Comparison of the tolerability and efficacy of citalopram and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients treated in general practice. A double-blind multicentre comparison of mirtazapine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. Comparative cardiac effects of maprotiline and doxepin in elderly depressed patients. Citalopram versus nortriptyline in late-life depression: a 12-week randomized single-blind study. Double-blind comparative multicentre study of fluvoxamine and mianserin in the treatment of major depressive episode in elderly people. A double-blind, multicentre study of paroxetine versus clomipramine in depressed elderly patients. Fluoxetine versus trazodone in depressed geriatric patients. Double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of milnacipran and imipramine in elderly patients with major depressive episode. Cognitive and psychomotor effects of different antidepressants in the treatment of old age depression. [Major depressive episodes in patients over 70 years of age. Evaluation of the efficiency and acceptability of tianeptine and mianserin]. A double-blind, randomised comparison of fluvoxamine with dothiepin in the treatment of depression in elderly patients. Reboxetine versus imipramine in the treatment of elderly patients with depressive disorders: a double-blind randomised trial. Multicenter double blind study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in elderly depressed inpatients. A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of venlafaxine and dothiepin in geriatric patients with major depression. Comparative double-blind study on efficacy and side-effects of trazodone, nomifensine, mianserin in elderly patients. Buspirone and imipramine for the treatment of major depression in the elderly. The effects of mood changes and antidepressants on the cognitive capacity of elderly depressed patients. [Multicenter double-blind study comparing the efficacy and tolerance of paroxetine and clomipramine in reactive depression in the elderly patient]. Paroxetine in the treatment of elderly depressed patients in general practice: a double-blind comparison with amitriptyline. A controlled trial of adinazolam versus desipramine in geriatric depression.
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. A total of 115 elderly patients (60-85 years of age) with DSM III diagnosis of major depressive episode were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of treatment with either mirtazapine, 15-45 mg/day, or amitriptyline, 30-90 mg/day. Efficacy was assessed biweekly, using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) as primary outcome variables. The treatment with both drugs resulted in a similar reduction of total HRDS and MADRS scores, with no statistically significant differences between treatment groups at any assessment point or at endpoint. Statistically significant differences favouring amitriptyline were present according to CGI-Global Improvement Scale at endpoint, HRDS cognitive disturbance factor at weeks 2, 4 and 6 and endpoint and retardation factor at week 6. Adverse events were reported by a similar number of patients in both treatment groups. Additional research is needed to assess further the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine among elderly depressed patients. In a double-blind study, 49 elderly patients with primary major depression, with or without cardiovascular disease, were treated with maprotiline or doxepin. Holter monitors, 12-lead ECGs, and orthostatic blood pressure measurements were used. Maprotiline was associated with decreased PVCs in patients with a "high" baseline rate, while doxepin was associated with increased PVCs in this group. There were no significant differences in orthostatic blood pressure changes between treatment and nontreatment phases or between the two drugs. Small but significant increases in heart rate and prolonged PR interval were noted with both drugs. QRS interval was prolonged by maprotiline but decreased by doxepin. Neither drug produced untoward effects in patients with stable angina or an old myocardial infarction. Maprotiline may have an antiarrhythmic effect which could be beneficial in the treatment of depression with concomitant PVCs. Conversely, doxepin may be more appropriate for depressed patients with heart block or intracardiac conduction delays. Further research is necessary to confirm these suggestions. The aim of this single-blind study was to examine the efficacy and tolerability of citalopram compared to nortriptyline in moderate to severe major depressive patients aged 60 years or over. Method: In- and out-patients (N=58) with unipolar major depression were randomized to 12-week flexible dose treatment with nortriptyline or citalopram.
                No significant differences between the number of drop-outs in either group were observed, but the autonomic side-effects were significantly higher for nortriptyline than for citalopram. A significantly higher remission rate to nortriptyline than to citalopram was demonstrated, particularly if severe patients (endogenous or psychotic patients) were assessed.
                The remission rate to a therapeutic plasma level of nortriptyline appears to be higher than the remission rate to a standard dose of citalopram in a group of elderly major depressed patients, especially those with endogenous or psychotic features. On the other hand, citalopram appears to be better tolerated. This is a multicentre double-blind study of fluvoxamine versus mianserin in the treatment of major depressive episode in patients over 65 years of age. Fifty-seven patients received either fluvoxamine (100-200 mg daily) or mianserin (40-80 mg daily). There was no statistically significant difference in improvement between the 2 treatment groups as measured by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Eleven patients (7 in the fluvoxamine group and 4 in the mianserin group) discontinued treatment because of intolerance. No statistically significant differences were seen in biological parameters with either drug. Both drugs improved the symptoms of depression though the overall response rate was not outstanding. The side effects profile for the fluvoxamine was contrary to previous studies in that frequent nausea and vomiting were not seen. nan A total of 27 subjects began active treatment in this double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of trazodone and fluoxetine in geriatric depressed patients, but only 13 completed 6 weeks on study medication. Both agents were effective according to weekly and endpoint analyses, and there was no evidence of significant effects on blood pressure, pulse, or weight. Separate analysis of patients who had received an adequate trial of medication indicated a trend toward relatively more fluoxetine-treated patients meeting clinical criteria for resolved depression. The novel antidepressant agent milnacipran is a dual and equipotent serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. The aim of this double-blind study was to compare the efficacy and safety of milnacipran (50 mg twice daily) with that of imipramine (50 mg twice daily) in elderly patients with major depressive episode. A total of 219 patients were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with either milnacipran or imipramine; 72 patients withdrew from the study. At the end of treatment no significant differences were found between milnacipran and imipramine in antidepressant efficacy. A significantly greater number of side-effects, particularly anticholinergic effects, was observed in the imipramine group. Milnacipran may be preferable to imipramine in elderly depressed patients, as it provides the same antidepressant activity as imipramine with a lower incidence of side-effects, and does not impair cognitive ability. nan The aim of this multicenter study was to compare the efficacy, acceptability and impact on quality of life of tianeptine (T) and mianserine (M) in patients over 70 years of age with major depression.
                Fulfilment of the DSM IIIR criteria for major depression with a total Montgomery and Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) of at least 25 and a Hamilton anxiety rating scale (HARS) of at least 18 were required for inclusion. The 315 men and women enrolled in the study were given, by double blind assignment, either T: 37.5 mg/day, T: 25 mg/day or M: 30 mg/day. Treatment duration was 6 months in all three groups and follow-up continued for 3 months after withdrawal of tianeptine or mianserine. The main efficacy criterion was the MADRS score evaluated at each of 6 visits at day 15 (D15) and month 1 (M1), M2, M4, M4.5 and M6. The HARS score was another efficacy criterion. Overall assessment of efficacy and acceptability was done at each visit by the patient and the investigator. Both the patient and the physician estimated global effectiveness on a quality of life scale at M1, M3, M6 and M9.
                In the intention-to-treat population (n = 299), the antidepressant efficacy of tianeptine and mianserine was not significantly different, whether assessed as effect on anxiety or on quality of life. Scores however tended to be better in the T: 37.5 mg group. Acceptability was good as shown by the low number of adverse events in all 3 groups, but at D15, the incidence of impaired vigilance or equilibrium was significantly lower in the T: 25 mg group than in the M: 30 mg group, emphasizing the advantage of tianeptine in decreasing the risk of falling. Physician-assessed tolerance and acceptability was significantly different at M3 (p = 0.014) and at M6 (p = 0.028) in favor of T: 37.5 mg, indicating that though increasing dosage does not improve efficacy, there is no risk of poorer acceptability.
                These findings reconfirm the antidepressive efficacy, acceptability and safety of tianeptine. They also confirm the anxiolytic aspect associated with the antidepressive effect of tianeptine without any sedative effect. Tianeptine is particularly well indicated in the treatment of depression in elderly or very elderly subjects. 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. Depression in older people is often unrecognised and untreated or under-treated. Antidepressant treatment may itself exacerbate a pre-existing illness, interact with concomitant medications or produce undesirable cognitive and sedative side effects. Newer antidepressants may offer advantages in terms of a lesser burden of adverse effects.
                The comparative tolerability of the unique selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (selective NRI) reboxetine (4-6 mg/day; n = 176) and that of imipramine (50-100 mg/day; n = 171) was assessed in an elderly ( > 65 years) cohort of depressed or dysthymic patients in an 8-week, double-blind, multicentre trial. Comparative efficacy was also assessed.
                Overall, 68% of patients in the reboxetine group experienced adverse events compared with 71% in the imipramine group. Reboxetine-treated patients were less likely to develop hypotension and related symptoms (7% vs. imipramine 16%) or cardiovascular disorders (12.5% vs. imipramine 21.1%), while those treated with imipramine were less likely to experience insomnia (6.3% vs. 2.9%). Adverse events were more often assessed as related to treatment (43%) and moderate to severe in intensity (73%) with imipramine than with reboxetine (33% and 65%, respectively). Furthermore, there were fewer serious adverse events in the reboxetine-treated group (P = 0.019). The reduction in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) was comparable between the treatment groups in the total population. At the last assessment, the majority of patients in both treatment groups were assessed as normal to borderline or mildly ill using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale. In a subanalysis of the dysthymic patients a modest but significant difference in favour of imipramine was observed for both HAM-D and CGI assessments. This may have been a reflection of a trend towards more severe depressive symptoms at baseline in the reboxetine group.
                Reboxetine is as effective as imipramine in the treatment of depression in elderly patients but is at least as well tolerated with a lower risk of hypotension and related symptoms, fewer serious adverse events, adverse event-related withdrawals and treatment-related adverse events. 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. This randomised, double-blind study conducted at nine sites in the UK and the Netherlands compared the safety and antidepressant efficacy of venlafaxine and dothiepin. Ninety-two geriatric patients (aged 64-87 years) with major depression were randomly assigned to receive either venlafaxine or dothiepin for up to 43 days. The dose of venlafaxine or dothiepin was titrated up to a maximum of 150 mg per day for the first 15 days, and thereafter could range from 50 to 150 mg per day. Adjusted mean scores on the MADRS and the HAM-D decreased significantly (p 0.05) for baseline to the end of the study in both groups. A response to therapy was observed in 60% of patients in the venlafaxine group and 53% of patients in the dothiepin group on the MADRS, and in 60% of patients in both groups on the HAM-D. Suicidal ideation scores on the MADRS were significantly (p = 0.042) lower in the venlafaxine group at week 6. Treatment-emergent study events were the primary reasons for withdrawal in only 7% of venlafaxine-treated patients and 8% of dothiepin-treated patients. The results confirm the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine for treating major depression in the elderly. nan The current study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of imipramine and buspirone in the treatment of major depression in elderly depressed attendees of primary care practices.
                177 patients aged 65 and over (mean age = 72 years; range, 65-89) who met DSM-III-R criteria of unipolar major depression with a minimum Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of 18 were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment with flexible doses of either imipramine or buspirone.
                Moderate to marked global improvement after 8 weeks of treatment (LOCF analysis) occurred in 70% of patients treated with imipramine, 61% of patients treated with buspirone, and 42% of patients treated with placebo (chi2 = 9.1, df = 2, p < .02). Drug treatment was well tolerated, with 77% of imipramine- and 61% of buspirone-treated patients completing 8 weeks of therapy. Imipramine/placebo differences were present from week 2 on, but buspirone/placebo differences occurred only at week 8. The presence of comorbid medical illness or concomitant use of nonpsychiatric prescription medications was not associated with poorer antidepressant response, increased adverse effects, or study attrition.
                Imipramine and to a lesser extent buspirone were found to be effective and well tolerated in the treatment of elderly depressed outpatients. Seventy-eight nondemented elderly depressed patients underwent an extensive battery of cognitive tests both before and after seven weeks of treatment with nortriptyline, phenelzine, or placebo. Clinical and cognitive evaluations of the patients were under double-blind conditions. Response to treatment did not appear to significantly affect cognitive capacity; neither did treatment with an active substance as compared to placebo. In addition, the baseline level of cognitive functioning did not appear related to whether a patient responded to treatment. The authors conclude that under optimal conditions neither antidepressant produces measurable changes in the cognitive capacity of nondemented elderly patients. This multi-centre, double-blind study, carried out in France, was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine and clomipramine in elderly patients, aged 60 or above, with reactive depression according to Feighner's criteria. Patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either paroxetine (20 mg o.d.), 41 patients, or clomipramine (increasing from 20 mg o.d. to 20 mg tds), 42 patients, for 5 weeks. Placebo tablets were used to maintain blinding. The degree of depression was determined using the Montgomery-Asberg and the Zung self-rating scales, and also assessed on a visual analogue scale. After 5 weeks of treatment both treatment groups showed a similar degree of improvement on all rating scales. There were no significant differences between the groups. Adverse events occurred in 26 and 28 patients in the paroxetine and clomipramine groups, respectively. In the paroxetine group, many of the events were typical of the gastrointestinal side-effects associated with 5-HT uptake inhibitor therapy. Patients receiving clomipramine experienced events of the type commonly reported with tricyclic antidepressants. There were no significant differences between the groups for either total number of events or for number of patients with specific events. Clinical and laboratory monitoring showed that both drugs were well tolerated. 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) Thirty outpatients between the ages of 60 and 85 with DSM-III Major Depression entered an 8 week randomized, double-blind comparison of desipramine and adinazolam mesylate, a triazolobenzodiazepine derivative. Outcome was assessed on several measures including the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), the 35-item Self-Rating Symptom Scale, and Carroll Depression Scale. Patients in both groups demonstrated a highly significant decrease in average HDRS scores (p less than 0.001) over the course of the study. Adinazolam was associated with significantly greater reduction in average HDRS scores by the third day. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed a significantly greater reduction in HDRS scores for adinazolam over the course of the study. The study medications were associated with distinct patterns of adverse reactions. Desipramine more often produced dry mouth, constipation and nervousness, while adinazolam was more likely to cause drowsiness and lightheadedness. Three of these elderly patients, all of whom were taking desipramine reported at least one fall during the study. Adinazolam may be a promising agent in the treatment of depression in the elderly.
Our findings suggest that SSRIs and TCAs are of the same efficacy. However, we have found some evidence suggesting that TCA related antidepressants and classical TCAs have different side effect profiles and are associated with differing withdrawal rates when compared with SSRIs. The review suggests that classical TCAs are associated with a higher withdrawal rate due to side effect experience, although these results must be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the drugs and patient populations.