Efficacy and safety of venlafaxine versus nortriptyline for the preventive treatment of migraine: A double-blind randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Migraine, as a primary headache disorder, stands as one of the primary causes of disability worldwide. Consequently, prophylactic treatments are highly recommended for individuals experiencing recurrent migraine episodes. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of venlafaxine and nortriptyline in the prophylactic management of migraine. METHODS: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 210 migraine patients were allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. One group received venlafaxine (37.5 mg, orally twice daily), while the other group administered nortriptyline (25 mg, orally once daily). A neurologist documented (1) headache intensity using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 6-point Behavioral Rating Scale (BRS-6), (2) headache frequency (per month), and (3) headache duration (in hours) of participants on days 0, 45, and 90 of the intervention. RESULTS: Following the 90-day intervention, a significant decrease was observed in VAS, BRS-6, frequency, and duration of headaches within both groups (all with p-values <0.001). No difference in VAS, BRS-6, or headache durations was observed between the two groups after 45 and 90 days of treatment (all p-values > 0.05). Although the headache frequency exhibited no difference between the groups after 45 days (p-value = 0.097), a significantly lower frequency in the venlafaxine group was observed at day 90 of the intervention (p-value = 0.011). The reductions in attack parameters in the 0-45- and 0-90-day intervals did not meet statistical significance between the two groups (p-values > 0.05). 77.0 % of the participants in the venlafaxine group and 79.2 % in the nortriptyline group experienced a minimum of 50 % improvement in all attack parameters. Venlafaxine demonstrated a statistically significant lower incidence of adverse reactions in comparison to nortriptyline (p-value = 0.005). A total of 33 adverse drug reactions were documented in the venlafaxine group and 53 in the nortriptyline group, with insomnia observed in the former and xerostomia in the latter as the most prevalent side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Venlafaxine and nortriptyline demonstrate clinically significant and comparable therapeutic efficacy for migraine patients in reducing the intensity, frequency, and duration of headache attacks. Venlafaxine may be preferred to nortriptyline in the context of migraine preventive treatment under comparable conditions due to its lower incidence of adverse effects.

Adverse drug events associated with nortriptyline compared with paroxetine and alternative medications in an older adult population: a retrospective cohort study in Southern California.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate risk for falls, fractures and syncope in older adult patients treated with nortriptyline compared with paroxetine and alternative medications. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The electronic medical record and prescription drug database of a large integrated healthcare system in Southern California. PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory patients, age ≥65 years diagnosed with depression, anxiety disorder or peripheral neuropathy, dispensed one or more of ten study medications between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: HR for falls, fractures and syncope with exposure to study medications adjusted for patient demographic variables and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 195 207 subjects, 19 305 falls, 15 088 fractures and 11 313 episodes of syncope were observed during the study period. Compared with the reference medication, nortriptyline, the adjusted HRs (aHRs) for falls were statistically significantly greater for: paroxetine (aHR 1.48, 95% CI 1.39 to 1.57), amitriptyline (1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.33), venlafaxine (1.44, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.56), duloxetine (1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.40), fluoxetine (1.51, 95% CI 1.44 to 1.59), sertraline (1.53, 95% CI 1.44 to 1.62), citalopram (1.61, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.71) and escitalopram (1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.54), but not gabapentin (0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.02). For fractures, compared with nortriptyline, aHRs were significantly greater for: paroxetine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram and gabapentin, with aHRs ranging from 1.30 for gabapentin to 1.82 for escitalopram; risk was statistically similar for amitriptyline. For syncope, the aHRs were significantly greater for: paroxetine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, sertraline and citalopram, with aHRs ranging from 1.19 for fluoxetine and paroxetine up to 1.30 for citalopram and sertraline; risk was similar for amitriptyline, duloxetine, escitalopram and gabapentin. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with therapeutic alternatives, nortriptyline was found to represent a lower risk for falls, fractures and syncope, versus comparator medications, except for a few instances that had equivalent risk. The risk for these adverse events from paroxetine was comparable to the alternative medications.

ANTIDEPRESSANT MEDICATIONS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED RISK OF HOSPITAL-ACQUIRED CLOSTRIDIOIDES DIFFICILE INFECTION: A POPULATION-BASED STUDY.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: •The rate and severity of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has increased throughout North America, the United Kingdom, and Europe. •Scattered evidence about the association of CDI with antidepressant medications use exists in the literature so far. What are the new findings: •The risk of Clostridioides difficile infection is higher in patients who are on mirtazapine, nortriptyline, or trazodone. •The prevalence rate of Clostridioides difficile infection in patients who were using antidepressant medications and the ones who did not, increased with age. Background - During the past decade, Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has become the most common cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Several risk factors have been implicated. Scattered evidence about the association of CDI with antidepressant medications use exists in the literature so far. Therefore, we aim to investigate whether the risk of developing CDI is increased in hospitalized patients using antidepressant medications.Methods - Patients who were hospitalized were included in our cohort. We excluded individuals aged less than 18 years. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to calculate the risk of CDI accounting for potential confounders. Results - The risk of CDI in hospitalized patients was increased in individuals diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (OR: 4.44; 95%CI: 4.35-4.52), and in patients using clindamycin (OR: 1.55; 95%CI: 1.53-1.57), beta-lactam antibiotics (OR: 1.62; 95%CI: 1.60-1.64), PPI (OR: 3.27; 95%CI: 3.23-3.30), trazodone (OR: 1.31; 95%CI: 1.29-1.33), nortriptyline (OR: 1.25; 95%CI: 1.21-1.28), and mirtazapine (OR: 2.50; 95%CI: 2.46-2.54). After controlling for covariates, the risk of CDI was not increased in patients who were taking fluoxetine (OR: 0.94; 95%CI: 0.92-0.96). Conclusion - In contrary to fluoxetine; mirtazapine, nortriptyline, and trazodone were associated with increased risk of CDI in hospitalized patients.

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

To evaluate the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of antidepressants in helping smokers quit tobacco dependence, five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS ) on different antidepressant interventions involving smoking cessation in populations (September 2022). The STATA 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis. The Cochrane bias risk tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and CINeMA was used to evaluate the evidence credibility for the effect of different interventions on smoking cessation. In all, 107 RCTs involving 42 744 patients were included. Seven studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. All trials reported 18 interventions and 153 pairwise comparisons were generated. The network meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo, varenicline + bupropion (OR = 3.53, 95% CI [2.34, 5.34]), selegiline + nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (OR = 3.78, 95% CI [1.20, 11.92]), nortriptyline + NRT (OR = 2.33, 95% CI [1.21, 4.47), nortriptyline (OR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.11,2.26]), naltrexone + bupropion (OR = 3.84, 95% CI [1.39, 10.61]), bupropion + NRT (OR = 2.29, 95% CI [1.87, 2.81]) and bupropion (OR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.53, 1.89]) showed benefits with respect to smoking cessation. In addition, bupropion + NRT showed better effects than bupropion (OR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.12, 1.64]) and NRT (OR = 1.38, 95% CI [1.13, 1.69]) alone. The final cumulative ranking curve showed that varenicline + bupropion was the most likely to be the best intervention. There was moderate- to very-low-certainty evidence that most interventions showed benefits for smoking cessation compared with placebo, including monotherapy and combination therapies. Varenicline + bupropion had a higher probability of being the best intervention for smoking cessation.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

Tricyclic antidepressants induce liver inflammation by targeting NLRP3 inflammasome activation.

BACKGROUND: Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (IDILI) is common in hepatology practices and, in some cases, lethal. Increasing evidence show that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) can induce IDILI in clinical applications but the underlying mechanisms are still poorly understood. METHODS: We assessed the specificity of several TCAs for NLRP3 inflammasome via MCC950 (a selective NLRP3 inhibitor) pretreatment and Nlrp3 knockout (Nlrp3-/-) BMDMs. Meanwhile, the role of NLRP3 inflammasome in the TCA nortriptyline-induced hepatotoxicity was demonstrated in Nlrp3-/- mice. RESULTS: We reported here that nortriptyline, a common TCA, induced idiosyncratic hepatotoxicity in a NLRP3 inflammasome-dependent manner in mildly inflammatory states. In parallel in vitro studies, nortriptyline triggered the inflammasome activation, which was completely blocked by Nlrp3 deficiency or MCC950 pretreatment. Furthermore, nortriptyline treatment led to mitochondrial damage and subsequent mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (mtROS) production resulting in aberrant activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome; a selective mitochondrial ROS inhibitor pretreatment dramatically abrogated nortriptyline-triggered the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Notably, exposure to other TCAs also induced aberrant activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by triggering upstream signaling events. CONCLUSION: Collectively, our findings revealed that the NLRP3 inflammasome may act as a crucial target for TCA agents and suggested that the core structures of TCAs may contribute to the aberrant activation of NLRP3 inflammasome induced by them, an important factor involved in the pathogenesis of TCA-induced liver injury. Video Abstract.

Antidepressant Augmentation versus Switch in Treatment-Resistant Geriatric Depression.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and risks of augmenting or switching antidepressants in older adults with treatment-resistant depression have not been extensively studied. METHODS: We conducted a two-step, open-label trial involving adults 60 years of age or older with treatment-resistant depression. In step 1, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with aripiprazole, augmentation with bupropion, or a switch from existing antidepressant medication to bupropion. Patients who did not benefit from or were ineligible for step 1 were randomly assigned in step 2 in a 1:1 ratio to augmentation with lithium or a switch to nortriptyline. Each step lasted approximately 10 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in psychological well-being, assessed with the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales (population mean, 50; higher scores indicate greater well-being). A secondary outcome was remission of depression. RESULTS: In step 1, a total of 619 patients were enrolled; 211 were assigned to aripiprazole augmentation, 206 to bupropion augmentation, and 202 to a switch to bupropion. Well-being scores improved by 4.83 points, 4.33 points, and 2.04 points, respectively. The difference between the aripiprazole-augmentation group and the switch-to-bupropion group was 2.79 points (95% CI, 0.56 to 5.02; P = 0.014, with a prespecified threshold P value of 0.017); the between-group differences were not significant for aripiprazole augmentation versus bupropion augmentation or for bupropion augmentation versus a switch to bupropion. Remission occurred in 28.9% of patients in the aripiprazole-augmentation group, 28.2% in the bupropion-augmentation group, and 19.3% in the switch-to-bupropion group. The rate of falls was highest with bupropion augmentation. In step 2, a total of 248 patients were enrolled; 127 were assigned to lithium augmentation and 121 to a switch to nortriptyline. Well-being scores improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points, respectively (difference, 0.99; 95% CI, -1.92 to 3.91). Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium-augmentation group and 21.5% in the switch-to-nortriptyline group; rates of falling were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with treatment-resistant depression, augmentation of existing antidepressants with aripiprazole improved well-being significantly more over 10 weeks than a switch to bupropion and was associated with a numerically higher incidence of remission. Among patients in whom augmentation or a switch to bupropion failed, changes in well-being and the occurrence of remission with lithium augmentation or a switch to nortriptyline were similar. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; OPTIMUM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02960763.).

Efficacy and Safety of Vernonia cinerea for Smoking Cessation: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial.

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Vernonia cinerea (VC) and nortriptyline for smoking cessation. A randomized, active-comparator, open-label trial was conducted in 2019. A total of 84 patients participated in the study, and equally randomized with 42 participants in each group. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference of continuous abstinence rate (CAR) between VC and nortriptyline group (Odd ratio 0.68, 95%CI 0.25-1.85, P=0.451). After week 12, the end of treatment, CAR between both groups was not different (44.44% vs 45.95%, Odd ratio 0.77, 95%CI 0.23-2.54, P>0.999). After follow up by the end of research at week 24, the CAR in both groups was not different (41.67% vs 43.24%, Odd ratio 0.76, 95%CI 0.23-2.55, P>0.999). After week 24, relapse rate between VC and nortriptyline group was not different (13.89% vs 10.81%, P=0.923). In addition, both groups were effective in reducing the number of cigarettes per day compared to baseline. However, there was no difference between the groups. Overall, the VC group had an 8% smoking rate less than nortriptyline group, but not statistically significant (IRR 0.92, 95%CI 0.59-1.43, P=0.702). They also resulted in reducing the exhaled CO level at treatment period and wash out period (at week 12; 7(-17-20) vs 7(-12-16), mean difference 0.78, 95%CI -3.07-4.63, P>0.999, at week 24; 8(-5-22) vs 8.5(-5-17), mean difference 0.39, 95%CI -3.46-4.24, P>0.999). Overall, there was no difference between either group (mean difference -0.31, 95%CI -3.10-2.47). For safety data, adverse events including tongue bitter taste or numbness were found in VC group to be greater than in nortriptyline group (61.9% vs 30.95%, P=0.004), whereas dry mouth and drowsiness were greater found in nortriptyline group (35.71% vs 90.48%, P<0.001 and 16.67% vs 90.48%, P<0.001, respectively). Serious adverse events were not found. In smoking cessation, efficacy and safety of either VC or nortriptyline showed no difference.

Risk of cardiovascular events according to the tricyclic antidepressant dosage in patients with chronic pain: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: We aimed to examine the risk of cardiovascular adverse events by tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) dosage among patients with chronic pain. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a nationwide sample cohort. Among patients aged ≥ 18 years with a chronic pain diagnosis and no history of cardiovascular events, we extracted users and non-users of TCAs through 1:1 propensity score matching. TCA users were categorized into three groups according to the mean defined daily dose (DDD): very low doses (< 0.15 DDD), low doses (0.15-0.34 DDD), and traditional doses (≥ 0.34 DDD). A 6-month follow-up was conducted with an intention-to-treat approach. We examined the hazard ratio of cardiovascular adverse events using Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: In total, 16,660 matched patients were followed up (8330 TCA users and 8330 non-users). TCA use did not significantly increase cardiovascular adverse events (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.33). Low-dose (0.15-0.34 DDD) TCAs (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08-1.74), particularly low-dose (0.15-0.34 DDD) nortriptyline (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.44-3.08), was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events. Administration of TCAs at the traditional dose (≥ 0.34 DDD) increased the risk of ischemic stroke (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.11-3.88). CONCLUSION: Close monitoring of patients on long-term, low-dose use of TCAs should be conducted to avoid an increase in the cumulative dose, which increases the risk of cardiovascular adverse events.

Dimensions of temperament and character as predictors of antidepressant discontinuation, response and adverse reactions during treatment with nortriptyline and escitalopram.

BACKGROUND: Personality traits may predict antidepressant discontinuation and response. However, previous studies were rather small, only explored a few personality traits and did not include adverse drug effects nor the interdependency between antidepressant discontinuation patterns and response. METHODS: GENDEP included 589 patients with unipolar moderate-severe depression treated with escitalopram or nortriptyline for 12 weeks. Seven personality dimensions were measured using the self-reported 240-item Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised (TCI-R). We applied Cox proportional models to study discontinuation patterns, logistic and linear regression to investigate response and remission after 8 and 12 weeks, and mixed-effects linear models regarding time-varying treatment response and adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: Low harm avoidance, low cooperativeness, high self-transcendence and high novelty seeking were associated with higher risks for antidepressant discontinuation, independent of depressed mood, adverse drug reactions, drug, sex and age. Regression analyses showed that higher novelty seeking and cooperativeness scores were associated with a greater likelihood of response and remission after 8 and 12 weeks, respectively, but we found no correlations with response in the mixed-effects models. Only high harm avoidance was associated with more self-reported adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: This study, representing the largest investigation between several personality traits and response to two different antidepressants, suggests that correlations between personality traits and antidepressant treatment response may be confounded by differential rates of discontinuation. Future trials on personality in the treatment of depression need to consider this interdependency and study whether interventions aiming at improving compliance for some personality types may improve response to antidepressants.

The Effectiveness of Nortriptyline and Tolerability of Side Effects in Neurogenic Cough Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of nortriptyline and tolerability of side effects in the treatment of neurogenic cough. Secondary goal is to evaluate the association between laryngeal asymmetry and clinical response to nortriptyline. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients diagnosed with neurogenic cough at a quaternary care specialty hospital from 2001 to 2020 were identified. Subjects <18 years old, not treated with nortriptyline, did not have a nasolaryngoscopic examination and were lost to follow-up were excluded. Charts were reviewed for demographic information, clinical history, nasolaryngoscopic findings, medication dosage, side effects, and follow-up time. RESULTS: Forty-two patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria, 7 males and 35 females with an average age of 56.5 (±13.1) years. There were 26/36 (72.2%) responders and 10/36 (27.8%) non-responders; 6 patients stopped nortriptyline due to side effects and were not included in the response comparison. Laryngeal asymmetry was present in 36/42 (85.7%) patients. No factors related to laryngeal asymmetry were significantly different between responders and non-responders. Medication tolerance was observed in 3/42 (7.1%) patients. Side effects were reported in 16/42 (38.1%) patients. The most common side effects were sedation 9/42 (21.4%) and xerostomia 3/42 (7.1%). CONCLUSION: Nortriptyline is effective for treating neurogenic cough with 72% of patients reporting improvement in cough. Evidence of laryngeal asymmetry was not associated with better treatment response. Although 38% experienced side effects, the majority of patients continued nortriptyline despite side effects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Brugada Phenocopy: A Case of Incessant Ventricular Tachycardia in a Patient with Tricyclic Antidepressant Overdose.

Brugada electrocardiographic pattern, or Brugada phenocopy (BrP), can be found in conditions other than Brugada syndrome. We present the case of a 34-year-old woman who was found convulsing at home followed by ventricular tachycardia (VT) cardiac arrest upon arrival to the emergency department. Electrical direct cardioversion led to a return of spontaneous circulation, and she was started on intravenous amiodarone. The patient had four additional episodes of pulseless VT that returned to sinus rhythm with electrical cardioversion. A subsequent electrocardiogram taken in sinus rhythm revealed a right bundle branch block pattern with a coved ST segment elevation and inverted T waves in leads V1 and V2, suggestive of BrP type 1. Further inquiry revealed that an empty bottle of nortriptyline was found at her home. Nortriptyline intoxication was subsequently confirmed by a serum level of 1581 ng/mL. Treatments with intravenous sodium bicarbonate resolved the BrP, and she fully recovered with supportive care. Intoxication with drugs that inhibit cardiac sodium channels, such as nortriptyline, can trigger a BrP in otherwise normal individuals. Nortriptyline and other tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are used to treat chronic pain, depression, and other conditions but have dose-related side effects and can lead to fatal overdose. Intoxication by these TCAs should be on the differential when a BrP is observed.

Delayed Cardiotoxicity From a Massive Nortriptyline Overdose Requiring Prolonged Treatment.

PURPOSE: A case of a nortriptyline overdose complicated by delayed ventricular arrhythmias necessitating prolonged sodium bicarbonate infusion is presented, along with a review of tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) toxicology and key concepts for massive overdose management. SUMMARY: A 61-year-old man presented after an intentional nortriptyline overdose with a possible consumption of up to 2500 mg of nortriptyline. Electrocardiogram on presentation demonstrated QRS widening to 240 milliseconds. Despite treatment with a sodium bicarbonate infusion and further narrowing of his QRS interval, his course was complicated by repeated episodes of wide complex tachycardia. Given these episodes, an elevated quantitative serum nortriptyline level of 468 µg/L on hospital day 6 and persistently positive TCA urine screens, the patient was continued on a sodium bicarbonate infusion until hospital day 14. Based on our patient's quantitative serum nortriptyline levels, we calculated an elimination half-life of 184 hours, 6 days post ingestion as compared to the reported half-life of nortriptyline of 14 to 51 hours. CONCLUSION: This case demonstrates that at toxic levels of ingestion, routine TCA pharmacokinetics may be unreliable due to delayed absorption, enterohepatic recirculation, large volume of distribution, and saturable kinetics. Therefore, in these cases, pharmacokinetic values derived from routine dosing should not be used to make clinical decisions (such as timing of discontinuation of sodium bicarbonate infusion). We found that urine TCA screens provided similar information to quantitative nortriptyline levels and can be used to guide therapy along the QRS duration.

Trajectories of Suicidal Ideation During 12 Weeks of Escitalopram or Nortriptyline Antidepressant Treatment Among 811 Patients With Major Depressive Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Suicidal ideation is a frequent and difficult-to-treat clinical challenge among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, little is known regarding the differential development during antidepressant treatment and whether some patients may suffer from persistent suicidal ideation. METHODS: Among 811 patients with Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN)-verified MDD from 2004-2007 assessed weekly for 12 weeks of escitalopram or nortriptyline antidepressant treatment, we applied item response theory to integrate a suicidality score based on 3 rating scales. We performed latent growth mixture modeling analysis to empirically identify trajectories. Multinomial logistic regression analyses estimated associations with potential predictors. RESULTS: We identified 5 distinct classes of suicidal ideation. The Persistent-low class (53.7%) showed no suicidal ideation whereas the Persistent-high class (9.8%) had high suicidal ideation throughout 12 weeks. Two classes showed a fluctuating course: the Fluctuating class (5.2%) ended at a low level of suicidal ideation, whereas the Slow-response-relapse class (4.8%) initially responded slowly but then experienced a large increase to a high level of suicidal ideation after 12 weeks. The Fast-response class (26.5%) had a high baseline severity similar to the Persistent-high class but responded quickly within a few weeks and remained at a low level. Previous suicide attempts and higher mood symptom severity were associated with worse suicidal ideation trajectories, whereas living with a partner showed a trend toward better response. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 of 5 patients with MDD showed high or fluctuating suicidal ideation despite antidepressant treatment. Studies should investigate whether suicidal ideation may persist for longer periods and more targeted treatment possibilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN​​ identifier: ISRCTN03693000​​​​.

Nortriptyline Abuse: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

The tricyclic antidepressants have long been a tool in the physician's armament for numerous indications, the most prominent of which being depression. Although their efficacy and side effects have been well documented, less known is their abuse. Prior literature has discussed this more for the tertiary amines such as amitriptyline, but currently, there are no documented cases of abuse with the secondary amine nortriptyline. This article reviews the prior literature in regard to tricyclic antidepressants and anticholinergics as substances of abuse, the proposed mechanisms of this, and susceptible populations, as well as a case review of a patient who admitted to using nortriptyline for its "buzz."

Effect of antidepressant switching between nortriptyline and escitalopram after a failed first antidepressant treatment among patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: For patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) experiencing side-effects or non-response to their first antidepressant, little is known regarding the effect of switching between a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).AimsTo compare the switch between the TCA nortriptyline and the SSRI escitalopram. METHOD: Among 811 adults with MDD treated with nortriptyline or escitalopram for up to 12 weeks, 108 individuals switched from nortriptyline to escitalopram or vice versa because of side-effects or non-response (trial registration: EudraCT No.2004-001723-38 (https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/) and ISRCTN No.03693000 (http://www.controlled-trials.com)). Patients were followed for up to 26 weeks after switching and response was measured with the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating scale (MADRS). We performed adjusted mixed-effects linear regression models with full information maximum likelihood estimation reporting ß-coefficients with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Switching antidepressants resulted in a significant decrease in MADRS scores. This was present for switchers from escitalopram to nortriptyline (n = 36, ß = -0.38, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.25, P<0.001) and from nortriptyline to escitalopram (n = 72, ß = -0.34, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.26, P<0.001). Both switching options resulted in significant improvement among individuals who switched because of non-response or side-effects. The results were supported by analyses on other rating scales and symptom dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that switching from a TCA to an SSRI or vice versa after non-response or side-effects to the first antidepressant may be a viable approach to achieve response among patients with MDD.Declarations of interestK.J.A. holds an Alberta Centennial Addiction and Mental Health Research Chair, funded by the Government of Alberta. K.J.A. has been a member of various advisory boards, received consultancy fees and honoraria, and has received research grants from various companies including Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceuticals Research and Development and Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited. D.S. has served on advisory boards for, and received unrestricted grants from, Lundbeck and AstraZeneca. A.F. and P.M. have received honoraria for participating in expert panels for Lundbeck and GlaxoSmithKline.

Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of depression in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies report that up to 80% of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may struggle with symptoms of depression. However, this major comorbidity in COPD is rarely managed effectively. A number of recent studies indicate that left untreated, COPD-related depression is associated with worse quality of life, worse compliance with COPD treatment plan, increased exacerbations, hospital admissions, and healthcare costs when compared to individuals with COPD without depression. Regrettably, COPD practice guidelines do not provide conclusive treatment recommendations for the use of antidepressants in patients with COPD, and base their guidelines on findings from trials in the general population. This may be problematic, as there is an elevated risk of respiratory issues associated with antidepressant treatment and COPD. Evaluating effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions specifically for patients with COPD and depression was therefore paramount. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of depression in patients with COPD. SEARCH METHODS: The last search was performed on 26 November 2018. We initially searched the following databases via the Specialised Trials Registers of the Cochrane Airways and Common Mental Disorders Groups (to June 2016): MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, and the Cochrane Library trials register (CENTRAL). Searches from June 2016 to November 2018 were performed directly on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2018). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 26 November 2018. We searched the grey literature databases to identify studies not indexed in major databases and the reference lists of studies initially identified for full-text screening. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of pharmacological interventions with no intervention, placebo or co-intervention in adults with diagnosed COPD and depression were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed articles identified by the search for eligibility. Our primary outcomes were change in depressive symptoms and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were: change in quality of life, change in dyspnoea, change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), change in exercise tolerance, change in hospital utilisation (length of stay and readmission rates), and cost-effectiveness. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the pooled mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as appropriate. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% CI using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 1125 records screened for eligibility, four RCTs (N = 201 participants), and one on-going study, met the inclusion criteria. Two classes of antidepressants were investigated in two separate comparisons with placebo: a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).TCA versus placeboOnly one RCT (N = 30 participants) provided results for this comparison.Primary outcomesThe TCA (nortriptyline) reduced depressive symptoms post-treatment compared to placebo (MD -10.20, 95% CI -16.75 to -3.65; P = 0.007; very low-quality evidence), as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). Three participants withdrew from the trial due to adverse events related to the tested antidepressant (dry mouth, sedation, orthostatic hypotension).Secondary outcomesThe overall results post-treatment indicated that nortriptyline was not effective in improving the quality of life of individuals with COPD, as measured by the Sickness Impact Profile (MD -2.80, 95% CI -11.02 to 5.42; P = 0.50; very low-quality evidence).The results for the change in dyspnoea for the domains examined (e.g. dyspnoea scores for 'most day-to-day activities') post-treatment showed no improvement in the intervention group (MD 9.80, 95% CI -6.20 to 25.80; P = 0.23; very low-quality evidence).No data were reported for change in FEV1, change in exercise tolerance, change in hospital utilisation, or cost-effectiveness. The TCA study provided short-term results, with the last follow-up data collection at 12 weeks.The quality of the evidence for all the outcomes evaluated was very low due to a small sample size, imprecision, attrition, and selection and reporting bias.SSRIs versus placeboThree RCTs (N = 171 participants) provided results for this comparison.Primary outcomesThe pooled results for two studies showed no difference for the change in depressive symptoms post-intervention (SMD 0.75, 95% CI -1.14 to 2.64; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.44; very low-quality evidence). High heterogeneity was observed (I² = 95%), limiting the reliability of these findings.While it was not possible to meta-analyse the total adverse events rates across the studies, it was possible to combine the results for two medication-specific adverse effects: nausea and dizziness. There were no significant post-treatment group differences for nausea (OR 2.32, 95% CI 0.66 to 8.12; 171 participants; 3 studies; P = 0.19; very low-quality evidence) or dizziness (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.06; 143 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.61; very low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesThe pooled analysis of two trials reporting data for the change in quality of life did not show improvement post-treatment in the intervention group compared to placebo (SMD 1.17, 95% CI -0.80 to 3.15; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.25; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between groups in change in FEV1 post-treatment (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.60; low-quality evidence). However, two trials reported improvement in exercise tolerance in the SSRI group versus the placebo group (MD 13.88, 95% CI 11.73 to 16.03; 148 participants; 2 studies; P < 0.001; very low-quality evidence).The trials included in this comparison did not report data related to the change in dyspnoea, hospital utilisation rates, or cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to make definitive statements about the efficacy or safety of antidepressants for treating COPD-related depression. New RCTs are needed; with better methodological quality and more accurate reporting of the methods used. Moreover, longer-term follow-up data collection is needed, including outcomes such as adverse events, hospital utilisation and cost-effectiveness.

Efficacy and safety of nortriptyline in functional dyspepsia in Asians: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Current treatments of functional dyspepsia (FD) are unsatisfied. Tricyclic antidepressants alter visceral hypersensitivity and brain-gut interaction. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nortriptyline in patients with FD. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with FD according to Rome III criteria who failed to respond to proton pump inhibitor and prokinetic treatment were randomly assigned to either once daily 10-mg nortriptyline or placebo. The primary endpoint was the rate of responders defined as > 50% reduction in dyspepsia symptom score after 8 weeks of treatment. The secondary endpoints were improvement in quality of life as assessed by 36-Item Short Form Health Survey score and safety. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (nortriptyline 28 and placebo 33) were enrolled. Dyspepsia symptom score and duration of symptoms were balanced at entry between both groups. Eight and seven patients in nortriptyline and placebo groups were lost to follow up. Seven patients withdrew due to mild adverse events (nortriptyline 1 and placebo 6). Overall, 19 with nortriptyline and 20 with placebo completed the study. Patients receiving nortriptyline did not achieve higher response rate than those in placebo in both intention-to-treat (53.6% vs 57.6%, P = 0.75) and per-protocol (76.5% vs 73.7%, P = 1.00) analyses. Nortriptyline did not provide improvement in quality of life. The mean difference was 3.8 (P = 0.36) and 0.88 (P = 0.86) by intention-to-treat and 2.9 (P = 0.57) and 3.5 (P = 0.57) by per-protocol analyses in physical and mental component, respectively. All adverse events were minor and similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Nortriptyline was not superior to placebo in management of patients with FD.

A Model Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Routine Genotyping for CYP2D6 among Older, Depressed Inpatients Starting Nortriptyline Pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Genotyping for CYP2D6 has the potential to predict differences in metabolism of nortriptyline. This information could optimize pharmacotherapy. We determined the costs and effects of routine genotyping for old aged Dutch depressed inpatients. METHODS: With a decision-tree, we modelled the first 12 weeks of nortriptyline therapy. Direct costs of genotyping, hospitalization, therapeutic drug monitoring and drugs were included. Based on genotype, patients could be correctly, sub-, or supratherapeutically dosed. Improvement from sub- or supratherapeutically dosed patients to correctly dosed patients was simulated, assuming that genotyping would prevent under- or overdosing of patients. In the base case, this improvement was assumed to be 35%. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to determine uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the base case analysis, costs for genotyping were assumed €200 per test with a corresponding ICER at €1 333 000 per QALY. To reach a €50 000 per QALY cut-off, genotyping costs should be decreased towards €40 per test. At genotyping test costs < €35 per test, genotyping was dominant. At test costs of €17 per test there was a 95% probability that genotyping was cost-effective at €50 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: CYP2D6 genotyping was not cost-effective at current genotyping costs at a €50 000 per QALY threshold, however at test costs below €40, genotyping could be costs-effective.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is one of the most common mental disorders in children and adolescents. However, whether to use pharmacological interventions in this population and which drug should be preferred are still matters of controversy. Consequently, we aimed to compare and rank antidepressants and placebo for major depressive disorder in young people. METHODS: We did a network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LiLACS, regulatory agencies' websites, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind randomised controlled trials up to May 31, 2015, for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. We included trials of amitriptyline, citalopram, clomipramine, desipramine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, imipramine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of less than ten patients were excluded. We extracted the relevant information from the published reports with a predefined data extraction sheet, and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and tolerability (discontinuations due to adverse events). We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the random-effects model and then did a random-effects network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework. We assessed the quality of evidence contributing to each network estimate using the GRADE framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015016023. FINDINGS: We deemed 34 trials eligible, including 5260 participants and 14 antidepressant treatments. The quality of evidence was rated as very low in most comparisons. For efficacy, only fluoxetine was statistically significantly more effective than placebo (standardised mean difference -0·51, 95% credible interval [CrI] -0·99 to -0·03). In terms of tolerability, fluoxetine was also better than duloxetine (odds ratio [OR] 0·31, 95% CrI 0·13 to 0·95) and imipramine (0·23, 0·04 to 0·78). Patients given imipramine, venlafaxine, and duloxetine had more discontinuations due to adverse events than did those given placebo (5·49, 1·96 to 20·86; 3·19, 1·01 to 18·70; and 2·80, 1·20 to 9·42, respectively). In terms of heterogeneity, the global I(2) values were 33·21% for efficacy and 0% for tolerability. INTERPRETATION: When considering the risk-benefit profile of antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder, these drugs do not seem to offer a clear advantage for children and adolescents. Fluoxetine is probably the best option to consider when a pharmacological treatment is indicated. FUNDING: National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program).