexamethasone administration were found to be significantly correlated with greater improvement. There were no significant differences between imipramine and amitriptyline response, however, when improvement with each drug was compared with the pretreatment HPA variables. Five hundred four outpatients suffering from a major depressive episode were randomly assigned to receive either amitriptyline, doxepin, alprazolam, or placebo. The study was conducted in three treatment centers during a six-week period. All three active medications produced significantly more clinical improvement than did placebo, irrespective of the patient's initial anxiety, depression, and psychomotor retardation and irrespective of the patient's assignment to various subtypes of depression, including the DSM-III melancholia subtype. Compared with placebo, sedation was reported more frequently with all three medications, whereas anticholinergic effects were reported more frequently only for the two tricyclic antidepressants, but not for alprazolam. nan The authors compared the nontricyclic antidepressant trazodone with amitriptyline and placebo in a double-blind study of 202 unipolar depressed outpatients. Trazodone's clinical efficacy was similar to that of amitriptyline, with both active drugs producing significantly more clinical improvement than placebo. The incidence of anticholinergic side effects was lower for the patients taking trazodone than for those taking amitriptyline. Three hundred in- and outpatients suffering from depressive disorder, as diagnosed using DSM-III criteria were treated for 6 weeks under double-blind conditions in a multicenter controlled study of tianeptine vs. amitriptyline. Both groups presented steady improvement of depressive syndrome from day 7 up to the end of the treatment, as shown by all evaluation scales: HDRS, SAD, CGI. Furthermore, anxiety linked to the depressive syndrome decreased equally in both groups, as shown by the HARS measurements. In addition to the improvement of mood, the tianeptine-treated patients presented less somatic complaints and side effects when compared to the reference antidepressant. These results confirm previous findings that tianeptine is an effective antidepressant with a lower side effect profile than amitriptyline. The study described here was designed to see if it was possible to show an earlier onset of action for maprotiline (Ludiomil) compared with amitriptyline while at the same time demonstrating equal long-term effectiveness and certainly no greater side-effects. A between-patient double-blind trial with 40 patients supported these aims and was statistically significant (p less than 0.001) with regard to early onset of antidepressant effect. Protryptiline, a new antidepressant, was evaluated in a double-blind study. Results were compared with those obtained in similar groups of patients treated with imipramine and amitryptiline. After full psychiatric and medical assessment, patients were rated on a "target-symptom" scale, were assessed weekly and underwent a number of tests before and after treatment, including a hemogram and estimations of serum bilirubin, cephalin flocculation and serum protein values. Observations were made over four to six weeks. The starting dosage was 10 mg. protryptiline three times daily with a maximum of 60 mg. daily. Beneficial responses occurred in 13 of 20 patients (65%). Protryptiline-treated patients had the earliest response to drug treatment, 11 showing some improvement within the first week. Twelve patients (60%) had side effects, mainly minor, indicative of anticholinergic activity. One developed leukopenia which was reversible, and one showed increased excitement; in both, therapy was discontinued. Protryptiline gave clinical results that compared favourably with those of antidepressants of established value. While toxic effects should be carefully watched for, further trials are warranted to decide whether protryptiline possesses special or new advantages in psychopharmacotherapy. We report on the results of a study comparing mianserin with amitriptyline and placebo, in outpatients with major depression (DSM-III 296.2 or 296.3). One hundred and forty-nine patients were randomized to mianserin (n = 50), amitriptyline (n = 50) or placebo (n = 49). Medication was taken in a nightly (qhs) dose. During Week 1, the maximum dose was 60 mg mianserin, 120 mg amitriptyline or two placebo capsules. Beginning at Day 7 (through Day 42) maximum dosages were 150 mg mianserin, 300 mg amitriptyline or five placebo capsules. At multiple weeks and endpoint, statistically significant reductions in the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) 17- and 21-item scores were recorded for both active drugs compared with placebo. Positive results with the HAM-D were corroborated by other measures of efficacy. There were no statistically significant differences between mianserin and amitriptyline in terms of efficacy; however, the results do suggest a more rapid therapeutic response for mianserin compared with amitriptyline, in terms of percentage of patients showing > or = 50% improvement at Weeks 2 (30% vs 23%) and 4 (61% vs 44%). The most common adverse experiences were somnolence (amitriptyline and mianserin 60%, placebo 31%) and dry mouth (amitriptyline 76%, mianserin 30% and placebo 20%). Our results indicate that mianserin is clearly superior to placebo, compares favorably with amitriptyline, and is a safe, well-tolerated, effective medication in the treatment of depressed outpatients. To compare the efficacy and safety of sertraline and amitriptyline in a German outpatient population.
                Patients with Major Depression (DSM-III-R) and HAM-D (21 items) > or = 21 in 19 German centers received double-blind treatment with sertraline (initial dose 50 mg, titration up to 100 mg) or amitriptyline (75 mg, up to 150 mg) over 6 weeks. HAM-D (21 items), HAM-D Bech, CGI, DSI and SDS were evaluated for the efficacy analysis. FSUCL (Fischer Somatic and Undesired Effects Check List) and spontaneously reported adverse events were used for safety analysis.
                Of the 240 patients enrolled in the study, 205 (100 sertraline; 105 amitriptyline) were evaluable for efficacy. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups in the ITT and ATP efficacy analyses. Response, defined as score 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) of the CGI improvement score, was 76% in the sertraline and 81% in the amitriptyline group (efficacy evaluable patients = ATP population). In the structured FSUCL, the side-effect burden (FSUCL score >2 for drug related symptoms) was significantly higher in the amitriptyline group at all follow up visits (p<0.05).
                Both sertraline and amitriptyline are suitable for the treatment of Major Depression; sertraline is comparable to amitriptyline with regard to efficacy, and offers the additional benefit of a more favorable safety profile. nan A double blind trial was carried out comparing the tricyclic antidepressant lofepramine with amitriptyline in the treatment of patients suffering from moderate to markedly severe depression. No difference was demonstrated between the two drugs in terms of their antidepressant effect, but patients treated with lofepramine suffered from significantly less side effects than patients treated with amitriptyline. Both groups of patients had a high drop out rate but this was less marked in the groups of patients treated with lofepramine. 1. A double-blind, multicentre study comparing the efficacy and safety of minaprine and amitriptyline in patients with major depression was carried out. Five hundred and thirty-one patients were randomly assigned to treatment with either minaprine 100 mg, 200 mg or 300 mg day-1 or with amitriptyline 150 mg day-1 (75 mg during the first week). The medication was administered for 6 weeks. 2. Efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton rating scale for depression (HDRS), the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) and visual analogue assessments of depression carried out by both the investigators and patients. Unwanted effects were assessed by a questionnaire and spontaneous reporting. In a subgroup of patients cardiovascular effects were investigated by high speed ECG and systolic time intervals. 3. Patients in each treatment group showed a significant clinical improvement (P < 0.01) from baseline. The mean HDRS and MADRS scores adjusted for baseline differences, showed significantly less improvement in the minaprine 100 mg once daily (P < 0.01) and the minaprine 300 mg daily (P < 0.01) groups than in the amitriptyline group at both week 4 and week 6. The MADRS score at week 4 suggested that 200 mg day-1 minaprine was less effective than amitriptyline (P < 0.05), but there was no difference between the two groups at week 6 on either the HDRS or the MADRS. 4. Both drugs were well tolerated and there were no significant differences between treatment groups in any of the safety and tolerance assessments. In the ECG, amitriptyline produced a significant increase in the heart rate and PR interval while minaprine had no effect on electrocardiographic measurements. Neither drug produced changes in the systolic time intervals. A multi-centre controlled trial of amitriptyline, dothiepin and mianserin in the treatment of depressive illness was undertaken in psychiatric inpatients over the age of 65. Despite the co-operation of many of the leading practitioners in this field in Great Britain, it proved impossible to recruit sufficient patients for firm conclusions to be drawn. Forty-five patients were entered into the trial, 13 withdrew because of lack of improvement, 4 because of intercurrent physical illness, 3 because of adverse effects of trial medication and 2 because of lack of compliance. Only 11 of the 23 patients completing had a final score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale of 10 or less. No treatment showed a significant superiority over the others, nor was there any difference in tolerance. Minaprine (200 mg daily, either once or divided b.d.) was compared with amitriptyline (25-50 mg t.d.s.) over six weeks in 144 patients with major depression. Significant reductions in HRSD scores at the end of six weeks' treatment were recorded with both dose regimes of minaprine and with amitriptyline, with no significant differences between them. There was a significantly greater incidence of drowsiness and dry mouth with amitriptyline than with minaprine. nan The urinary excretion of the norepinephrine metabolite 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol (MHPG) was measured in unipolar depressed patients before and during the fourth week of treatment with either imipramine hydrocloride or amitriptyline hydroxhloride. On the basis of strict rating criteria, 24 patients were selected as either unequivocal responders or nonresponders. In the imipramine group the mean pretreatment MHPG was significantly lower in the nine responders in the seven nonresponders; the converse was found with the amitriptyline patients. Of particular interest is that there was no overlap in individual values between the responders and nonresponders to either drug. Treatment with eigher imipramine or amitriptyline was associated with a significant decrease in MHPG excretion, which was independent of clinical response. 1 A double-blind trial with parallel treatment groups was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of mianserin with amitriptyline. 2 This was a six week trial with weekly visits. Measurements at each visit included: 21 item Hamilton Depression (HAMD) Scale. Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Scale and Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS). 3 Mianserin and amitriptyline were comparable with respect to efficacy. 4 More adverse experiences were reported by amitriptyline patients. The predominant amitriptyline adverse experiences were of the anticholinergic type; the predominant mianserin adverse experience was drowsiness/fatigue. 5 The Efficacy Index (EI), a scale combining efficacy and adverse experiences, clearly demonstrated the superiority of mianserin over amitriptyline. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the therapeutic efficacy of two antidepressants with different neurochemical mechanisms of action, amitriptyline and amineptine, was investigated in patients affected by anxious depression. Sixty-six patients with the primary diagnosis of major depression or bipolar affective disorder (DSM-III-R) and meeting additional operational clinical criteria such as anxiety, trepidation, restlessness, early and/or late insomnia, impulsivity, hostility, dysphoria, compulsivity, hyperperspiration, palpitation, pollakiuria and phobias were included. They were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 22) and treated either with placebo, amitriptyline (up to 100 mg/day) or amineptine (up to 200 mg/day) for 6 weeks. Patients showed better response to amitriptyline, a preferential inhibitor of serotonin reuptake, than to amineptine, a selective inhibitor of dopamine reuptake. The present results suggest that alterations in serotonergic rather than dopaminergic transmission contribute to the pathophysiology of anxious depression. A double-blind trial was undertaken to compare the antidepressant efficacy and the side effects of Lofepramine with those of Amitriptyline in the treatment of endogenous depression. The study involves 22 acutely ill endogenously depressive patients. 11 patients were treated with Lofepramine and the remaining 11 with Amitriptyline. The results demonstrate that both substances are effective in the treatment of depression. However, the therapeutical efficacy of Lofepramine is significantly greater than that of Amitriptyline. Furthermore, the tolerance of Lofepramine is better than that of Amitriptyline, and the side effects of Amitriptyline, especially in blood pressure dysregulation, are greater than those of Lofepramine. 1. The effects of fluoxetine and amitriptyline on the electrocardiogram (ECG) and systolic time intervals (STIs) were measured during a double-blind parallel-group study in depressed patients. 2. ECGs and STIs were measured after a 1 week placebo run-in, following 1 week's treatment with fluoxetine 40 mg daily or amitriptyline 100 mg daily, and then after 3 weeks' treatment with fluoxetine 60-80 mg daily or amitriptyline 150-200 mg daily. 3. Fluoxetine had no effect on the ECG or STIs at any dose. Amitriptyline 150-200 mg daily shortened the sinus cycle length by a mean of 12%, prolonged the PR interval by 8% and the QRS duration by 10%. Amitriptyline did not significantly alter the STIs. 1. Nomifensine (8-amino-2-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,4,-tetrahydroisoquinoline) is a new antidepressant which displays an interesting pharmacological profile and acts as a potent dopaminergic agonist. 2. In a double-blind clinical trialnomifensine was compared with a standard and widely tested antidepressant amitriptyline. A total of 24 patients with primary acute depressions, defined by research criteria, were treated for 8 weeks and their clinical condition and laboratory values monitored at regular intervals. The dosage schedule was a flexible one, with a daily dose range from 50-200 mg for nomifensine and 50-225 mg for amitriptyline. 3. Nomifensine and amitriptyline were found to be equivalent in their antidepressant efficacy. Nomifensine, however, showed a trend towards more rapid effect and was relatively free of side-effects. 4. As nomifensine combined antidepressant activity with low frequency of adverse effects, it would seem to be suitable for wider use in the treatment of primary depressions. The results of our study have to be generalized with caution because of the limited sample size. nan nan A total of 101 patients entered a double-blind, parallel-group study in general practice, comparing the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. All patients received placebo for 1 week followed by active therapy for a total of 6 weeks. Medication was randomly allocated, two-thirds of the patients took paroxetine (20 mg daily) and one-third received amitriptyline (50 mg daily); this dose was increased to 30 mg and 100 mg, respectively, after 1 week. Of the patients who entered the placebo run-in, 90 took active treatment and were evaluable on an intention-to-treat basis (56 paroxetine, 32 amitriptyline). The mean age of the patients was 72 years. Significant reductions in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) from baseline to the end of treatment were seen for both groups (p < 0.01), with no difference between treatments. The HAMD score was reduced by half, or more, for 76% of patients taking paroxetine and 86% taking amitriptyline. Significant improvement was observed in the investigators' Clinical Global Impression (CGI) score for 57% of patients taking paroxetine and 52% on amitriptyline. Improvements after treatment were also observed in the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ) scores. Significantly fewer patients taking paroxetine reported adverse events (34% vs 63% taking amitriptyline, p = 0.02). Those taking paroxetine experienced significantly fewer anticholinergic side effects (7% vs 25% taking amitriptyline, p = 0.04). Overall, this study confirmed the effectiveness of paroxetine as an antidepressant drug.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) nan nan nan Steady-state plasma levels of mianserin, amitriptyline, and nortriptyline were determined by HPLC in two groups of elderly depressed patients who underwent a 5-week treatment with mianserin (60 mg/day in three oral doses) or amitriptyline (75 mg/day in three oral doses). Both treatments proved to be effective in reducing depressive symptoms. In the mianserin group, responder patients had steady-state plasma concentrations of mianserin higher than nonresponders. No relationship was found between amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or amitriptyline+nortriptyline plasma levels and clinical response in amitriptyline treated patients. A double-blind controlled trial comparing the antidepressant activity of amitriptyline with lofepramine is reported. Forty-six patients entered the 4-week trial. Analysis of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores at the beginning and end of the trial showed no significant difference between the therapeutic efficacy of lofepramine and amitriptyline. However, patients with endogenous depression responded significantly more rapidly to lofepramine as measured by Visual Analogue Scales and showed a significantly greater degree of clinical improvement after 4 weeks' treatment, as measured by Global Assessment. Adverse effects were similar in the two treatment groups. The use of rating scales in trials of depressive illnesses is discussed. The Visual Analogue Scale for depression was found to be a simple, useful and valid measure. A group of forty patients who presented to their general practitioner with depression or somatic complaints, which were considered to be due to depression, were included in a double-blind trial of dothiepin and amitriptyline. Patient improvement as judged by the Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS) and the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (CPRS) indicated that both groups significantly improved over the 6 week period. Only in one comparison, CPRS after 1 week, was there any statistical difference between the groups and in this case dothiepin produced a better response than amitriptyline (p less than 0.05). Statistical analysis of side-effects indicated that the frequency and severity of certain individual side-effects, hypotension, tiredness/sleepiness and dry mouth were significantly less with dothiepin than with amitriptyline at Week 1 (p less than 0.05). The overall incidence and severity of side-effects was also less with dothiepin at all assessments during the trial. Thirty-four hospitalized patients with major depression were enrolled in a 3-week double-blind parallel comparative study of trimipramine and amitriptyline. Following a 1-week washout period, patients randomly received one of the two drugs up to 100 mg twice daily on a fixed increment dosage schedule. Both treatments produced a rapid significant clinical improvement that occurred in a predominantly linear fashion. The pattern of improvement was very similar with both drugs. There was no significant correlation between plasma levels of trimipramine and desmethyl-trimipramine and clinical improvement. A negative correlation between amitriptyline plasma levels and clinical improvement was found, whereas a positive correlation occurred with the nortriptyline levels. Amitriptyline, and to a lesser extent trimipramine, prolonged intracardiac conduction. In the amitriptyline group only, this effect was accompanied by significant increases of heart rate and blood pressure. Platelet serotonin content was decreased by 57% by the amitriptyline treatment but remained unchanged in the trimipramine group. This finding constitutes the first clinical evidence that trimipramine does not exert its antidepressant effect through 5-hydroxytryptamine reuptake blockade. It is proposed that neuronal sensitization to 5-hydroxytryptamine might mediate the therapeutic effect of tricyclic antidepressant drugs. Urinary 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol (MHPG) excretion was measured in 49 unipolar depressed outpatients to examine the relationship between pretreatment MHPG levels and therapeutic response to desipramine and amitriptyline and to determine the effects of these agents on MHPG excretion. Pretreatment MHPG excretion was greater in amitriptyline responders than amitriptyline nonresponders, but no different in desipramine responders compared to desipramine nonresponders. Pretreatment MHPG excretion did not differentiate desipramine from amitriptyline responders. Treatment for 3 weeks was associated with a decrement in MHPG excretion, particularly in the desipramine responders and combined desipramine and amitriptyline responders. Among patients within the postulated optimal desipramine plasma level range and patients with plasma amitriptyline plus nortriptyline levels greater than 70 ng/ml, high pretreatment MHPG excretion predicted therapeutic response and response was accompanied by a reduction in MHPG excretion. The interpretation of these findings is possibly confounded by the demonstration of a poor correlation (r = 0.61) between duplicate MHPG samples analyzed by a widely employed gas chromatography method and a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry technique. The methodological pitfalls encountered in the course of this investigation and their possible implications for similar studies are discussed. 265 adult outpatients with dysthymic disorder (DSM-III) associated with clinically manifest anxiety (according to FDA criteria) were included in a multicenter, randomized double-blind study. The trial consisted of three phases: placebo pretreatment phase and inclusion in the trial, treatment phase, placebo posttreatment phase. Patients were treated in monotherapy for 42 days with a mean dosage of 3 tablets per day corresponding to 37.5 mg/day of tianeptine or 75 mg/day of amitriptyline respectively. The following assessment instruments were used: the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), and the Check-List for the Evaluation of Somatic Symptoms of J.D. Guelfi and C.B. Pull (CHESS 82). Analysis of MADRS total scores showed an important and rapid improvement in tianeptine and amitriptyline groups, reaching statistical significance as soon as D7. At the end of the 6-week treatment period the tianeptine group reached a decrease of 64% in the initial MADRS total score versus 69% in the amitriptyline group. 78% of patients treated with tianeptine and 83% of patients treated with amitriptyline were considered as treatment responders. There was no difference in drop-out rates between the two groups. HARS scores showed a decrease in psychic as well as somatic anxiety in both groups. The action of tianeptine on anxious-depressive symptomatology was confirmed by the concomitant improvement of global clinical rating and patients' self-rating (HSCL). Statistical comparison of all clinical rating-scale scores in patients having completed the trial failed to show any significant group differences.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) A comparative double-blind study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of depressed hospital outpatients was undertaken at 15 centres in Italy. Three hundred and nine patients of either sex were admitted to the study. The starting dose of paroxetine was 20 mg daily and of amitriptyline 75 mg daily in divided doses; at week 3 these doses could be increased at the investigators' discretion. Efficacy was measured on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and on Clinical Global Impression. Both treatment groups showed significant improvement at week 6 with no significant between-group differences. Significantly fewer patients receiving paroxetine reported adverse events compared with those on amitriptyline (44% vs 62%; p < 0.01 in favour of paroxetine). The aim of this multicenter study was to compare trazodone (TRA) with two reference drugs, amitriptyline (AMI) and mianserin (MIA), under double-blind conditions, in an elderly population, to ascertain age-related patterns for efficacy and tolerability. One hundred six elderly depressed inpatients, ranging in age from 60 to 83 years, diagnosed as having major depression according to DSM-III, were treated with 75 mg AMI (37 patients), 60 mg MIA (33 patients) or 150 mg TRA (36 patients) p.o.t.i.d. for 5 weeks. There were no differences in the clinical outcome among the three groups of patients at the end of the trial, with a significant amelioration (p less than 0.01) for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRS-D) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). TRA showed a lower overall prevalence of side effects than AMI or MIA, particularly for anticholinergic (p = 0.03 vs. AMI) and cardiovascular (p = 0.05 vs. MIA) effects. For these data GDS seems to be most reliable in detecting changes in elderly depressive symptomatology; moreover a comparable therapeutic response (among the three drugs) but a better tolerance for atypical antidepressants, particularly TRA, make advisable the use of the latter drug in the elderly population. A double-blind controlled study was carried out in 51 patients with moderate to severe depression to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of amineptine (200 mg per day) with that of amitriptyline (75 mg per day) given over a period of 6 weeks. Assessments of overall response to treatment, judged clinically, taking into account the patients' views, and also comparing total scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale, showed that amineptine was equally as effective as amitryptyline in producing a marked improvement in most patients. The results suggest, however, that amineptine was more rapid in action as well as being better tolerated. Analysis of the scores for individual items on the rating scale showed up differences between the two drugs in their influence on a number of the items and in the time of onset of improvement. This double-blind investigation compared onset of action, efficacy, and safety of amoxapine and amitriptyline in 46 endogenously depressed outpatients. Statistical analysis demonstrated relatively few significant differences in improvement between the two groups. Most of the differences favored amoxapine, however, and on all measures there were clear trends favoring amoxapine for more rapid onset of action or greater overall efficacy or both. nan nan Patients with endogenous depression fulfilling Feighner's criteria were included in the trial. All had pretrial scores above 20 on Hamilton's depression rating scale.Drugs were divided into groups A and B. Group A comprised of placebo and d-amphetamine. It was found that all patients who improved with d-amphetamine also improved with tricyclics. Two who did not improve with d-amphetamine did not improve with tricyclics. nan nan A total of 144 outpatients in general practice in Denmark, aged 18-65 years and diagnosed as suffering from depression with a HAMD-17 score of 15 or more, were included in this 8-week double-blind, randomised, multicentre, controlled, parallel group comparison of paroxetine versus amitriptyline. The purpose of the study was primarily to evaluate efficacy and tolerance of treatment. In addition, focus was added on weight change and subjective well-being. The efficacy results showed equal effect of both drugs. However, paroxetine was tolerated better than amitriptyline, and this difference reached the level of significance when four non-evaluable patients were taken out of the analysis. Moreover, there was a significant weight increase in the amitriptyline group and no significant weight change in the paroxetine group. There was no difference between the groups as regards subjective well-being as measured by the VAS. In conclusion, paroxetine is an effective and well-tolerated antidepressant, and well-suited for the treatment of depression in general practice. nan Paroxetine (30 mg), a selective serotonin (5-HT) reuptake inhibitor, was compared in a double-blind trial to amitriptyline (150 mg) in a sample of 40 inpatients aged 18-65 years who fulfilled Research Diagnostic Criteria for major depression. Patients were studied after a placebo drug washout period of 10 days and after an active 4-week treatment period. Sleep EEG recordings were performed before and at the end of the study as well as during acute treatment (first 2 days) and following withdrawal of active medication. Paroxetine shows an antidepressant effect similar to amitriptyline with a different side-effect profile typical of 5-HT reuptake inhibition. Paroxetine and amitriptyline decreased the amount of REM sleep, a well-known effect of classical antidepressants. Paroxetine also shared with other 5-HT reuptake inhibitors an alerting effect on sleep that was not shown to be detrimental on subjective sleep quality. nan We are performing a double-blind trial with inward psychiatric patients. The indication for our psychotropic or psychotherapeutic intervention is mainly severe depression (= major depressive disorders DSM III). For a 3-week trial course trazodone (400 mg daily), amitriptyline (150 mg/die) or placebo capsules were given at random. All patients received the same type of cognitive behaviour therapy. The test battery consists of CGI, BPRS, HAMD, HAMA and AMDP; adverse drug reactions are documented as "free reports" (= freier Nebenwirkungsbericht). The interim results (until March 1987) will be presented. Our investigation indicates that it is probable that the trazodone treatment we used is equivalent to corresponding amitriptyline treatment. The results of a double-blind trial of a tetracyclic antidepressant, maprotiline (Ludiomil) and a conventional tricyclic, amitriptyline (Elavil), in 67 ambulatory depressives are reported. Hamilton's Rating Scale for Depression was the main outcome criterion. No statistically significant differences were found between the drugs in onset of action, efficacy, side effects or predictors of response. Patients on either drug showed a significant reduction in symptoms after 1 week of treatment and at the end of the trial. Both drugs were tolerated well. A review of double-blind comparisons of maprotiline and tricyclic antidepressants, spanning 13 countries, and including over 900 patients, both ambulatory and inpatient, shows essentially similar results. The main outcome criterion in all these studies was manifest psychopathology assessed on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression by the treating physician. The absence of additional types of outcome criteria or assessment techniques, which may have detected differences in motor activity or drive as originally postulated, may have obscured results which were expected to be subtle. The relationship between steady-state plasma concentration and clinical response was studied in 22 hospitalized unipolar depressed patients. In a double-blind format the patients were randomly assigned to receive amitriptyline or nortriptyline. Dosage was adjusted based on plasma level with the aim of achieving a concentration of 60-180 ng/ml. By week 4 of treatment, 83% of amitriptyline patients and all nortriptyline patients were within the targeted plasma range. Based on final ratings of clinical state, the drug level adjustment improved the outcome for nortriptyline-treated patients, but not amitriptyline-treated patients. Nortriptyline patients with plasma levels of 60-230 ng/ml had lower Hamilton Rating Scale depression scores than patients outside that range. By contrast, amitriptyline plasma levels were not associated with depression ratings. After 1 week, patients treated with nortriptyline had a significantly greater mean reduction in Hamilton depression score, i.e., 55% compared to 25% for amitriptyline patients. Despite their widespread use, there are few data concerning the effects of tricyclic antidepressants on EEG sleep in depression. The present study documented the effects of desipramine (DMI, n = 17) and amitriptyline (AT, n = 16) upon EEG sleep in hospitalized depressed patients as part of a double-blind protocol involving 28 days of active treatment. Compared to placebo, patients receiving DMI showed somewhat worsened sleep continuity, particularly after 1 week of administration when the dose was 150 mg/day. On the other hand, sleep architecture and REM measures showed a rapid suppression of REM sleep, and then partial tolerance for this effect was observed with continued administration of DMI for 3 weeks. DMI was a more potent suppressor of REM sleep, while AT was more sedative. Based on these differences in effects upon EEG sleep, a discriminant function was derived and resulted in a correct classification of 87.5% of AT cases and 76.5% of DMI cases. These results are discussed in terms of the differences in pharmacological profiles for uptake blockade and anticholinergic potency for these two compounds. Paroxetine is a phenylpiperidine compound which is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Ninety-one hospitalised patients with a major depression (DSM-III) aged 65 and over from six Austrian and one German center were entered into the study, which compared the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine versus amitriptyline. After 6 weeks both groups showed similarly good therapeutic results. In the paroxetine group, 64.3% of the patients had a 50% or more reduction of the HAMD total score compared to 58.1% in the amitriptyline group. Side effects were distributed similarly in both groups. Patients in the paroxetine group showed a higher incidence of anxiety and agitation; anticholinergic side effects were registered more often in the amitriptyline group. A double-blind controlled comparative trial of mianserin (Norval) and amitriptyline was conducted in general practice. Fifty-one patients were treated with amitriptyline and fifty-five with mianserin. The dosage for the first week was 25 mg t.d.s. for amitriptyline and 10 mg t.d.s. for mianserin, increasing to 50 mg t.d.s. and 20 mg t.d.s. respectively for the subsequent three weeks. Both drugs proved equally effective in relieving the symptoms of primary depression but mianserin showed a reduced incidence of side-effects which was statistically significant. nan 34 patients who met the research diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder as defined by Spitzer et al. [Archs gen. Psychiat. 35: 773-782, 1978] completed a double-blind 6-week trial of mianserin versus amitriptyline following 1 week of single-blind placebo washout. After 2 weeks of dose build-up, patients took 150 mg/day of mianserin or 300 mg/day of amitriptyline throughout the next 4 weeks. At week 6, 63% of mianserin patients and 73% of amitriptyline patients were rated as responders; this difference is not statistically significant. No clinically meaningful differences between drugs were observed with respect to number or severity of side effects as reported by either patient or physician. Overall, mianserin was found to be equivalent to amitriptyline in terms of efficacy, patient tolerance and ease of administration. Plasma drug concentrations and clinical response were measured in two groups of hospitalised depressed patients, who received amitriptyline or imipramine double-blind, in a dosage of 250 mg for four weeks. Virtually no significant linear or curvilinear relationships were found between any plasma measure and any measure of clinical response. Modest but significant direct relationships were found between age and concentration of parent drugs but not demethylated metabolites. Blood drug level measurement therefore appears to be of little value in monitoring drug treatment of depressed in-patients. nan nan This study compared the tolerability and efficacy of paroxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of depression in general practice.
                In this double-blind, multicentre study conducted in the general practice, patients with depression (Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score > or = 20) who were regarded as requiring antidepressant therapy were randomly assigned to receive paroxetine (20 mg, n = 184) or amitriptyline (50-100 mg, n = 191) once daily for 9 weeks.
                More patients completed treatment with paroxetine than with amitriptyline (71.1% vs 56.1%, p = 0.009). Depression rating scores (MADRS and Clinical Global Impression [CGI]) were improved with both agents, but at week 9, paroxetine achieved more favourable scores compared with amitriptyline on MADRS (p=0.019), CGI severity of depression (p=0.044), and CGI efficacy index (p = 0.038).
                Depressed patients treated in general practice respond more quickly and are more likely to complete the treatment regimen with paroxetine than with amitriptyline. A double blind controlled trial involving 37 inpatients whose depression was judged clinically to require antidepressant medication revealed that amoxapine and amitriptyline was approximately equal in efficacy. In average daily doses of 139.7 mg and 123 mg respectively, there seemed little difference in speed of action, or in the frequency of side effects, though amoxapine had less central nervous system stimulating consequences (tremors and restlessness) than did amitriptyline. nan The response of patients with major depressive illness to citalopram of amitriptyline was compared in a double-blind multi-centre trial. No differences in efficacy were observed, but citalopram had less hypnotic effect, and a remarkably lower profile of side-effects. nan In a double-blind study lasting for 4 weeks, the authors compared the effectiveness of amoxapine, an antidepressant with potential antipsychotic properties, with a combination of amitriptyline plus perphenazine in the treatment of 38 patients who had the diagnosis of major depression with psychotic features (psychotic or delusional depression). Patients in each group showed similar improvement in depression and psychosis. There was a tendency for the patients treated with amitriptyline plus perphenazine to have higher global response rates. However, the patients given amoxapine had significantly fewer extrapyramidal side effects. The results of double-blind comparative trials carried out simultaneously in three Finnish hospitals are presented. The antidepressant activity and side-effects of mianserine (ORG GB 94) and amitriptyline were compared. No statistically significant differences were found between the two treatments. It was found, however, that mianserine had clearly less anticholinergic side-effects than amitriptyline. A multiclinic double-blind controlled study was performed on the effects of MAP in both inpatients and outpatients with AMT as control drug. 1. Subjects consisted of 41 male and 45 female patients suffering from various types of depression. MAP was assigned to 42 cases and AMT to 44 cases. Of these patients, 14 MAP cases and 10 AMT cases were subsequently dropped for a variety of reasons to obtain 28 MAP cases and 34 AMT cases as evaluable. 2. The global improvement ratings were compared and found not significantly different for any week between the two treatments. 3. The global improvement ratings by the characteristic features of patients did not show any significant difference in any items studied between the two treatments. 4. The symptomatic improvement ratings (on the Hamilton R.S. for assessment by the physician) indicated that AMT was more effective on "anxiety (psychic)." 5. The symptomatic improvement ratings (on the Beck self-assessment scale by the patient) indicated that MAP was more effective on "work" and AMT on "pathos", "feeling of satisfaction", "withdrawal" and "loss of libido." 6. During the treament period, 74.3 percent of the MAP group and 76.9 percent of the AMT group of patients showed some side effects of accompanying symptoms, with no significant difference recognized between the two treatments. Itemwise, however, the incidence of tremor was significantly lower (p-=0.06) in the MAP group. Moreover, the MAP group tended to be less liable to such anticholinergic side effects as dry mouth, constipation, trouble of accomodation, urinary disturbance and palpitation. 7. On the basis of the above findings, it is concluded that MAP is as effective against depression as AMT and less liable to the anticholinergic side effects. It is, therefore, a very useful antidepressant. Fluoxetine, a new serotonin uptake blocking antidepressant, was compared with amitriptyline in a double-blind study. Patients were diagnosed as having major depression, according to DSM-III criteria, when interviewed with the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. There was significant improvement in patient and observer ratings of depression in both groups, with no difference between groups. Recent memory improved significantly in the fluoxetine group but not in the amitriptyline group. Numbers of patients reporting side-effects were similar but the profiles of side-effects were different, with more patients on amitriptyline reporting anticholinergic and intolerable side-effects. Thirty-five (35) inpatients with nonpsychotic major depression were randomly assigned to either amitriptyline or nortriptyline on a double-blind basis, following a 4- to 10-day placebo run-in period. Thirty-two patients completed at least 3 weeks of active medication. The 1.0-mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST) was performed before treatment. Twelve of 32 patients were DST nonsuppressors. Both medications were equally effective. Pretreatment DST status failed to predict overall response to both medications combined. DST status also did not predict differential medication response. These data argue, along with several other studies, that pretreatment DST status may be of limited value in selecting a particular tricyclic antidepressant compound. Forty-two outpatients with major depressive disorder entered a double-blind, randomized trial of either desipramine or amitriptyline for a minimum of 6 weeks. Pretreatment polysomnographic and clinical measures were used to predict response. Response was defined as a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score less than or equal to 9 at the end of treatment. There was a 61.1% response rate for patients treated with amitriptyline and a 66.7% response rate for patients treated with desipramine. Reduced REM latency (2-night mean less than or equal to 65.0 min) predicted a positive response to these tricyclic antidepressants. REM latency did not differentiate between desipramine or amitriptyline responders. More patients with reduced REM latency (80%) responded to treatment compared with patients with nonreduced REM latency (50%). The 80% response rate in reduced REM latency depressed patients confirms our previous findings in a mixed inpatient and outpatient sample. Contrary to our hypothesis, in this sample, endogenous depression was not associated with a good response to tricyclic medication. This 6-week, double-blind, randomised, multicentre study was performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of evening administration of 150 mg trazodone as an initial and maintenance therapy and to compare this regimen with recommended dosages of mianserin, dothiepin and amitriptyline in the treatment of depressed, adult, general practice patients. A total of 227 eligible depressed patients were recruited into the study by a panel of general practitioners. One hundred and twelve patients were randomised to receive trazodone therapy, 36 received mianserin, 35 received dothiepin and 44 received amitriptyline. Trazodone was administered as a single daily dose of 150 mg. Mianserin was given at a dose of 30 mg for the first 7 days followed by 60 mg daily for the remaining 5 weeks. Dothiepin and amitriptyline were both given at a dosage of 75 mg daily for the 1st week; this was then increased to 150 mg and 100 mg, respectively, for the final 5 weeks of the study. Efficacy of the four treatments was assessed using the modified Hamilton depression rating scale scores and by the Investigator's judgment of both the global severity and improvement of the condition. No significant differences were shown, using any measure of efficacy, between trazodone and any of the three comparator drugs. All treatments resulted in significant improvement in both Ham-D scores and global measures over the period of the study. Using a total side-effect score to assess the incidence and severity of adverse events and adjusting for baseline differences, the four treatments were found to differ.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Following a 1-week, single-blind placebo washout, 150 patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with daily doses of either mianserin, 30 mg to 150 mg; amitriptyline, 60 mg to 300 mg; or placebo, 1 to 5 capsules taken at bedtime (qhs). Mianserin and amitriptyline were found to be comparable in efficacy, and both significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of major depressive illness. Rating instruments, all of which showed significant improvement in the active drug groups over the placebo, included the 17- and 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) index, and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Severity of Illness and Improvement rating scales. Furthermore, for most efficacy parameters in the efficacy-evaluable group, the earliest statistically significant difference vs. placebo could be observed at Visit 1 for the mianserin patients and at Visit 3 for the amitriptyline patients. The safety profile for mianserin was comparable with placebo with respect to laboratory values, electrocardiogram changes, vital signs, ophthalmologic evaluations, and most adverse clinical experiences. Complaints of somnolence and weight gain were comparable in the amitriptyline and mianserin groups. Mianserin was superior to amitriptyline in terms of vital signs; anticholinergic effects; and complaints of dizziness, dyspepsia, and tremor. nan nan nan As with other second-generation antidepressants, the antidepressive efficacy of mianserin was investigated in double-blind control group studies, mostly under outpatient conditions. This study tested the antidepressive efficacy and safety of mianserin as compared to amitriptyline in a sample of 51 depressed inpatients suffering from major depression. No statistically significant difference was found with regard to the main efficacy outcome criterion, the HAMD. The tolerability results demonstrated a superiority of mianserin with respect to vegetative symptoms and especially with respect to dryness of the mouth. Patients suffering from mixed anxiety/depressive states referred to a psychiatric out-patient clinic completed a four course of either a once-daily table of 30 mg nortriptyline with 1-5 mag fluphenazine, or a sustained release capsule of 50 mg amitriptyline once daily, on a double-blind basis. Depression improved satisfactorily on either treatment, but there was a greater reduction of anxiety on fluphenazine/nortriptyline, Drowsiness, however, occurred more frequently among the patients on amitriptyline, suggesting the sedative properties of this drug did not substitute adequately for a specific anxiolytic effect. Dry mouth was also noticeably more frequent with amitriptyline. As might be expected on pharmacokinetic and phsyological grounds, the results suggest that the sustained release characteristics of the amitriptyline preparation lead to a maximization of side-effects during the day without conferring any therapeutic advantage. nan Depression, anxiety and psychomotor performance were assessed in 20 depressed patients during double-blind treatment with amitriptyline or trazodone. There was no difference in onset of antidepressant or anxiolytic action. No decrement or improvement on computerised tasks was found. Dry mouth was significantly more frequent and severe with amitriptyline. nan nan Seventy-five patients were admitted to a double-blind multicentre trial of maprotiline (Ludiomil) and amitriptyline in the management of depression in general practice. Forty-seven patients, twenty-one on maprotiline and twenty-six on amitriptyline completed the study. Statistical analysis of admission data showed that the groups were not strictly comparable in that the maprotiline group contained many more males and had a greater average age. Nevertheless, although there was a suggestion that amitriptyline was faster-acting in the younger age group that received it, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups as regards onset of effect, clinical efficacy or tolerability. Forty-eight patients took part in a single-blind clinical trial comparing a once daily dose of dothiepin (75 mg) and 25 mg 3-times a day of amitriptyline. The results showed that dothiepin caused a greater improvement than amitriptyline after 4 weeks of treatment as judged by depression scores, total scores and global assessments. The incidence of side-effects was less with dothiepin and in those patients who actually reported side-effects the severity was much less with dothiepin than with amitriptyline. nan nan nan nan A double-blind, placebo- and amitriptyline-controlled comparison study was performed to evaluate the antidepressant efficacy of sertraline, a specific serotonin uptake inhibitor. Patients with DSM-III-defined major depression randomly received either sertraline (N = 149), amitriptyline (N = 149), or placebo (N = 150) once daily for the 8-week study period. The mean final daily medication dose for the all-patients group was 145 mg and 104 mg for the sertraline- and amitriptyline-treatment groups, respectively. As measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, both the sertraline and amitriptyline treatment groups showed a significantly greater improvement from baseline (p less than or equal to .001) than the placebo group. The sertraline group had a higher proportion of gastrointestinal complaints and male sexual dysfunction than either the amitriptyline or the placebo group. The amitriptyline group showed a higher proportion of anticholinergic and sedative side effects and dizziness compared with patients who received either sertraline or placebo. Amitriptyline-perphenazine (100/8-150/12 mg/day) and doxepin (100-150 mg/day) were compared for clinical efficacy and safety in a sample of 130 nonpsychotic depressed outpatients. Maximum study duration was 4 weeks; 19 amitriptyline-perphenazine and 29 doxepin patients completed less than or equal to 3 weeks of treatment and 45 amitriptyline-perphenazine and 37 doxepin patients completed 4 weeks of treatment. Patients in both groups showed significant improvement in depression, but amitriptyline-perphenazine produced greater improvement than doxepin on several measures of depressive symptomatology. The incidence of anticholinergic and sedative side effects was higher in the amitriptyline-perphenazine treated group. The clinical efficacy and tolerability of trazodone and amitriptyline were compared in 74 hospital patients suffering from depressive illness. The daily doses of trazodone and amitriptyline were 150-300 mg and 75-225 mg, respectively, with half-strength capsules for patients over the age of 65 years. Twenty-five and 29 patients receiving trazodone and amitriptyline, respectively, completed the 6 week treatment period. Antidepressant activity was measured using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), the Zung Scale of Depression, visual analogue scales and a Global Assessment Scale. Trazodone and amitriptyline were both effective but not statistically different from each other in terms of antidepressant action. Moreover, patients with neurotic or endogenous depression responded equally well on either treatment. Trazodone was less troublesome in respect of the persistent dry mouth and severe adverse psychiatric reactions which occurred with amitriptyline. Patients should be advised to take trazodone after meals. Fifty-seven neurotically depressed outpatients with sleep disturbance were randomly assigned to treatment with either imipramine pamoate or amitriptyline given in a single dose at bedtime in a double-blind study for four weeks. The results indicate that both imipramine pamoate and amitriptyline are equally effective in treating neurotic depression. The clinical lore that imipramine is more effective for retarded depression and amitriptyline for anxious, agitated depression was not supported by this study. Of special interest is the fact that the imipramine pamoate group had significantly earlier rising times, and a trend toward better quality of sleep. The side effect profiles of the two drugs were also remarkably similar in this population though more patients complained of side effects on amitriptyline than on imipramine. Thirty patients closely matched for age, sex and duration of illness were treated with either amitriptyline or maprotiline in a double-blind, between-patient trial. Within limits of the small number of patients in the trial, maprotiline produced a significantly quicker improvement during the first 2 weeks as judged by the scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale. Maprotiline showed better tolerability than amitriptyline overall, especially as far as trial drop-out rates were concerned. nan A new antidepressant, amoxapine, which is a dibenzoxazepine deprivative, was compared with amitriptyline in a randomised double-blind trial. Forty-eight patients were included and 41 completed a 4-week treatment. Most of the patients were maintained on 150 mg daily. Assessments were made by the Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Nurses' Observation Scale for Inpatient Evaluation (NOSIE), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and Patient's Self-Evaluation. The total HAM-D score was considerably reduced in the majority of the patients. Amitriptyline was the most effective with regard to symptoms included in the factor Sleep Disturbances and-secondary maybe-towards some items included in the factor Somatization. For the remaining items,including the items of the factors Anxiety/Depression and Apathy, the last score was lower in the amoxapine group than in those treated with amitriptyline. Among the unipolar cases the amoxapine treated patients were more satisfied with regard to efficacy (P = 6.3%). The frequency of side effects such as tremor and dizziness was considerably lower in the amoxapine group. In total, the side effects lasted longer in the amitriptyline group. We conclude that amoxapine seems to be an effective antidepressant with a low frequency of side effects. A double-blind study was carried out comparing the antidepressant properties of maptotiline (a new tetracyclic antidepressant) and amitriptyline. Twenty-one hospitalized severely depressed patients, selected on the basis of clinical and psychometric criteria, completed the trial period of 28 days. The new drug was found to have an order of effectiveness similar to that of amitriptyline and both drugs were effective in agitated as well as retarded forms of depression. For both, the "day of effect", intended as the timing of sharp clinical improvement, tended to occur during the second week of treatment. Both drugs were well tolerated by most patients but one of the maprotiline patients presented a generalized rash which resolved after discontinuation of the drug. In conclusion, maprotiline is seen as an interesting addition to the group of major antidepressant drugs. This study was designed to compare the antidepressant effects of minaprine and amitriptyline in a group of 60 outpatients suffering from a major depressive episode as defined by the DSM III. The 6-week study was double-blind with a random allocation of treatment. Patients were treated with flexible daily doses of 200-300 mg of minaprine and 50-75 mg of amitriptyline. Both drugs showed significant global antidepressant efficacy with no significant difference between the two treatment groups. The Hamilton item 'psychomotor retardation' improved earlier with minaprine than amitriptyline. The incidence of anticholinergic adverse effects was significantly higher in the amitriptyline treatment group. nan In a controlled, clinical, multicentre trial comprising a total of 43 patients (17 men and 26 women) citalopram was compared double-blindly with amitriptyline. Nineteen patients of each group were classified as endogeneously depressed, whereas four patients of the citalopram group and one of the amitriptyline group were classified as non-endogenously depressed. The patients were seriously ill with a high frequency of previous depressive episodes and of mental disorders among their closest relatives. Thirteen of the patients in either group had received antidepressants without satisfactory effect before entry into the trial. Each patient was treated for a period of at least 3 weeks with daily citalopram doses of 30-60 mg or daily amitriptyline doses of 75-225 mg. A statistically significant reduction of MADRS scores (total scores as well as each of the 10 individual items) was recorded in both groups. The only difference between the groups was a trend towards a better effect on sleep disturbances in the amitriptyline group. Side-effects were recorded more frequently in the amitriptyline group than in the citalopram group, global assessment of side effects being significantly different in favour of citalopram. It is concluded that citalopram is an effective and safe drug in the treatment of endogenous depression - probably as efficacious as amitriptyline, but with fewer side effects. Paroxetine is a new antidepressant drug with potent serotonin (5HT) uptake inhibitory properties. In this double-blind comparative study, the antidepressant effect of paroxetine and amitriptyline has been compared in 44 patients with depressive illnesses of an endogenous nature. Each drug was given for 6 weeks. The 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale was used to measure the antidepressant effect. Reported events were assessed applying a 22-item check list. Non-parametric statistical analyses were applied in the evaluation of treatment outcome for the 30 patients who completed the study. The results showed no significant differences in overall antidepressant efficacy between paroxetine and amitriptyline and that paroxetine displayed significantly fewer instances of dry mouth and orthostatic dizziness than amitriptyline. No obvious relationship was demonstrated between the plasma levels of the drugs and their clinical effects. A 6-week double-blind comparison of mianserin, a new antidepressant, and amitriptyline allowed us to explore the problem of demonstrating main effect differences in drug/drug trials when the focus is primarily only upon efficacy or upon common adverse symptomatology. Statistical analyses of standard psychiatric rating scales revealed no significant treatment differences, while both treatment groups exhibited significant parallel improvement across time. Examination of treatment emergent symptoms indicated that, while it evoked fewer anticholinergic symptoms than amitriptyline, mianserin exhibited a different profile of adverse symptomatology. The usefulness of a measure of the benefit/risk ratio was described as a means of clarifying drug/drug comparisons. 21 depressed patients of the Basle University Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic were treated in a double-blind study with paroxetine and amitriptyline. 11 of these patients did not continue the trial until the end of the 7th week. There was a significant difference in the number of dropouts between the two groups: 80% of the amitriptyline group did not continue until the end, while in the paroxetine group we found only 30% dropouts. The patients of both groups showed a gradual decrease of the median total scores on the Hamilton and the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scales. Although the number of patients who stayed in the trial for at least 4 weeks (8 with paroxetine, 6 with amitriptyline) is quite small, we see from the results of the clinical global impression that the members of the paroxetine group improved most of all in the somatic symptoms, while considering their moods we found no differences between the groups. Patients of both groups complained about side effects, most of all about dry mouth and tiredness. From the high rate of dropouts under amitriptyline we found that the side effects under this drug were more severe and therefore led to the dropouts. Although common in clinical settings, major depressive disorder with associated anxious symptoms ('anxious depression') has not been well studied in antidepressant clinical trials. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of fluoxetine versus amitriptyline in this group of patients. After a single-blind placebo run-in period of 2 weeks, patients were treated on a double-blind basis with fluoxetine or amitriptyline for 8 weeks. Assessment instruments included: 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, Clinical Global Impressions, Raskin Depression Scale and Covi Anxiety Scale. A total of 157 patients were randomized to either fluoxetine or amitriptyline. Fluoxetine was given at a fixed dose of 20 mg/day and amitriptyline was given in a range of 50-250 mg/day (mean of 138.1 mg/day). Fluoxetine was comparable to amitriptyline in all efficacy measures except the HAMD sleep factor. Unwanted effects were more frequent and more severe in the amitriptyline-treated patients. Fluoxetine was comparably efficacious to amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression with associated anxiety. Since fluoxetine was far better tolerated, it is a promising alternative for this frequent and disabling condition.
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.