Iprindole in neurotic depressed general practice patients: a controlled study. Pizotifen as an antidepressant. Ritanserin, imipramine, and placebo in the treatment of dysthymic disorder. Duration of antidepressant trials: clinical and research implications. Maprotiline versus imipramine and placebo in neurotic depression. Double-blind comparison of sertraline, imipramine, and placebo in the treatment of dysthymia: psychosocial outcomes. Trazodone in the treatment of neurotic depression. A controlled evaluation of U-23,807A in the neurotic depressive syndrome. Buspirone therapy in anxious elderly patients: a controlled clinical trial. [Comparative evaluation of the antidepressive properties of opipramol, imipramine and placebo in neurotic depression]. A randomized double-blind study of fluoxetine versus placebo in the treatment of dysthymia. Treatment of dysthymia and minor depression in primary care: A randomized controlled trial in older adults. Controlled efficacy study of fluoxetine in dysthymia. Viloxazine in the treatment of depressive neurosis: a controlled clinical study with doxepin and placebo. 5-HT2 receptor antagonism in dysthymic disorder: a double-blind placebo-controlled study with ritanserin. Efficacy of desipramine in depressed outpatients. Response according to research diagnosis criteria diagnoses and severity of illness. Viloxazine in the treatment of depressive neurosis: a placebo and standard (imipramine) controlled clinical study. Moclobemide and imipramine in chronic depression (dysthymia): an international double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. International Collaborative Study Group. Moclobemide versus placebo in the treatment of depression: a multicentre study in Belgium. Effect of acetyl-L-carnitine on geriatric patients suffering from dysthymic disorders.
nan In a double-blind study the therapeutic effect and tolerance of pizotifen was compared with placebo in 20 outpatients of both sexes suffering from light to moderate depression. Pizotifen seems to possess certain antidepressive effects in dosages of 4-10 mg daily. These properties, and the well-documented effect of pizotifen in migraine, could make it an alternative in treating patients suffering from the often seen combination of vascular headache/depression. Fifty outpatients with dysthymic disorder (DSM-III) were divided by double-blind randomized assignment into three groups given ritanserin, imipramine, and placebo, respectively. The trial was of 7 weeks' duration; by week 6, imipramine was clearly superior to placebo, whereas by week 7, both drugs caused significantly more improvement than the placebo. Although imipramine had slightly greater efficacy than ritanserin, it also had significantly more side effects. This was particularly evident in the higher dropout rate with imipramine. The efficacy and side effect profile of ritanserin makes it well tolerated and acceptable with dysthymic patients who, although they do not respond as quickly as patients with major depressive disorder, do show significant improvement, given sufficient time. The objective of our study was to demonstrate that additional antidepressant benefit occurs between weeks 4 and 6 in adult outpatients, even when dose is not increased. Response between weeks 4 and 6 was studied among depressed outpatients randomly assigned to imipramine, phenelzine, or placebo under double-blind conditions. Patients were selected for analysis only if they did not have a dose increase after the start of the fourth week of treatment (day 22). Eighty-eight patients met this condition. Conditional probability analysis was performed. Nonresponders to 4 weeks (28 days) of treatment had a significantly greater likelihood of responding by week 6 if they were on phenelzine rather than placebo. The same is probably true for patients on imipramine. In research and clinical care, 4 weeks is too short a trial of phenelzine to conclude a lack of efficacy. Four weeks is probably also too short a trial of imipramine. The antidepressant effect of maprotiline, a tetracyclic compound, was compared with that of imipramine in a four-week, double-blind, placebo controlled study with neurotic depressives. On all factors of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and on most items of the Zung Self-Rating Scales for Depression and Anxiety, maprotiline appeared slightly more effective than imipramine and showed a faster onset of action. In addition, it appeared to cause fewer anticholinergic side effects. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of antidepressant pharmacotherapy on mood symptoms and psychosocial outcomes in dysthymia.
                In a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial, 416 patients with a diagnosis of early-onset primary dysthymia (DSM-III-R) of at least 5 years' duration without concurrent major depression were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of acute-phase therapy with sertraline, imipramine, or placebo. The psychosocial outcome measures used in the study were the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, the Social Adjustment Scale, the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation psychosocial ratings, and the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire.
                Sertraline and imipramine were significantly better than placebo in improving psychosocial outcomes as measured by the first three instruments. The Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire scores demonstrated significant improvements from baseline, and both active treatments produced significantly greater improvements than placebo. Significantly fewer patients discontinued sertraline (6.0%) than discontinued imipramine (18.4%) because of adverse events.
                Pharmacotherapy is an effective treatment for dysthymia in terms of psychosocial functioning as well as depressive symptoms, even when the dysthymia is long-standing. 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. nan Forty patients over 65 years of age with anxiety symptoms due to an anxiety state (N = 20) or secondary to neurotic depression (N = 20) took part in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in a primary care practice. All patients were receiving concomitant drug therapy for chronic medical conditions; 70% were receiving two or more nonpsychotropic drugs in addition to the study medication. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with buspirone 5-30 mg/day or placebo for 4 weeks, with clinical evaluations made weekly. One buspirone-treated and two placebo-treated patients discontinued treatment after 2 weeks because of lack of efficacy. Buspirone treatment resulted in significantly greater (p less than or equal to 0.05) improvement on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and Clinical Global Impression assessment than did placebo. Mild adverse experiences were reported by five buspirone-treated and nine placebo-treated patients. Buspirone (mean dose, 18 mg/day) proved equally effective for elderly patients suffering anxiety states or neurotic depression at doses similar to those used in younger patients, and was well tolerated by elderly patients receiving treatment for other chronic medical conditions. nan The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of fluoxetine, a selective serotonergic antidepressant, in the treatment of dysthymia.
                Thirty-five patients who met criteria for dysthymia, but not major depression, began randomized, double-blind 8-week trials of fluoxetine or placebo.
                Of 32 patients who completed the study, 10 (62.5%) of the 16 patients given fluoxetine and three (18.8%) of the 16 given placebo responded to treatment. Response was defined as 1) 50% or greater decrease in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score and 2) a score of 1 or 2 on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement subscale. Fluoxetine subjects showed significantly greater improvement at week 8 than placebo subjects on the Hamilton depression and CGI scales, but not on the Hopkins Symptom Check-list (58-item) or the Cornell Dysthymia Rating Scale.
                When compared to placebo, fluoxetine showed short-term effectiveness in treating dysthymic symptoms. Insufficient evidence exists for recommendation of specific effective treatments for older primary care patients with minor depression or dysthymia.
                To compare the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy in primary care settings among older persons with minor depression or dysthymia.
                Randomized, placebo-controlled trial (November 1995-August 1998).
                Four geographically and clinically diverse primary care practices.
                A total of 415 primary care patients (mean age, 71 years) with minor depression (n = 204) or dysthymia (n = 211) and a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score of at least 10 were randomized; 311 (74.9%) completed all study visits.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive paroxetine (n = 137) or placebo (n = 140), starting at 10 mg/d and titrated to a maximum of 40 mg/d, or problem-solving treatment-primary care (PST-PC; n = 138). For the paroxetine and placebo groups, the 6 visits over 11 weeks included general support and symptom and adverse effects monitoring; for the PST-PC group, visits were for psychotherapy.
                Depressive symptoms, by the 20-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist Depression Scale (HSCL-D-20) and the HDRS; and functional status, by the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) physical and mental components.
                Paroxetine patients showed greater (difference in mean [SE] 11-week change in HSCL-D-20 scores, 0.21 [0. 07]; P =.004) symptom resolution than placebo patients. Patients treated with PST-PC did not show more improvement than placebo (difference in mean [SE] change in HSCL-D-20 scores, 0.11 [0.13]; P =.13), but their symptoms improved more rapidly than those of placebo patients during the latter treatment weeks (P =.01). For dysthymia, paroxetine improved mental health functioning vs placebo among patients whose baseline functioning was high (difference in mean [SE] change in SF-36 mental component scores, 5.8 [2.02]; P =. 01) or intermediate (difference in mean [SE] change in SF-36 mental component scores, 4.4 [1.74]; P =.03). Mental health functioning in dysthymia patients was not significantly improved by PST-PC compared with placebo (P>/=.12 for low-, intermediate-, and high-functioning groups). For minor depression, both paroxetine and PST-PC improved mental health functioning in patients in the lowest tertile of baseline functioning (difference vs placebo in mean [SE] change in SF-36 mental component scores, 4.7 [2.03] for those taking paroxetine; 4.7 [1.96] for the PST-PC treatment; P =.02 vs placebo).
                Paroxetine showed moderate benefit for depressive symptoms and mental health function in elderly patients with dysthymia and more severely impaired elderly patients with minor depression. The benefits of PST-PC were smaller, had slower onset, and were more subject to site differences than those of paroxetine. There have been very few controlled studies of antidepressants in dysthymia, particularly in samples diagnosed reliably and with an adequate length of follow-up. In this investigation, we measured the long-term outcome in a large group of patients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for dysthymia. This study was designed to investigate whether fluoxetine is effective in the treatment of dysthymia.
                This randomised study including 140 patients, compared fluoxetine (91 patients) and placebo (49 patients) on a double-blind basis in two distinct phases: a short-term end-point (3 months with 20 mg/day fluoxetine) and a medium-term end-point (6 months) where the initial responders continued double-blind treatment unchanged and non-responders received an additional treatment of 20 mg/day fluoxetine.
                After three months of treatment, response was seen more frequently in the fluoxetine group (42/72) than in the placebo group (14/39, P < 0.0001). Improved patients at 3 months were still improved at 6 months. Furthermore, 50% of the nonresponders at 3 months improved and rated as responders at 6 months, after fluoxetine was increased to 40 mg daily.
                This study showed the significant and persistent action of fluoxetine on dysthymia. The finding that 50% of the non-responders at 3 months were improved at 6 months, after fluoxetine dosage was increased to 40 mg daily, argues in favour of treating dysthymic patients for at least 6 months, and with a higher dosage if the initial doses are ineffective. In a four-week, double-blind, clinical trial thirty-one patients with depressive neurosis were treated with viloxazine, doxepin, or placebo. There were no differences among the three groups in therapeutic effects. Many depressed out-patients improve on placebo. Viloxazine hydrochloride is one of a series of compounds developed to explore the central nervous system activity of the aryloxypropanolamine type of beta-adreno-receptor antagonists. Initial clinical study support the hypothesis that viloxazine has antidepressant properties in man (Bayliss et al, 1974; Bereen, 1973; Pichot et al., 1975; Tsegos and Ekdawi, 1974). Thirty patients suffering from dysthymic disorder participated in a 6-week double-blind trial comparing ritanserin 10 mg and placebo. After a single-blind placebo wash-out period of one week, the test medication was administered during 5 weeks on a double-blind basis. Twenty-three patients completed the study. At the end of the trial, ritanserin was significantly superior to placebo in its effect as manifested on the 19-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory X-1 and X-2. At the end of the study, the therapeutic effect was rated marked or moderate in 75% of the ritanserin-treated patients, but only in 18% of the controls. These data are consistent with the hypothesis of serotonin abnormalities in dysthymic disorder and suggest a therapeutic role of 5-HT2 antagonists. Ritanserin treatment was very well tolerated; no serious adverse experiences were reported. The efficacy of desipramine for mild depression was tested in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of outpatients with scores below 19 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). Of 103 such patients, 23 dropped out and 16 improved during a ten-day placebo period. Among 64 patients completing the randomized portion of the study, significantly more improved with desipramine that with placebo. The Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) category of major depressive disorder largely accounted for the drug-placebo response difference found for the entire sample. Patients with intermittent depressive disorder improved significantly less frequently with desipramine than patients with major depressive disorder. Independent of RDC diagnosis, severity of illness correlated with outcome. Thus, patients with pretreatment HAM-D scores at or above the median demonstrated significant drug effect, while patients with lower pretreatment HAM-D scores did not. In a 4-week double-blind trial, 33 patients with depressive neurosis were randomly assigned to either viloxazine, imipramine or placebo. Statistically significant improvement was observed in all treatment groups. Imipramine exhibited significant improvement earlier in depressive symptoms, while viloxazine showed significant improvement earlier in anxious symptoms. The same frequency of treatment emergent symptoms occurred in the treatment groups. Premature termination as a consequence of adverse reactions was required in only 1 viloxazine and 1 placebo patient. An international, multicenter, placebo-controlled study was undertaken to determine the safety and antidepressant efficacy of moclobemide, a new reversible inhibitor of monoamine oxidase A, and imipramine in the treatment of dysthymia (DSM-III-R). A total of 315 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to an 8-week treatment in one of three groups (moclobemide, imipramine and placebo). Patients were male or female outpatients aged between 18 and 65 years meeting DSM-III-R criteria for dysthymia, primary type, with late or early onset. Of the patients in each group 85% completed the 8-week treatment period. The percentage of patients who no longer fulfilled DSM-III-R symptom criteria at treatment endpoint was significantly higher in the moclobemide (60%) and imipramine (49%) treatment groups than in the placebo group (22%). Differences to placebo were also statistically significant both for moclobemide and for imipramine on the other efficacy variables (i.e. Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, final overall efficacy assessment, Clinical Global Impression and symptom check list self-rating). A significant superiority of moclobemide and imipramine over placebo was found in pure dysthymia and in double-depression, as well as in early and late onset subgroups. In early onset cases, moclobemide was significantly more effective than was imipramine on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Anticholinergic symptoms and sleepiness were significantly more frequent side effects on imipramine than on moclobemide or on placebo, and the investigators' final overall assessment of tolerability significantly favoured moclobemide over imipramine. This study demonstrates the efficacy of high dose moclobemide (mean dose 675 mg/day) and high dose imipramine (220 mg/day) against placebo in the treatment of dysthymia. Moclobemide was better tolerated than was imipramine. Moclobemide was compared with placebo for antidepressant activity, tolerance and safety in 2 parallel groups of 23 and 24 depressed patients. At the end of treatment (4 weeks or longer), 9 patients on moclobemide (41%) showed an improvement greater than or equal to 50% on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, compared with only 4 (17%) of those on placebo. The overall assessment of efficacy was significantly better for moclobemide (good or very good results in 50% of patients) than for placebo (80% poor results). Moclobemide was well or very well tolerated by 85% of patients and placebo by 100%. Moclobemide was thus shown to be clearly more effective than placebo and only slightly less well tolerated. Sixty senile subjects (60-80 years old) with dysthymic disturbances as defined by DSM III (Cat. 390.40) were randomized into two homogeneous groups, one of which was given acetyl-L-carnitine (3 g/day per os) while the other received a placebo. After a washout phase of one week, each patient was evaluated by scoring on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Beck Depression Inventory, as well as the Sandoz Clinical Assessment-Geriatric. These tests were administered at the beginning of the trial, prior to drug administration, and repeated during the treatment phase after 30 and 60 days. The results showed that treatment with acetyl-L-carnitine induced a significant reduction, as compared to the placebo (p less than 0.002), in the severity of depressive symptoms and also a significant improvement (p less than 0.0027) in the items measuring the quality of life.
Drugs are effective in the treatment of dysthymia with no differences between and within drug classes. Tricyclic antidepressants are more likely to cause adverse events and dropouts. As dysthymia is a chronic condition, there remains little information on quality of life and medium or long-term outcome.