Amitriptyline in children with major depressive disorder: a double-blind crossover pilot study. Comparative studies of pharmacotherapy for school refusal. The effect of concomitant disorders in childhood depression on predicting treatment response. Double-blind placebo-controlled study of nortriptyline in depressed adolescents using a "fixed plasma level" design. Imipramine treatment of depressed children: a double-blind pilot study. Imipramine in prepubertal major depressive disorders. Response to desipramine treatment in adolescent major depression. Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized, controlled trial. Imipramine plus cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment of school refusal. A randomized, controlled trial of amitriptyline in the acute treatment of adolescent major depression. Adolescent depression: controlled desipramine treatment and atypical features. Pharmacokinetically designed double-blind placebo-controlled study of nortriptyline in 6- to 12-year-olds with major depressive disorder. Randomized, controlled trial of amitriptyline versus placebo for adolescents with "treatment-resistant" major depression.
nan Two studies compared alprazolam and imipramine in the treatment of school refusal. In an open label study (N = 17), two-thirds of the subjects completing a trial in both the alprazolam and imipramine groups showed moderate to marked global improvement in symptoms of anxiety and depression. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled study (N = 24), posttreatment scores calculated as change from baseline on the Anxiety Rating for Children were significantly different (p = .03) among the three treatment groups, with the active medication groups showing the most improvement. Additionally, on all depression rating scales, similar trends were evident with the alprazolam and imipramine groups demonstrating greater improvement than the placebo group. However, analyses of covariance (with pretreatment scores as the covariates) showed no significant differences among the three treatment groups on change in anxiety and depression scales. Thus, additional research is needed to determine whether trends in this study are explained by drug effect or baseline differences on rating scales. Children with pure depression or depression plus an anxiety-related disorder (n = 14) had a higher drug response rate (57%) and a lower placebo response rate (20%) when compared to children with depression plus a concomitant conduct or oppositional disorder (n = 17) (33% drug response rate and 67% placebo response rate). These findings could explain why studies of prepubertal-onset depression found no differences between drug and placebo treatment assuming that a large percentage of the studies' subjects had concomitant conduct or oppositional disorders. The children with pure depression or depression plus an anxiety-related disorder had different symptom clusters from those with depression plus a concomitant conduct or oppositional disorder. The former had more severe CDRS ratings on sleep, appetite disturbance, depressed feelings, and psychomotor retardation. In contrast, those with a concomitant conduct or oppositional disorder had shorter attention spans and were more likely to disturb other children (based on Conners scale scores). We performed a random assignment, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of nortriptyline (NT) in postpubertal 12- to 17-year-olds with Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) and DSM-III major depressive disorder. The protocol included a 2-week placebo washout phase and an 8-week double-blind, placebo-controlled phase with weekly plasma level monitoring. Active subjects had their plasma level placed at 80 +/- 20 ng/ml by using previously developed tables to determine the starting dose from a plasma level drawn 24 hours after a single dose administered at baseline. The study population was severely depressed and had a chronic, unremitting course prior to study; a high percentage of family histories with affective disorder, alcoholism, and suicidality; and a high rate of comorbidity. Of the 52 subjects enrolled, there were 17 placebo washout responders, 4 dropouts, and 31 completers (12 active and 19 placebo). Only one active subject responded; therefore, the study was terminated early. The mean NT plasma level was 91.1 (18.3 SD) ng/ml. The two treatment groups had similar postprotocol severity ratings. Subjects on active drug did not evidence the anticholinergic side effects reported in adult samples. The negative outcome in this study is similar to the findings in our previously reported NT study in prepubertal 6- to 12-year-olds. nan The potential effectiveness of imipramine hydrochloride (up to 5 mg/kg/d) was investigated in 53 prepubertal children suffering from major depressive disorder. Two complementary strategies were used simultaneously: a five-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled design (N = 38), and a plasma level/clinical response study (N = 30). Fifteen of the 16 children randomly assigned to active drug in the first study also participated in the second. Subjects were assessed using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School Age Children and diagnosed according to unmodified Research Diagnostic Criteria. Response rates in the double-blind study were similar in both groups (imipramine, 56%; placebo, 68%). In the plasma level study, total maintenance plasma level (imipramine plus desipramine) was found to positively and linearly predict clinical response of the depressive syndrome (P less than .003). No evidence of a curvilinear relationship was found. Depressive hallucinations during the episode negatively predicted clinical response (P less than .05). Weight-corrected imipramine dosage did not predict either clinical response or plasma level in the individual subject. No predictors of response were found in the placebo group. These results suggest that the mean imipramine dosage was too low, and that future double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of imipramine in prepubertal major depression should include plasma level titration to above 150 ng/mL and an initial placebo washout period. Thirty adolescents (ages 15-20) who met DSM-III-R criteria for major depressive disorder completed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week, fixed-dose (200 mg daily) study of desipramine (DMI). Thirty-three percent of the placebo group and 50 percent of the DMI group improved (greater than or equal to 50% change on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression). Subjective reports of adverse effects did not significantly differentiate the two groups. Major adverse effects, necessitating study discontinuation, occurred solely in the DMI group. To compare paroxetine with placebo and imipramine with placebo for the treatment of adolescent depression.
                After a 7- to 14-day screening period, 275 adolescents with major depression began 8 weeks of double-blind paroxetine (20-40 mg), imipramine (gradual upward titration to 200-300 mg), or placebo. The two primary outcome measures were endpoint response (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] score < or = 8 or > or = 50% reduction in baseline HAM-D) and change from baseline HAM-D score. Other depression-related variables were (1) HAM-D depressed mood item; (2) depression item of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for Adolescents-Lifetime version (K-SADS-L); (3) Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement scores of 1 or 2; (4) nine-item depression subscale of K-SADS-L; and (5) mean CGI improvement scores.
                Paroxetine demonstrated significantly greater improvement compared with placebo in HAM-D total score < or = 8, HAM-D depressed mood item, K-SADS-L depressed mood item, and CGI score of 1 or 2. The response to imipramine was not significantly different from placebo for any measure. Neither paroxetine nor imipramine differed significantly from placebo on parent- or self-rating measures. Withdrawal rates for adverse effects were 9.7% and 6.9% for paroxetine and placebo, respectively. Of 31.5% of subjects stopping imipramine therapy because of adverse effects, nearly one third did so because of adverse cardiovascular effects.
                Paroxetine is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents. To investigate the efficacy of 8 weeks of imipramine versus placebo in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for the treatment of school-refusing adolescents with comorbid anxiety and major depressive disorders.
                This was a randomized, double-blind trial with 63 subjects entering the study and 47 completing. Outcome measures were weekly school attendance rates based on percentage of hours attended and anxiety and depression rating scales.
                Over the course of treatment, school attendance improved significantly for the imipramine group (z = 4.36, p < .001) but not for the placebo group (z = 1.26, not significant). School attendance of the imipramine group improved at a significantly faster rate than did that of the placebo group (z = 2.39, p = .017). Over the 8 weeks of treatment, there was a significant difference between groups on attendance after controlling for baseline attendance; mean attendance rate in the final week was 70.1% +/- 30.6% for the imipramine group and 27.6% +/- 36.1% for the placebo group (p < .001). Defining remission as 75% school attendance, 54.2% of the imipramine group met this criterion after treatment compared with only 16.7% from the placebo group (p = .007). Anxiety and depression rating scales decreased significantly across treatment for both groups, with depression on the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised decreasing at a significantly faster rate in the imipramine group compared with the placebo group (z = 2.08, p = .037).
                Imipramine plus CBT is significantly more efficacious than placebo plus CBT in improving school attendance and decreasing symptoms of depression in school-refusing adolescents with comorbid anxiety and depression. To determine amitriptyline's (AMI) efficacy in the acute treatment of adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD).
                Subjects aged 12 through 17 years meeting Research Diagnostic Criteria for MDD, diagnosed with the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children (K-SADS), participated in a 2-week placebo-washout followed by an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-design, placebo-controlled trial of AMI, 5 mg/kg per day. The K-SADS nine-item scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impressions rating scale were used as outcome measures.
                Thirty-one subjects were randomized (18 AMI, 13 placebo). Twenty-two subjects were study completers (12 AMI, 10 placebo). AMI's efficacy was suggested by the Clinical Global Impressions but not the K-SADS-derived data. Perhaps the primary limitation of the current study is its small sample size.
                No definitive recommendation can be made regarding the efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of adolescent MDD. The study was designed to test the efficacy of desipramine in adolescents with major depression (MDD). In addition, we assessed the presence of atypical features of MDD, consisting of mood reactivity and two of four associated features (rejection sensitivity, hyperphagia, hypersomnia, and leaden paralysis). Patients were randomized to desipramine (DMI) or placebo for 6 weeks, provided they failed to improve (e.g., meeting MDD criteria and a Hamilton Depression Scale score > or = 18) after 2 weeks on single blind placebo. Of 94 adolescents (ages 13-18) who were diagnosed as having MDD, 64 entered the study and 62 received placebo for 2 weeks. Of these, 45 were randomized to DMI or placebo. Completed analyses did not reveal significant improvement for the active treatment compared to the placebo. A large proportion of adolescents responded to placebo (50%), suggesting the need for very large samples to detect differential treatment efficacy, should it exist. A relatively high rate of atypical depression was observed (47% in the 64 patients entered). In view of the demonstrated specificity of monoamine oxidase inhibitor efficacy in adults with atypical features of MDD, this clinical subtype may have relevance to future investigation of therapeutic interventions in adolescent MDD. A random assignment, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of nortriptyline in 50 prepubertal 6- to 12-year-olds with Research Diagnostic Criteria and DSM-III major depressive disorder was performed. The protocol included a 2-week placebo wash-out phase and an 8-week double-blind, placebo-controlled phase with weekly plasma level monitoring. Active subjects had their plasma level pharmacokinetically placed at 80 +/- 20 ng/ml by using previously developed tables to determine the starting dose from a plasma level 24 hours after a single dose administered at baseline. The mean plasma level was 89.9 ng/ml. The study population was severely depressed, had a chronic, unremitting course of long duration before the study, had a high percentage of family histories with affective disorder, alcoholism and suicidality, and had a high rate of comorbidity. None of the subjects had ever received tricyclic antidepressants before this study. There was a poor rate of response in both treatment groups (30.8% active, 16.7% placebo). Active subjects did not evidence the anticholinergic side effects reported in adult samples. The implications of these findings for future pharmacotherapy studies of depressed children are discussed. To assess the response to a serotonergic/noradrenergic tricyclic antidepressant, amitriptyline (AMI), in a group of adolescents with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD).
                Twenty-seven depressed adolescents admitted to a state hospital underwent a 10-week randomized, controlled trial with a flexible dose of AMI or placebo.
                There were no differences between patients taking AMI (n = 13) and placebo (n = 14). Both treatment groups showed approximately 70% to 80% improvement on the clinical outcome measurements, and 65% to 70% showed functional improvement. At the end of the protocol, 30% of patients still fulfilled criteria for MDD and had impaired functioning. Patients taking AMI experienced significantly more dry mouth and tachycardia. The final AMI dose was 173.1 mg/day +/- 56.3 mg/day; blood levels were 226.2 ng/mL +/- 80.8 ng/mL.
                No significant differences were found between AMI and placebo, in part because of the high placebo response rate. Although both treatment groups showed substantial response, at the end of treatment a substantial proportion of patients still had MDD of subsyndromal symptoms of depression. This and other studies of tricyclic antidepressants question the use of this medication as first-line treatment for youths with MDD.
Data suggest tricyclic drugs are not useful in treating depression in children. There is marginal evidence to support the use of tricyclic drugs in the treatment of depression in adolescents.