Efficacy and tolerability of citalopram in comparison with fluvoxamine in depressed outpatients: a double-blind, multicentre study. The LUCIFER Group. Noradrenergic function and clinical outcome in antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Interest of a loading dose of milnacipran in endogenous depressive inpatients. Comparison with the standard regimen and with fluvoxamine. A comparative study of the efficacy and safety profiles between fluvoxamine and nortriptyline in Japanese patients with major depression. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluvoxamine versus imipramine in outpatients with major depression. Fluvoxamine maleate in the treatment of depression: a single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison with imipramine in outpatients. Antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran, a dual serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor: a comparison with fluvoxamine. Fluvoxamine versus imipramine and placebo: a double-blind comparison in depressed patients. Pituitary-adrenocortical hyperfunction and intolerance to fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor. Clinical trials of fluvoxamine vs chlorimipramine with single and three times daily dosing. A double-blind, randomized comparison of fluvoxamine with mianserin in depressive illness. [Maprotiline versus fluvoxamine: comparison of their effects on the hypothalamo-hypophyseal-thyroid axis]. A comparison of fluvoxamine and fluoxetine in the treatment of major depression. The effects of psychomotor performance of fluvoxamine versus mianserin in depressed patients in general practice. Neuroendocrine (HPA axis) and clinical correlates during fluvoxamine and amitriptyline treatment. [Multicenter study comparing efficacy and tolerance of moclobemide and fluvoxamine in hospitalized and ambulatory patients with severe depressive episodes]. Fluvoxamine maleate, a serotonergic antidepressant; a comparison with chlorimipramine. Prolactin response to d-fenfluramine in major depression before and after treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Effects of the serotonin type 2A, 3A and 3B receptor and the serotonin transporter genes on paroxetine and fluvoxamine efficacy and adverse drug reactions in depressed Japanese patients. A double-blind comparison of fluvoxamine and paroxetine in the treatment of depressed outpatients. Changes in daily life experience associated with clinical improvement in depression. A double-blind comparison of fluvoxamine and dothiepin in the treatment of major affective disorder. A double-blind placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine and imipramine in out-patients with primary depression. A double-blind, randomised comparison of fluvoxamine with dothiepin in the treatment of depression in elderly patients. Use of a standardized documentation system (BLIPS/BDP) in the conduct of a multicenter international trial comparing fluvoxamine, imipramine, and placebo. Fluvoxamine versus fluoxetine in major depressive episode: a double-blind randomised comparison. Sertraline versus fluvoxamine in the treatment of elderly patients with major depression: a double-blind, randomized trial. Plasma levels of catecholamine metabolites predict the response to sulpiride or fluvoxamine in major depression. The role of neuropharmacologic selectivity in antidepressant action: fluvoxamine versus desipramine. A double-blind comparative study of the clinical efficacy of fluvoxamine and chlorimipramine. Fluvoxamine as effective as clomipramine against symptoms of severe depression: results from a multicentre, double-blind study. [Comparative efficacy and tolerance of fluvoxamine and amitriptyline in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in mental hospital]. CPT performance in major depressive disorder before and after treatment with imipramine or fluvoxamine. Fluvoxamine and clomipramine in depressed hospitalised patients: results from a randomised, double-blind study. The effect of amitriptyline, doxepin, fluvoxamine, and paroxetine treatment on heart rate variability. Response to total sleep deprivation before and during treatment with fluvoxamine or maprotiline in patients with major depression--results of a double-blind study. Fluvoxamine, imipramine, and placebo in the treatment of depressed outpatients: effects on depression. Efficacy and tolerability of moclobemide compared with fluvoxamine in depressive disorder (DSM III). A French/Swiss double-blind trial. A placebo-controlled inpatient comparison of fluvoxamine maleate and imipramine in major depression. A double-blind clinical trial of fluvoxamine and imipramine in patients with primary depression.
In 16 depression clinics in hospitals and outpatient facilities in the Netherlands, a study was performed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and tolerability of citalopram and fluvoxamine and to determine the difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal side-effects. A total of 217 patients with a depressive disorder (DSM-III-R criteria) and a score of at least 16 on the Hamilton rating scale for depression were randomized to treatment. The results of this study indicate that the two drugs are equally effective. The adverse events occurring during treatment show a similar pattern between the two drugs, but citalopram is better tolerated than fluvoxamine. Citalopram induces fewer gastrointestinal adverse events compared with fluvoxamine. However, this did not affect the drop-out rates. Controversy remains regarding the role of noradrenergic systems in determining clinical response to antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Pineal gland production of melatonin can serve as a physiologic index of noradrenergic function. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of antidepressant treatment on 24-hour urinary excretion of the principle metabolite of melatonin, 6-sulfatoxymelatonin in treatment responders and nonresponders. Twenty-four outpatients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for Major Depression received treatment with either fluvoxamine or imipramine for 6 weeks while participating in a placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial. Twenty-four hour excretion of 6-sulfatoxymelatonin was measured at baseline and at the conclusion of the treatment trial. Changes in urinary excretion of 6-sulfatoxymelatonin distinguished antidepressant responders from nonresponders, with a significant increase observed in the former group and a significant decrease in the latter. The degree of clinical response was correlated with the change in 6-sulfatoxymelatonin excretion. These results suggest that enhanced noradrenergic function may play an important role in determining clinical response to antidepressant pharmacotherapy. A multicenter controlled study was designed to test the hypothesis that a loading dose of an antidepressant could shorten the latency of its clinical efficacy. Three parallel groups of about 40 endogenous depressive inpatients received either a loading dose of milnacipran (300 mg daily for 2 weeks and 150 mg daily during the 2 following weeks), the standard regimen of milnacipran in severe depression (200 mg daily for 4 weeks), or fluvoxamine (200 mg daily for 4 weeks). The duration of the study was 4 weeks, with assessments at baseline and after 4, 9, 14, 21, and 28 days of therapy by means of Montgomery and Asberg depression scale (MADS), the Hamilton depression scale, the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), and a checklist of symptoms and side-effects. Results showed very similar evolution in the 3 treatment groups. In addition, the level of side-effects did not exhibit significant differences among the treatment groups, except for excitement-nervousness and akathisia which were more frequently reported with fluvoxamine. These results do not support the usefulness of a loading dose of an antidepressant such as milnacipran. They demonstrate however that milnacipran can be given at a 300 mg daily dose from the very first day of treatment with an excellent tolerance. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profiles between fluvoxamine and nortriptyline in Japanese patients with major depression.
                The efficacy and safety profiles of fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor, and nortriptyline were compared under a single-blind fashion in 74 Japanese patients with major depression. The efficacy was assessed using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) severity and improvement scores, while the safety profiles were assessed using the UKU Side Effect Rating Scale at baseline, and on days 7, 14, 28 and 56. Moreover, with the aim of determining the distinct efficacy profiles of each drug, the effects on each of the factor scores extracted by the principal component analysis performed for HAM-D scores were compared between drugs.
                Both drug groups showed significant amelioration of depressive symptomatology over the trial period lasting for 8 weeks. Statistical analyses revealed no significant between-group differences regarding the efficacy assessed by either HAM-D or CGI scores; however, the efficacy of nortriptyline tended to appear earlier than that of fluvoxamine. Moreover, no significant differences were obtained for the factor scores, representing 'depressed mood', 'physical symptoms' or 'sleep disturbances', although 'sleep disturbances' appeared to improve earlier in the nortriptyline group than in the fluvoxamine group. As for the safety profiles, the nortriptyline group scored a significantly higher incidence of adverse events such as dysarthria or orthostatic dizziness, as well as increased heart rate.
                These findings suggest that fluvoxamine is generally comparable to nortriptyline in its efficacy and superior in its safety profile, in accordance with findings obtained in previous comparative clinical trials conducted in Caucasian populations. The authors employed a double-blind, placebo-controlled design to investigate the effectiveness of fluvoxamine versus imipramine in 54 outpatients with moderate major depression. Fluvoxamine proved superior to placebo but not to imipramine on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Nausea and hyperarousal were the most common side effects in the fluvoxamine-treated patients. The efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine maleate, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, was compared with placebo and imipramine in patients with major depressive disorder. Previous literature has cited a dose range of 100 to 300 mg/day of fluvoxamine maleate for the treatment of major depression; however, this study demonstrates that a dose range of 50 to 150 mg/day is as effective as imipramine (80-240 mg/day). After a 1- to 2-week, single-blind, placebo washout phase, 150 depressed outpatients were randomized to double-blind treatment with fluvoxamine maleate (50-150 mg/day), imipramine (80-240 mg/day), or placebo for 6 weeks. Fluvoxamine produced a significant therapeutic benefit over placebo (p < or = 0.05) as assessed by the total score on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression; imipramine (80-240 mg/day) produced similar results. The secondary outcome variables (i.e., Clinical Global Impression severity of illness item and 56-Item Hopkins Symptom Checklist depression factor) also showed significant differences between fluvoxamine maleate and placebo during three of the four final weeks of the study. Both fluvoxamine maleate and imipramine appeared to be safe and well tolerated by the majority of patients. As expected from the pharmacology of these agents, the imipramine groups reported more anticholinergic effects (dry mouth, dizziness, and urinary retention) and electrocardiographic effects, whereas the fluvoxamine group reported more nausea, somnolence, and abnormal ejaculation. The majority of these adverse events were mild to moderate and, with the exception of dry mouth (imipramine) and abnormal ejaculation (fluvoxamine), were transient. The data clearly demonstrate the antidepressant activity and tolerability of fluvoxamine maleate (50-150 mg/day) as compared with placebo; it is also as effective as the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine (80-240 mg/day) in patients with major depressive disorder. The antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran, a dual action serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, were compared with those of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, fluvoxamine, in 113 patients with moderate to severe major depression. Treatment with milnacipran, 50 mg b.d. for 6 weeks, produced a significantly greater reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores than fluvoxamine, 100 mg b.d. (P = 0.007; 65.4% versus 49.9%, respectively); significantly greater decreases were also seen on days 7 (P = 0.04) and 28 (P = 0.03). The response rate (the proportion of patients showing a decrease in MADRS scores of at least 50%) was 78.9% in patients receiving milnacipran, compared with 60.7% in fluvoxamine-treated patients (P = 0.04). Milnacipran also produced greater improvements in 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (P = 0.05). On the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale, 77.2% of milnacipran-treated patients were rated as considerably or markedly improved, compared with 60.7% of patients receiving fluvoxamine (P = 0.06 chi-squared). Both treatments were well tolerated; the only significant difference between the two groups was a higher incidence of tremor and drowsiness in patients treated with fluvoxamine. It is concluded that milnacipran may offer some advantages over selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as fluvoxamine, in the treatment of moderate to severe major depression. Approximately 20 million patients suffer from major depressive disorder each year, indicating a need for antidepressant agents that are synonymous with effectiveness, tolerability and patient compliance. The authors examined the effects of fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, in the treatment of outpatients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for major depressive disorder. A randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo- and imipramine-controlled single center study was conducted in 150 outpatients. Patients were randomized to receive up to 150 mg/day of fluvoxamine as a single bedtime dose, 240 mg/day of imipramine on a twice-daily (BID) schedule, or placebo for six weeks. Efficacy measurements included HAM-D, MADRS, CGI, Raskin-Covi and SCL-56 scales. The HAM-D total score indicated that both active treatment groups showed significantly (p < or = 0.05) greater therapeutic benefit than did placebo. Severely depressed patients (HAM-D > or = 30) responded better to fluvoxamine in five of six measures. Side-effects from fluvoxamine were similar to those reported for other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (nausea, somnolence) and were well tolerated. Imipramine was associated with anticholinergic effects such as dry mouth and dizziness. The pharmacokinetic properties of fluvoxamine which allow the drug to be administered as a single daily dose should aid in the maintenance of patient compliance, while offering significant clinical benefit in the improvement of depressive symptoms. Of nine nonsuppressors on the dexamethasone suppression test (DST), five (56%) developed intolerable side effects during treatment with fluvoxamine, a new serotonin uptake inhibiting antidepressant, compared with three of 24 suppressors (13%). 1 Two double-blind, randomised studies were performed to compare the efficacy of fluvoxamine and chlorimipramine in depressed patients. In the first study the effects of a single daily dosage of between 100 and 300 mg of fluvoxamine were compared with those of chlorimipramine at a dosage of 50-150 mg daily in 43 out-patients with endogenous depression. 2 In a second study using three times daily dosing with a daily dosage of 150-300 mg for both fluvoxamine and chlorimipramine, 30 in-patients with unipolar depression were assessed. 3 Four weeks of treatment with single daily dosing resulted in a mean improvement of 61.4% (+/- s.d. 31.7) on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) for fluvoxamine and of 65.3% (+/- s.d. 25.8) for chlorimipramine. In the study with three times daily dosing the mean results were 72.9% (+/- s.d. 22.3) improvement for fluvoxamine and 62.1% (+/- s.d. 28.5) for chlorimipramine. 4 At similar dosages, fluvoxamine had significantly less untoward effects on blood pressure than chlorimipramine. Anticholinergic effects were also fewer in the fluvoxamine group, as were nervous system symptoms, with the latter difference reaching statistical significance (P = 0.02). 5 We conclude that fluvoxamine, given in a single daily dose of 150-250 mg, provides antidepressant efficacy similar to chlorimipramine. At this dosage it may be expected to produce less anticholinergic effects and have less influence on blood pressure than chlorimipramine. The efficacy and CNS effects of the selective 5-HT re-uptake inhibitor fluvoxamine were compared with mianserin in depressed hospital out-patients in a double-blind randomized trial. Patients had to meet DSM-III criteria for Major Depressive Episode and achieve a score of at least 30 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) after a 1-week placebo baseline period. Active treatment was for 6 weeks with an initial dose of either 100 mg fluvoxamine or 60 mg mianserin; after 1 week the dosage could be increased to 300 mg or 180 mg, respectively. Data from 63 patients (30 received fluvoxamine) were analyzed. The treatment groups were comparable with regard to age and history and severity of depression. Efficacy assessments showed similar improvements with each drug; MADRS scores improved by 65.6% with fluvoxamine and by 60.8% with mianserin. There were no significant differences between treatments at any assessment. Sedative effects were assessed using the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire and the Digit Symbol Substitution Test. Mianserin caused a shift towards sedation in the first week in all visual analogue scales; getting to sleep and sleep quality were improved but waking was more difficult than with fluvoxamine. Similarly, the mianserin group performed less well on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test. The study confirmed that both drugs are effective treatments for depressive illness but that mianserin gives rise to sedation during the first week. The TRH test has been used in psychiatry these last 20 years. One of the most promising results is that concerning the possibility to use it to identify the best moment to stop a treatment after clinical recovery of the depressive episode. For that it is necessary to demonstrate an absence of intrinsic action of antidepressants on the HPT axis physiology. This overt, randomized study has compared the actions on T3, T4, basal TSH and its response to the TRH test after 75 mg/day of maprotiline and 100 mg/day of fluvoxamine, both administrated in depressed patients during 28 days. Forty patients (20 men and 20 women) were studied, 20 patients per treatment. The inclusion criteria were those of DSM III-R for major depression and dysthymia as well a minimum score of 25 at MADRS scale. Blood samples for T3, T4 and basal TSH dosages were made before TRH intranasal administration (2 mg) at days 1 and 28 of the treatment. We haven't observed any difference before treatment between the 2 groups for clinical and biological studied parameters. After treatment both antidepressants produced equivalent improvement of depression evaluated by MADRS (fluvoxamine:dMADRS = 16.95 +/- 7.11; maprotiline: dMADRS = 17.10 +/- 6.84. t = 0.07, NS). T3 and T4 variations between the beginning and the end of the study weren't also significantly different between the 2 groups. Basal TSH was increased in the maprotiline group but decreased in the fluvoxamine group resulting in a significant difference (fluvoxamine: dTSH = 0.31 +/- 0.76 mUI/l. Maprotiline : dTSH = -0.23 +/- 0.66 mUI/l. t = 2.40, p < 0.02). The TSH response to TRH was decreased in the fluvoxamine group (ddTSH = 0.24 +/- 6.65 mUI/l. dAUC = 103.98 +/- 596.84 mUI/l) while it was increased in the maprotiline group (ddTSH = -3.59 +/- 5.88 mUI/l. dAUC = -355.80 +/- 505.67 mUI.min/l). The difference between the 2 treatments was not significant when evaluated by ddTSH (t = 1.53, NS) but it became significant if evaluated by dAUC (t = 2.63, p < 0.01). As we could demonstrate an absence of influence of the clinical evolution between both groups in the hormonal variations observed, we concluded to a intrinsic difference action on HPT axis between fluvoxamine and maprotiline. This difference could be linked to the different aminergic action of these 2 antidepressants. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design study of 100 outpatients with major depressive disorder is the first study in the United States to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fluvoxamine (100-150 mg/day) and fluoxetine (20-80 mg/day). After a variable, single-blind, washout period, patients were randomized to receive either fluvoxamine (51 patients) of fluoxetine (49 patients) for 7 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and Clinical Global Impressions scale for severity and improvement. Eighty-four percent of each treatment group completed the study with each group having a mean score at end point of less than 10. Both groups demonstrated a 60% improvement in HAM-D scores over the 7-week trial. There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups on any efficacy parameter. The medications were well tolerated, with only two patients in each group who were terminated because of side effects. There were differences in the side-effect profiles, with fluvoxamine being associated with less nausea than fluoxetine. In summary, fluvoxamine and fluoxetine were equally effective in reducing depressive symptoms, but the two drugs displayed slightly different side-effect profiles. This study examined the psychomotor and antidepressant effects of fluvoxamine in a depressed, GP patient population, compared to those of mianserin. It was a single centre, double-blind, six-week study, preceded by a one-week pre-treatment placebo washout, in 59 patients suffering from major depressive episode (DSM III) and scoring over 24 on MADRS. The starting dose was 100 mg fluvoxamine or 60 mg mianserin daily for one week, rising to 300 mg fluvoxamine or 180 mg mianserin. Both treatment groups showed significant improvement over time with no differences between drugs in terms of efficacy. Fluvoxamine and mianserin were both shown to be effective in the treatment of depressive illness. Some psychomotor impairment in the first few days and weight gain over a longer period could affect compliance with mianserin. Fluvoxamine does not reduce psychomotor performance or cause weight gain. The effect of amitriptyline on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) axis activity was compared with that of fluvoxamine in 38 patients suffering from DMS-IV major depressive disorder. Basal plasma adrenocorticotropic hormone and cortisol levels were determined in the so-called "observation window" of an hour (08:00-09:00 h), and cortisol levels were determined again at 20:00 h. Clinical and biochemical assessments were performed before therapy (T0), at day 14 (T14), and at day 42 (T42) of the course of antidepressant treatment. At T0, neuroendocrine parameters did not differ in patients from those in controls, except for the ratio between cortisol levels at 20:00 h and the mean level of the "window" (ratio F20/F8), which was significantly higher, suggesting a dysregulation of the circadian pattern of cortisol. Although a decrease in the ratio F20/F8 was already apparent at T14 of both treatments, the repeated measures analysis of variance failed to demonstrate a significant variation with time (T0, T14, and T42) and with treatment (amitriptyline and fluvoxamine) for any hormonal measure. At T42, both treated groups showed a similar level of clinical improvement. Our results did not demonstrate any effect of antidepressant therapy on the cortisol circadian rhythm abnormality. In a double blind study performed in psychiatric clinics the efficacy and tolerability of the new antidepressant Moclobemide was compared. Moclobemide belongs to a new class of substances called RIMA (Reversible Inhibitor of the monoamine oxidase type A). 61 patients with major depression (according to DSM-III) were either treated with Moclobemide or Fluvoxamine, a selective reuptake-inhibitor of 5-HT. The latter belongs to a class of antidepressants known for their better tolerability compared to tricyclic antidepressants. Moclobemide was as effective as Fluvoxamine but much better tolerated as shown by a lower incidence of side effects such as gastrointestinal problems or headache. 1. Fluvoxamine is a potent serotonin re-uptake inhibitor, with little or no noradrenergic or anticholinergic activity. 2. The results of three studies using an almost identical protocol with a prospectively randomized, double-blind design comparing fluvoxamine and chlorimipramine are presented. 3. In a population of 98 subjects suffering from a variety of depressive conditions, there was a marked improvement over four weeks in both groups. dosage was maintained between 150 and 300 mg per day. 4. There were no changes of clinical importance in vital signs, hematology or biochemistry, but pulse rates increased in the chlorimipramine group. 5. There were fewer concurrent signs and symptoms in the fluvoxamine group, especially those attributable to anticholinergic activity. Central serotonin dysfunction is thought to be involved in the etiology of major depression. Serotonergic challenge studies before and after treatment of depressed patients have yielded conflicting results; however, these studies have not focused on the effect of antidepressant treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) on serotonergic challenge studies.
                The authors studied 19 outpatients with major depressive disorder using prolactin response to d-fenfluramine as a measure of central serotonergic functioning. Testing of patients was conducted just before and right after 8 weeks of treatment with either fluoxetine (n = 10) or fluvoxamine (n = 9) as part of a randomized, double-blind treatment trial. Blood samples for prolactin were collected prior to administration of d-fenfluramine (0.5 mg/kg) and then over the next 5 hours.
                Unlike previous studies in which antidepressant treatment produced an enhanced prolactin response to fenfluramine, in this study there was no increase in prolactin response to d-fenfluramine following SSRI treatment. In fact, prolactin response to d-fenfluramine was significantly diminished after treatment with fluvoxamine but not fluoxetine.
                The implications of these findings are discussed with regard to possible mechanisms of action of SSRI treatment. In this study, we tested the influence of the serotonin type 2A, 3A and 3B receptor genes (HTR2A, HTR3A, HTR3B) in addition to a polymorphism in the promoter region of the serotonin transporter (SERTPR), and investigated the different characteristics of clinical responses to paroxetine and fluvoxamine. A total of 100 Japanese patients affected by major recurrent depression were enrolled in a randomized 6-week study. The clinical response was evaluated using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and adverse drug reactions were assessed at each visit. Patients with the l allele of SERTPR showed a better response to SSRIs than s/s genotype carriers (p = 0.015-0.042), more significantly to fluvoxamine. The -1438G/G genotype of HTR2A was associated with a good response to SSRIs (p = 0.010-0.039), especially to fluvoxamine, and significantly with severe nausea in paroxetine-treated patients (p = 0.013). The 178C/C genotype of the HTR3A was associated with an antidepressant response (p = 0.022-0.042), and more significantly in paroxetine-treated patients (p = 0.002-0.042). These effects were independent of one another. We replicated the finding that the SERPTR polymorphism was associated with a response to SSRIs. We additionally found that HTR2A and HTR3A polymorphisms are associated with the efficacy, and the HTR2A polymorphism is also associated with adverse drug reactions. Furthermore, the effects of these polymorphisms varied from one SSRI to another and thus may depend on the characteristics of each SSRI. Fluvoxamine and paroxetine, both serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), were compared at two centers in a 7-week double-blind study in outpatients with major depression, diagnosed by DSM-III-R criteria.
                Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive dosage titrated upward to between 50-150 mg/day of fluvoxamine (N = 30) or 20-50 mg/day of paroxetine (N = 30). The mean +/- SD daily dose administered at the last assessment was 102 +/- 44 mg/day for fluvoxamine and 36 +/- 13 mg/day for paroxetine. Sixteen (53%) fluvoxamine-treated patients and 10 (33%) paroxetine-treated patients were titrated to the maximum permissible dosage of either drug. Sample size was calculated to provide at least 85% power at 5% level of significance to detect at least a 1.00-point difference in mean severity of adverse events, assuming a standard deviation of 1.0.
                Fluvoxamine and paroxetine were similarly effective in ameliorating depression as demonstrated by mean total scores of 10.9 +/- 7.3 (p < .00) and 11.5 +/- 7.4 (p < .00), respectively, in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). Adverse events were mostly mild to moderate in severity. The most common events were headache (N = 17, 57%), nausea (N = 14, 47%), sweating (N = 10, 33%), somnolence (N = 9, 30%), diarrhea (N = 9, 30%), dry mouth (N = 8, 27%), dizziness (N = 8, 27%), and, among males, impotence (N = 3, 21%) and ejaculatory abnormality (N = 3, 21%) in the paroxetine group, and headache (N = 12, 40%), somnolence (N = 12, 40%), nausea (N = 11, 37%), dry mouth (N = 11, 37%), insomnia (N = 9, 30%), asthenia (N = 7, 23%), and dyspepsia (N = 7, 23%) in the fluvoxamine group. The only statistically significant difference between treatment groups was for sweating (33% paroxetine vs. 10% fluvoxamine, p = .028).
                Observed differences in some side effects, although not statistically significant, indicate that when a patient has difficulty tolerating one SSRI, the clinician may choose to change to a different agent within the same class. Changes in depressed outpatients' experience of daily activities after 6 weeks of antidepressant treatment were assessed with the experience sampling method (ESM). On the sickness impact profile, treatment responders (HAM-D < or = 7, n = 12) improved more than nonresponders (n = 9) in the domains of household chores, leisure and social activities. On ESM measures completed 10 x each day for 6 days pre- and posttreatment, responders showed greater increases in time spent in chores and greater decreases in passive leisure time than nonresponders. Responders showed greater increases in positive affect and greater decreases in negative affect during all activities. Thus, ESM provides quantitative evidence of changes in real life time use and subjective experience accompanying clinical improvement. nan 1 A double-blind placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine and imipramine was performed in a group of depressed patients. Twenty-two patients received fluvoxamine (mean dose 101 mg/day), 25 received imipramine (mean dose 127 mg/day) and 22 received placebo. 2 Apart from an increase in the SGOT and SGPT values of four imipramine patients, no statistically significant changes in haematology or urinalysis were judged to be medically relevant. Fluvoxamine exhibited fewer anticholinergic side effects than imipramine. 3 Both fluvoxamine treated patients and imipramine-treated patients exhibited a statistically significant improvement at the end of the 28-day treatment period with respect to the placebo patients, as measured using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. Evaluations of the results of the Beck Depression Inventory and the Profile of Mood States revealed a statistically significant improvement for imipramine patients with respect to placebo at week 4, but not for fluvoxamine patients. It is postulated on the basis of quantitative pharmaco-EEG findings, that the slight superiority of imipramine over fluvoxamine was due to underdosing of the latter. The efficacy and tolerability of the selective 5-HT reuptake inhibitor fluvoxamine were compared with the tricyclic dothiepin in 52 elderly (age greater than 64 years) hospital patients in a multi-centre double-blind randomised trial. Patients met DSM-III criteria for 'major depressive episode' and scored greater than 29 on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) after a one-week placebo baseline. Active treatment was for six weeks. The dosage of both drugs was 50 mg nocte for three days, 100 mg nocte for the remainder of the first week, thereafter increasing to a maximum of 200 mg/day according to response/tolerance. MADRS scores improved by 63.5% with fluvoxamine and 60.0% with dothiepin; there were no significant differences between treatments at any assessment. Nausea, dizziness, headache, somnolence and constipation in both groups, plus dry mouth and asthenia in the dothiepin group were more frequent than single reports. Two patients in each group discontinued treatment owing to unwanted effects. There were no clinically significant changes in haematological, biochemical or cardiovascular parameters. nan A double-blind, multinational study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine and fluoxetine in outpatients with major depressive episode; 184 patients were randomised to fluvoxamine (100 mg/day) or fluoxetine (20 mg/day) for 6 weeks. Both drugs were effective and there were no statistically significant differences between them in the area under the curve of change from baseline in the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD) total score. However, the percentage of HAMD responders (>or= 50% decrease in HAMD total score) at week 2, the clinical global improvement severity of illness score at week 2 and the depression subscale of the irritability, depression and anxiety scale at weeks 1, 2 and 4, all showed significant advantages for fluvoxamine. During the last 2 weeks, fluvoxamine was significantly more effective in improving the HAMD sleep disturbance scale. Both drugs were well tolerated and there were no marked differences in their side effect profiles which were typical of SSRIs. Fluvoxamine and fluoxetine have similar efficacy and safety profiles in the treatment of major depressive episode; the findings of this study indicate that fluvoxamine may have a faster onset of action with respect to resolution of depressive symptoms and result in a better improvement in sleep quality.
                Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Major depression is a common psychiatric disorder in the elderly population. The efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants is well established, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors appear to have a similar effectiveness along with advantages in terms of tolerability and safety. Given the lack of literature data regarding fluvoxamine in the treatment of depressed elderly patients, the aim of the present study was to compare its efficacy and tolerability with those of sertraline in a sample of elderly patients.
                Under double-blind conditions, 93 hospitalized patients older than 59 years, who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria for a major depressive episode, were randomly assigned to receive sertraline (150 mg daily) or fluvoxamine (200 mg daily) for 7 weeks. The clinical response was defined as a reduction on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score to 8 or below.
                At study completion, the response rates were 55.6% (25/45) and 71.8% (28/39) for sertraline and fluvoxamine, respectively. No significant difference in final response rates was found between the 2 treatment groups (P = 0.12). A repeated-measures analysis of variance on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores revealed a significantly different decrease of depressive symptoms between the 2 treatment groups, favoring fluvoxamine (P = 0.007). The overall safety profile of sertraline and fluvoxamine was favorable with no differences between the 2 drugs.
                The results of this double-blind trial show that sertraline and fluvoxamine may be effective compounds in the treatment of elderly depression with the latter showing some advantage in terms of speed of response. These findings warrant further replication in placebo-controlled studies. We investigated the relationships between the changes in plasma catecholamine metabolites obtained from depressed patients before and after administration of sulpiride, a benzamide compound, or fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and between clinical responses to treatment with each of these drugs. Responders to sulpiride had significantly lower plasma homovanillic acid (pHVA) levels before administration of sulpiride than did non-responders or controls (responders: 4.5 +/- 3.1 ng/ml, non-responders: 11.1 +/- 5.9 ng/ml, controls: 10.9 +/- 5.3 ng/ml). Positive relationships were observed between changes in pHVA levels and improvement rates in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D). In contrast, responders to fluvoxamine had significantly higher plasma free 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol (pMHPG) levels before administration of fluvoxamine than did non-responders or controls (responders: 8.5 +/- 1.8 ng/ml, non-responders: 5.9 +/- 2.I ng/ml, controls: 5.2 +/- 2.9 ng/ml). Negative relationships were observed between changes in pMHPG levels and improvement rates in Ham-D. These results suggest that lower pretreatment pHVA levels and higher pretreatment levels of pMHPG might be predictors of response to sulpiride and fluvoxamine, respectively, and that sulpiride might produce a functional increase in the dopaminergic system, resulting in improvement in some depressive symptoms; fluvoxamine, on the other hand, might produce a functional decrease in the noradrenergic system via serotonergic neurons, resulting in improvement of those symptoms. Forty patients with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder were entered in a double-blind study to assess comparative clinical response and pharmacologic parameters of fluvoxamine, a highly selective blocker of serotonin reuptake, and desipramine, a noradrenergic agent. Eighteen patients receiving desipramine and 17 patients receiving fluvoxamine completed the study. Fluvoxamine was comparable to desipramine in its antidepressant efficacy and was better tolerated and caused minimal side effects. There was a direct linear relationship between plasma fluvoxamine levels and clinical response and a nonlinear relationship between plasma desipramine levels and clinical response. The pharmacologic specificity of the two drugs was assessed by determining uptake inhibition of serotonin and norepinephrine. The authors found a positive relationship between Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores and norepinephrine uptake inhibition for desipramine but found no such relationship between fluvoxamine and serotonin uptake inhibition. Although there was a clear-cut difference in the quality of pharmacologic specificity and a partial relationship to clinical response, the authors were unable to identify neuropharmacologic factors that would predict either treatment response or selective amelioration of symptomatologies in this patient population. 1 We report the results of a comparative clinical trial of a new antidepressant drug fluvoxamine (a specific re-uptake inhibitor of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)) with chlorimipramine. Thirty-two patients with mixed depression received one or the other drug at the same daily dosage of 150 mg. 2 In both drug groups there was an overall clinically significant improvement for all items on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (67% improvement in both groups). 3 In the chlorimipramine group there were more digestive symptoms and anticholinergic effects; the difference with the fluvoxamine group approached statistical significance. 4 No clinically important effects of either treatment were observed on heart-rate or blood pressure. Although selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are better tolerated than tricyclic antidepressants, their efficacy in severe depression remains to be further elucidated.
                A double-blind, multicentre study was conducted in 86 severely depressed inpatients (>or= 25 on the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale [HAMD] total score) to compare the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine with that of clomipramine. Following placebo run-in, 86 patients were randomised to receive fluvoxamine or clomipramine (100-250 mg/day) for 8 weeks.
                Fluvoxamine and clomipramine both resulted in marked improvements; there were no statistically significant differences between them on the 17-item HAMD total score, the clinical global impression severity of illness or global improvement items or the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale, at any visit. At the end of the study, 71% in the fluvoxamine group and 69% in the clomipramine group were responders (>or= 50% decrease in 17-item HAMD total score). However, fluvoxamine was better tolerated than clomipramine. Clomipramine was associated with a higher incidence of overall and treatment-related adverse events. In addition, the percentage of patients discontinued prematurely due to adverse events was more than twice as high with clomipramine than with fluvoxamine (24% vs 11%).
                Fluvoxamine and clomipramine are equally effective in severe depression, but fluvoxamine has a better safety and tolerability profile.
                Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and tolerance of fluvoxamine (FL) and amitriptyline (AM) in the treatment of patients hospitalized for moderate and severe depression and to evaluate the spectrum of antidepressive activity in FL. The study was open, randomized and comparative. Sixty patients (mean age 41 +/- 2.9 years) diagnosed as having recurrent depressive disorder, a moderate or severe depressive episode (ICD-10 F33.1, F33.2) were divided into two equal groups treated with FL or AM. The efficacies of FL and AM were comparable, with AM exhibiting an earlier clinical effect and FL having a better tolerance. FL was defined as an antidepressant with the predominantly sedative effect comparable to that of AM, but being better tolerated. Numerous neuropsychological studies have reported deficits in cognitive and attentional functioning in depressed patients. However, there are limited data available about unmedicated depressed patients and the effects of antidepressant treatment on attentional performance. In this study, a Continuous Performance Test (CPT) was employed to evaluate the attentional performance of depressed inpatients during a drugfree period (n = 52) in comparison to healthy control subjects (n = 73). After 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with imipramine (TCA) or fluvoxamine (SSRI) at adequate plasma levels the CPT performance was studied again. We found that the unmedicated patients had a significantly impaired performance on all CPT parameters (reaction time, omission errors and commission errors) in comparison to the controls. None of the CPT parameters correlated with the severity of the depression or the level of psychomotor retardation. However, the CPT performance in the patient group was significantly related to subjective mood state (depression, tension). Double-blind treatment with imipramine or fluvoxamine resulted in an improvement of the CPT performance. In the imipramine treatment group the mean reaction time decreased significantly, and after treatment with fluvoxamine a significant decrease of the mean reaction time and the number of omission errors was detected. Both antidepressants induced a significant improvement of clinical state, but we did not find a relationship between the altered CPT performance and the changes on the clinical scales. Future studies should investigate other mechanisms underlying the improved attentional performance after treatment.
                Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. The efficacy of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and the tricyclic antidepressants is well established, although data on the efficacy of SSRIs in severe depression is limited. Several studies have demonstrated that fluvoxamine is as effective as clomipramine in the treatment of severe depression. The aim of this four-week study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fluvoxamine and clomipramine in hospitalised depressed patients. Patients were eligible for entry into the study if they had an established diagnosis of depression, and an overall score of more than 17 on the first 17-items of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD). Twenty patients received fluvoxamine 100-300 mg in divided daily doses (mean daily dose 204 mg), and 20 received clomipramine 50-150 mg in divided daily doses (mean daily dose 106 mg) for four weeks. Efficacy was assessed using the HAMD and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales, at baseline and weekly intervals thereafter. The investigator's overall rating of efficacy and tolerability was also noted. At the end of the study, both fluvoxamine and clomipramine produced a marked to moderate therapeutic effect. Compared with baseline both fluvoxamine and clomipramine produced similar improvements in the HAMD total, HAMD item and CGI scores. More patients in the clomipramine group experienced anticholinergic side-effects and orthostatic hypotension. Furthermore, a significant difference in favour of fluvoxamine was found with regard to the investigator's overall assessment of undesirable signs and symptoms (p = 0.023; Wilcoxon's test). In conclusion, fluvoxamine is as effective as clomipramine in hospitalised depressed patients, and is better tolerated. A total of 32 unmedicated patients with episodes of major depression (DSM-III-R) and 32 normal control subjects matched for age and sex were tested for heart rate variability (R-R variation) while resting and during deep breathing. Compared with the group of healthy subjects, the depressed patients showed no abnormalities before therapy. The patients were randomly allocated for treatment with 150 mg of amitriptyline per day (N = 8), 150 mg of doxepin per day (N = 8), 150 mg of fluvoxamine per day (N = 8), and 20 mg of paroxetine per day (N = 8). During treatment with either amitriptyline or doxepin, the coefficients of variation at rest and during deep breathing, which are largely independent of heart rate, had significantly decreased after 14 days (p = 0.012), whereas patients treated with fluvoxamine or paroxetine showed no significant changes of heart rate variability parameters after 14 days. The implications of these findings are discussed. To test the hypothesis that the antidepressant effects of total sleep deprivation (TSD) are linked to the serotonergic and/or noradrenergic system the authors carried out a double-blind study (fluvoxamine versus maprotiline) in 42 inpatients with endogenous depression (ICD). Patients were randomized to a four-week treatment with either fluvoxamine (100-300 mg/day) or maprotiline (100-300 mg/day). In addition, patients underwent a TSD procedure before and after one week of antidepressant medication. There was a statistically significant reduction of depression ratings (HDRS) in both the fluvoxamine and maprotiline group. The day-1 response to TSD before antidepressive medication was not associated with a clear relationship to the outcome after four weeks of treatment with either fluvoxamine or maprotiline. On the other hand, the day-2 response to TSD was significantly correlated with a good outcome to subchronic treatment with maprotiline. Furthermore, the results of the authors' data suggest that a favorable short-term outcome of TSD may be connected to antidepressants enhancing the serotonergic neurotransmission. The global comparison between fluvoxamine and maprotiline revealed that the group of patients treated with fluvoxamine had a significantly higher efficiency index (CGI) than the maprotiline group; fluvoxamine was rated to be tolerated excellently in 70% of the patients whereas this percentage was only 43% in the maprotiline group. There was also significantly more vertigo and dry mouth in the maprotiline group whereas the fluvoxamine group was rated to have significantly more sleep disturbances during the trial. nan The efficacy and tolerability of moclobemide and fluvoxamine, two new types of antidepressant agents, were compared in a multicentre, double-blind prospective study of patients with a diagnosis of major depressive episode (DSM III). Patients were randomized to receive either moclobemide (150 mg) or fluvoxamine (50 mg) twice daily for 7 days, immediately following a washout period of at least 1 week. Dosages were increased where necessary on day 8, to a maximum of moclobemide 450 mg or fluvoxamine 200 mg and in most cases were maintained at these levels for the remainder of the study period (4-6 weeks). Both treatment groups showed a marked antidepressant effect. While both treatments were well tolerated, moclobemide showed a more favourable side-effect profile than fluvoxamine. Of the 126 patients eligible for evaluation, 34 withdrew from therapy, 22% in the moclobemide group and 30% in the fluvoxamine group. Adverse events were reported in 41.8% of patients treated with moclobemide compared to 60.3% of patients in the fluvoxamine group. Reports of dry mouth and other anticholinergic effects were more frequent among those treated with fluvoxamine. A greater number of gastrointestinal complaints, especially nausea, also occurred in the fluvoxamine-treated patients. Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, was investigated in a 6-week double-blind study among severely ill inpatients with DSM-III major depression. All but 1 patient also fulfilled criteria for melancholia. Following a 3-day placebo wash-out patients were randomly assigned to fluvoxamine, imipramine or placebo. Sixty of 81 patients completed at least 2 weeks following wash-out and were evaluated for efficacy. Analysis of covariance (controlling for baseline scores) showed significant (p less than 0.05) differences on CGI severity and BPRS total and a similar trend (p = 0.08) on the Hamilton Depression Scale. Fluvoxamine was superior (p less than or equal to 0.02) to both placebo and imipramine on these measures. Fluvoxamine's most common adverse effects were nausea and agitation. The number of fluvoxamine patients withdrawn for side-effects was less than imipramine and not significantly different than placebo. Fluvoxamine was not associated with significant changes in vital signs, ECG or laboratory tests. The results therefore indicate that fluvoxamine is a safe and highly effective treatment for hospitalized patients with major depression. nan
We found no strong evidence that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to any other antidepressants in terms of efficacy and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of depression. However, differing side effect profiles were evident. Based on these findings, we conclude that clinicians should focus on practical or clinically relevant considerations, including these differences in side effect profiles.