Oral Manifestations of Psychotropic Drugs on the Oral Cavity: Observational Study.

AIM: This study aims to detect the prevalence of oral manifestations in patients with psychiatric disorders on psychotropic medications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 46 patients above the age of 18 years who have been diagnosed with psychiatric illness and under psychotropic medications were included in this study. Thorough case history and oral findings were recorded. Patients with already existing systemic illness and other oral manifestations were excluded from this study. RESULTS: Out of 46 patients, 34 patients presented with oral manifestations such as xerostomia, sialorrhea, geographic tongue, candidiasis, and burning mouth syndrome, secondary to the use of psychotropic medications. The oral manifestations were significantly higher in the patients under antipsychotics (80.0%), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (66.7%), antiepileptics (55.6%), antidepressants (44.4%), benzodiazepine (44.4%), and tricyclic antidepressants (13.7%). CONCLUSION: The commonly used psychotropic medications to treat patients with psychiatric illnesses such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, tricyclic antidepressants, antidepressants, and benzodiazepines exhibited several oral manifestations. However, long-term use of these medications seems to cause oral changes. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Awareness among psychiatrists about oral changes associated with the use of psychotropic medication will assist them to make necessary modifications in the prescriptions. Dental practitioners will be able to recognize these changes early in the course of the condition and provide appropriate treatment.

Antidepressants for insomnia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia disorder is a subjective condition of unsatisfactory sleep (e.g. sleep onset, maintenance, early waking, impairment of daytime functioning). Insomnia disorder impairs quality of life and is associated with an increased risk of physical and mental health problems including anxiety, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and increased health service use. hypnotic medications (e.g. benzodiazepines and 'Z' drugs) are licensed for sleep promotion, but can induce tolerance and dependence, although many people remain on long-term treatment. Antidepressant use for insomnia is widespread, but none is licensed for insomnia and the evidence for their efficacy is unclear. This use of unlicensed medications may be driven by concern over longer-term use of hypnotics and the limited availability of psychological treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of antidepressants for insomnia in adults. SEARCH METHODS: This review incorporated the results of searches to July 2015 conducted on electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1950 to 2015), Embase (1980 to 2015) and PsycINFO (1806 to 2015). We updated the searches to December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated into the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults (aged 18 years or older) with a primary diagnosis of insomnia and all participant types including people with comorbidities. Any antidepressant as monotherapy at any dose whether compared with placebo, other medications for insomnia (e.g. benzodiazepines and 'Z' drugs), a different antidepressant, waiting list control or treatment as usual. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and extracted data using a data extraction form. A third review author resolved disagreements on inclusion or data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 23 RCTs (2806 participants).Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo: three studies (135 participants) compared SSRIs with placebo. Combining results was not possible. Two paroxetine studies showed significant improvements in subjective sleep measures at six (60 participants, P = 0.03) and 12 weeks (27 participants, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the fluoxetine study (low quality evidence).There were either no adverse events or they were not reported (very low quality evidence).Tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) compared with placebo: six studies (812 participants) compared TCA with placebo; five used doxepin and one used trimipramine. We found no studies of amitriptyline. Four studies (518 participants) could be pooled, showing a moderate improvement in subjective sleep quality over placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.21) (moderate quality evidence). Moderate quality evidence suggested that TCAs possibly improved sleep efficiency (mean difference (MD) 6.29 percentage points, 95% CI 3.17 to 9.41; 4 studies; 510 participants) and increased sleep time (MD 22.88 minutes, 95% CI 13.17 to 32.59; 4 studies; 510 participants). There may have been little or no impact on sleep latency (MD -4.27 minutes, 95% CI -9.01 to 0.48; 4 studies; 510 participants).There may have been little or no difference in adverse events between TCAs and placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 6 studies; 812 participants) (low quality evidence).'Other' antidepressants with placebo: eight studies compared other antidepressants with placebo (one used mianserin and seven used trazodone). Three studies (370 participants) of trazodone could be pooled, indicating a moderate improvement in subjective sleep outcomes over placebo (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.02). Two studies of trazodone measured polysomnography and found little or no difference in sleep efficiency (MD 1.38 percentage points, 95% CI -2.87 to 5.63; 169 participants) (low quality evidence).There was low quality evidence from two studies of more adverse effects with trazodone than placebo (i.e. morning grogginess, increased dry mouth and thirst). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified relatively few, mostly small studies with short-term follow-up and design limitations. The effects of SSRIs compared with placebo are uncertain with too few studies to draw clear conclusions. There may be a small improvement in sleep quality with short-term use of low-dose doxepin and trazodone compared with placebo. The tolerability and safety of antidepressants for insomnia is uncertain due to limited reporting of adverse events. There was no evidence for amitriptyline (despite common use in clinical practice) or for long-term antidepressant use for insomnia. High-quality trials of antidepressants for insomnia are needed.

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.

Equivalency of tricyclic antidepressants in open-label neuropathic pain study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare adverse effects, tolerability and efficacy of the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) amitriptyline and nortriptyline in management of neuropathic pain due to peripheral neuropathy (PN). MATERIALS & METHODS: We performed a prospective open-label flexible-dosing comparison of monotherapy or adjuvant therapy using amitriptyline or nortriptyline in PN-associated neuropathic pain. Primary outcomes were quantitative adverse effects and discontinuation rates. Secondary outcomes assessed changes in pain severity, quality of life, disability, sleep efficacy, mood and anxiety, and global improvement. Assessments occurred at 3 and 6 months after initiation. Our hypothesis was that nortriptyline would have better tolerance than amitriptyline. RESULTS: A total of 228 PN patients were enrolled approximately equally for monotherapy and adjuvant therapy. Adverse effects and discontinuation rates were similar between amitriptyline and nortriptyline interventions. Weight gain was more common with amitriptyline, while nortriptyline use was associated with greater prevalence of dry mouth. Secondary outcome measures were similar in both groups, demonstrating improvement from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Amitriptyline and nortriptyline are equivalent for overall adverse effects and discontinuation rates. Either TCA should be equally considered for use in neuropathic pain due to PN. When used as monotherapy or as part of adjuvant therapy, either TCA can be expected to provide approximately 23-26% visual analog scale pain reduction if tolerated. Discontinuations due to inefficacy or adverse effects can be anticipated in 26-37% of patients initiated on either TCA for PN-associated neuropathic pain.

Tricyclic drugs for depression in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to identify effective and safe treatments for depression in children and adolescents. While tricyclic drugs are effective in treating depression in adults, individual studies involving children and adolescents have been equivocal. Prescribing of tricyclic drugs for depression in children and adolescents is now uncommon, but an accurate estimate of their efficacy is helpful as a comparator for other drug treatments for depression in this age group. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000 and updated in 2002, 2006 and 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of tricyclic drugs compared with placebo for depression in children and adolescents and to determine whether there are differential responses to tricyclic drugs between child and adolescent patient populations. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a search of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 12 April 2013), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (all years), EMBASE (1974-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1967-). The bibliographies of previously published reviews and papers describing original research were cross-checked. We contacted authors of relevant abstracts in conference proceedings of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and we handsearched the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1978 to 1999). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of orally administered tricyclic drugs with placebo in depressed people aged 6 to 18 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One of two review authors selected the trials, assessed their quality, and extracted trial and outcome data. A second review author assessed quality and checked accuracy of extracted data. Most studies reported multiple outcome measures including depression scales and clinical global impression scales. For each study, we took the best available depression measure as the index measure of depression outcome. We established predetermined criteria to assist in the ranking of measures. Where study authors reported categorical outcomes, we calculated individual and pooled risk ratios for non-improvement in treated compared with control subjects. For continuous outcomes, we calculated pooled effect sizes as the number of standard deviations by which the change in depression scores for the treatment group exceeded those for the control group. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen trials (590 participants) were included. No overall difference was found for the primary outcome of response to treatment compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.26; 9 trials, N = 454). There was a small reduction in depression symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.32, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.04; 13 trials, N = 533), but the evidence was of low quality. Subgroup analyses suggested a small reduction in depression symptoms among adolescents (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.007), and negligible change among children (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.64). Treatment with a tricyclic antidepressant caused more vertigo (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.73 to 4.43; 5 trials, N = 324), orthostatic hypotension (RR 4.86, 95% CI 1.69 to 13.97; 5 trials, N = 324), tremor (RR 5.43, 95% CI 1.64 to 17.98; 4 trials, N = 308) and dry mouth (RR 3.35, 95% CI 1.98 to 5.64; 5 trials, N = 324) than did placebo, but no differences were found for other possible adverse effects. Wide CIs and the probability of selective reporting mean that there was very low-quality evidence for adverse events.There was heterogeneity across the studies in the age of participants, treatment setting, tricyclic drug administered and outcome measures. Statistical heterogeneity was identified for reduction in depressive symptoms, but not for rates of remission or response. As such, the findings from analyses of pooled data should be interpreted with caution.We judged none of these trials to be at low risk of bias, with limited information about many aspects of risk of bias, high dropout rates, and issues regarding measurement instruments and the clinical usefulness of outcomes, which were often variously defined across trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest tricyclic drugs are not useful in treating depression in children. There is marginal evidence to support the use of tricyclic drugs in the treatment of depression in adolescents.

Microflora of the oral cavity in patients with xerostomia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the dependence of the condition of the microflora of the oral cavity on the etiology of xerostomia, patients' sex, age, degree of hyposalivation, and duration of the sense of dryness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 64 patients with complaints of oral dryness referred to the Clinic of Oral and Dental Diseases, Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, for consultation during the period from 2003 to 2005 were selected for the study. The etiological factors of xerostomia were as follows: radiotherapy (PRT) to the maxillofacial area, Sjögren's syndrome (SS), and xerogenic medications, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). RESULTS: There were 50 women and 14 men. Their mean age was 60.5 ± 1.6 years. All the patients in the PRT group had high counts of Candida spp. as compared with percentages of patients in the TCA and SS groups (100% vs. 66.7% and 56.2%, P<0.05). Patients' age and sex in different etiology groups had no significant impact on the condition of their oral microflora. There were equal percentages of patients with deficient and normal salivation in the TCA group (44% in both the groups; P<0.01). All the patients in the PRT group had pronounced hyposalivation (P<0.002). A significantly greater percentage of patients with severely reduced salivation had high counts of Lactobacillus spp. (P<0.01). Significantly greater percentages of patients with the clinical duration of xerostomia of up to 6 months had high counts of Lactobacillus spp. and Candida spp. colonies. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with xerostomia, the condition of the microflora of the oral cavity and impairment of major salivary gland function varied according to the etiology of the disease. The level of hyposalivation and the duration of xerostomia were found to have a significant impact on the microflora of the oral cavity.

Drug interactions with local anaesthetic preparations used by primary care dental practitioners.

UNLABELLED: A number of drug interactions that may potentially occur with local anaesthetic preparations are listed in the British National Formulary (BNF) and Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPC). Many are theoretical or are associated with higher doses of local anaesthetic preparations than those used for dental procedures in primary care. Reports of serious interactions between medicines and local anaesthetic preparations occurring in dental practice are exceedingly rare. Practitioners can minimize the risk of interactions by using an aspirating syringe, which reduces the likelihood of the local anaesthetic being administered directly into a blood vessel. Adhering to the dosage recommendations in the product literature will also minimize the risk. This paper will explore the clinical significance of potential interactions between dental local anaesthetic preparations used in primary care and other medicines as listed in the BNF and SmPCs.These are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A knowledge of potential drug interactions with local anaesthetic preparations is essential for clinicians.

Not all side effects associated with tricyclic antidepressant therapy are true side effects.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders treated with tricyclic antidepressants sometimes report nongastrointestinal symptoms; it is unclear whether these are drug side effects or reflect a behavioral tendency to report symptoms. We evaluated whether symptoms reported before treatment with a tricyclic antidepressant (desipramine) increased in number or worsened in severity after 2 weeks of treatment and assessed the baseline factors that predispose patients to report symptoms. METHODS: Female patients in a multicenter National Institutes of Health trial for functional bowel disorders completed a 15-item symptom questionnaire at baseline (before randomization), 2 weeks after they were given desipramine (n = 81) or placebo (n = 40), and at study completion (12 weeks). Patients were asked about the severity and frequency of 15 symptoms. Results were analyzed from 57 patients given desipramine who completed the questionnaires. RESULTS: Symptoms reported as side effects to have occurred more frequently and also worsened at week 2 in the group given desipramine included dizziness, dry mouth/thirstiness, lightheadedness, jittery feelings/tremors, and flushing. Symptoms that did not change in severity or showed improvement at week 2 in the group given desipramine included morning tiredness, nausea, blurred vision, headaches, appetite reduction, and trouble sleeping. Psychologic distress but not desipramine blood level correlated with symptom reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Most symptoms often attributed to side effects of desipramine were present before treatment; only a few, related to anticholinergic effects, worsened 2 weeks after treatment, suggesting that most so-called side effects were not associated specifically with desipramine use. Such symptoms might instead be associated with psychologic distress.

Efficacy, tolerability, and preference of mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablets in depressed patients: a 17-week naturalistic study in Lithuania.

Mirtazapine is an established antidepressant with well-documented efficacy demonstrated in controlled clinical trials. However, the gap between the results obtained in controlled clinical trials and everyday clinical practice exists. Therefore, the importance of naturalistic studies in psychiatry is becoming recognized. The aim of present naturalistic study was to acquire data on efficacy, safety, and preference of mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablets during a 17-week treatment of depression. This prospective, open-label, multicenter study in patients with mild to severe depression was conducted at 47 mental health centers of Lithuania by 78 psychiatrists. Patients were initially given 15 mg or 30 mg of mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablets; the maximum allowed dose was 45 mg per day. The primary efficacy measure was the total score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HAMD-17), the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S), and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scales. Tolerability was primarily measured by assessing the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Patients were evaluated at baseline, at weeks 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17. A total of 779 patients (595 women [76.4%] with a mean [SD] age of 50.2 [13.65] and 184 men [23.6%] with a mean [SD] age of 52.4 [14.6] years) were enrolled into the study; 687 (88.2%) patients completed the study. The mean (SD) daily dose of mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablets was 29.0 (3.8) mg. The mean total (SD) HAMD-17 score improved significantly from 25.7 (4.6) to 7.3 (4.3) (P<0.005). At each visit, the mean HAMD-17 score was significantly lower than that at the preceding visit. At week 17, remission (HAMD-17 score < or =7) was observed in 436 (56%) patients. The mean (SD) CGI-S score improved significantly from 4.9 (1.0) at baseline to 1.5 (0.6) at endpoint (P<0.001). According to the CGI-I assessments, 621 patients (89.4%) improved and improved very much. The vast majority of patients (80%) preferred the new formulation of mirtazapine - mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablet. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 106 patients (13.6%). The most frequent adverse events were weight gain, sedation, dizziness, and dry mouth. In this study conducted in Lithuania with depressed patients, a significant improvement was shown in all efficacy measures. In addition, mirtazapine orally disintegrating tablet was a well-tolerated and preferable formulation for the treatment of depressed patients.

Low-dose imipramine for refractory functional dyspepsia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend the use of neuromodulators in patients with functional dyspepsia not responding to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and prokinetics; however, there is a lack of data from randomised controlled trials supporting their use. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of imipramine, a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA), in treatment-refractory functional dyspepsia. METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled consecutive patients with Rome II functional dyspepsia aged 18-80 years. Eligible patients were Helicobacter pylori-negative, had a normal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and abdominal ultrasound, and remained symptomatic after open-label treatment with 8 weeks of esomeprazole and 4 weeks of domperidone. Patients completed questionnaires assessing dyspepsia symptoms, mood, and insomnia, and were then randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated list of random numbers to receive imipramine (at a dose of 25 mg once nightly for the first 2 weeks, and then 50 mg thereafter) or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall satisfactory relief of global dyspepsia symptoms at 12 weeks, via patient-reported assessment in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00164775, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2005, and Aug 20, 2010, 107 patients with treatment-refractory functional dyspepsia were randomly assigned to receive imipramine (n=55) or placebo (n=52). Relief of global dyspepsia symptoms at 12 weeks occurred in 35 (63·6%, 95% CI 50·4-75·1) of 55 patients on imipramine compared with 19 (36·5%, 95% CI 24·8-50·1) of 52 on placebo (p=0·0051). Ten (18%) patients on imipramine discontinued the study due to adverse events (three dry mouth, two constipation, two drowsiness, and one each insomnia, palpitations, and blurred vision), compared with four (8%) on placebo (one dry mouth and constipation, and one each palpitations, worsening of gastro-oesophageal reflux, and limb paraesthesia). There were no serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Low-dose imipramine should be considered as a possible therapy for patients with functional dyspepsia refractory to both PPIs and prokinetics, although patients should be cautioned about the adverse event profile. FUNDING: None.

Assessment of adverse events in clinical drug trials: Identifying amitriptyline's placebo- and baseline-controlled side effects.

Adverse events in clinical drug trials are often poorly assessed and reported. The absence of baseline assessment and structured symptom lists, as well as the fact that most drug trials are industry-sponsored are common sources of bias. In addition, adverse events are usually assessed in patient samples, which can bias results because of the misattribution of symptoms that are part of the illness to medication intake. We aimed to identify amitriptyline's placebo- and baseline-controlled side effects by examining a sample of healthy adults, using structured assessments via a symptom list. Forty healthy individuals were randomized equally to either a group taking 50 mg amitriptyline on four consecutive days or to a placebo control group. Complaints were assessed via the Generic Assessment of Side Effects Scale prior to and after four days of medication intake. Frequency of complaints and their intensity were compared after medication intake between the two groups while controlling for complaints at baseline. The amitriptyline group's participants reported having suffered from "dry mouth," "dizziness," "subjective blood circulation-associated problems," and "constipation" significantly more often. When taking into account the complaint's intensity, the amitriptyline group also reported higher intensities for "dry mouth," "dizziness," and "subjective blood circulation-associated problems." Our results emphasize the importance of a structured and well-controlled harm assessment. Future drug trials should report the placebo- and baseline-controlled side effects with a clear causal relationship to the intake of the drug under investigation, in addition to the frequency of complaints and their odds ratios. (PsycINFO Database Record

A comparison of medication side effect reports by panic disorder patients with and without concomitant cognitive behavior therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The authors assessed whether adding cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) to imipramine for patients with panic disorder decreased the severity of side effects and dropouts from side effects. METHOD: Data were analyzed for 172 panic disorder patients who were randomly assigned to receive imipramine alone, imipramine plus CBT, or placebo. Mixed-effects models were used to assess longitudinal differences among the treatment groups with respect to side effect burden and dropout rates during the acute, maintenance, and follow-up phases of treatment. RESULTS: Patients treated with imipramine plus CBT experienced less severe fatigue/weakness, dry mouth, and sweating and had a lower rate of dropout due to side effects compared with those treated with imipramine only. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of CBT to medication treatment with imipramine was associated with less severe side effects and fewer dropouts due to perceived side effects than treatment with imipramine alone.

Desipramine inhibits Na+/H+ exchanger in human submandibular cells.

A common and significant side-effect of the antidepressant desipramine is xerostomia (dry mouth). We investigated the effect of desipramine on Na(+)/H(+) exchanger, which is an important modulator of salivary secretion. In dissociated human submandibular acinar cells, desipramine inhibited intracellular pH recovery in a concentration-dependent manner. Likewise, 5-(N-ethyl-N-isopropyl)amiloride (EIPA), a Na(+)/H(+) exchanger inhibitor, had the same effect as desipramine, whereas the effect of 4,4'-diisothiocyanostilbene-2,2'-disulphonic acid (DIDS), a Na(+)/HCO(3)(-) co-transporter inhibitor, was not dramatic. Although desipramine is known to inhibit catecholamine re-uptake, desipramine also inhibited pH recovery in the human submandibular gland cell line, HSG cells, which lack nerve inputs. Our results suggest that desipramine directly inhibits Na(+)/H(+) exchange in human submandibular glands without the involvement of catecholamine re-uptake, revealing the cellular mechanism of desipramine-evoked xerostomia.

A randomized trial of nortriptyline for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation rates with current therapy are suboptimal. One class of drugs that may improve cessation is the tricyclics. OBJECTIVE: To add nortriptyline hydrochloride to a behavioral smoking cessation program to enhance cessation rates and reduce withdrawal symptoms. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at an affiliated Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and an Army Medical Center. Subjects were aged 18 through 70 years, smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day, and were without current major depression. Nortriptyline hydrochloride or matched placebo was started at 25 mg before bed 10 days prior to quit day and titrated to 75 mg/d or to the maximal tolerated dose. The behavioral intervention consisted of 2 group sessions and 12 individual follow-up visits. Withdrawal symptoms were measured using a daily diary, and smoking cessation was defined as self-reported abstinence, expired carbon monoxide of 9 ppm or less, and a 6-month urine cotinine level of less than 50 ng/mL. RESULTS: A total of 214 patients were randomized (108 to nortriptyline and 106 to placebo). There was a significant reduction in several withdrawal symptoms including anxious/tense, anger/irritability, difficulty concentrating, restlessness, and impatience by day 8 after quit day in the nortriptyline group. The cessation rate at 6 months was 15 (14%) of 108 and 3 (3%) of 106, respectively (P = .003; absolute difference, 11%; 95% confidence interval, -18% to -4%). Nortriptyline caused frequent adverse effects, including dry mouth (64%) and dysgeusia (20%). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that nortriptyline led to an increased short-term cessation rate compared with placebo. In addition, there were significant, but relatively small, reductions in withdrawal symptoms. Nortriptyline may represent a new therapeutic approach to smoking cessation.

Exploring the role of drug-metabolising enzymes in antidepressant side effects.

RATIONALE: Cytochrome P450 enzymes are important in the metabolism of antidepressants. The highly polymorphic nature of these enzymes has been linked to variability in antidepressant metabolism rates, leading to hope regarding the use of P450 genotyping to guide treatment. However, evidence that P450 genotypic differences underlie the variation in treatment outcomes is inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: We explored the links between both P450 genotype and serum concentrations of antidepressant with antidepressant side effects, using data from the Genome-Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression Project (GENDEP), which is a large (n = 868), pharmacogenetic study of depressed individuals treated with escitalopram or nortriptyline. METHODS: Patients were genotyped for the enzymes CYP2C19 and CYP2D6, and serum concentrations of both antidepressant and primary metabolite were measured after 8 weeks of treatment. Side effects were assessed weekly. We investigated associations between P450 genotypes, serum concentrations of antidepressants and side effects, as well as the relationship between P450 genotype and study discontinuation. RESULTS: P450 genotype did not predict total side effect burden (nortriptyline: n = 251, p = 0.5638, ß = -0.133, standard error (SE) = 0.229; escitalopram: n = 340, p = 0.9627, ß = -0.004, SE = 0.085), study discontinuation (nortriptyline n = 284, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.300, p = 0.174; escitalopram n = 376, HR = 0.870, p = 0.118) or specific side effects. Serum concentrations of antidepressant were only related to a minority of the specific side effects measured: dry mouth, dizziness and diarrhoea. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample where antidepressant dosage is titrated using clinical judgement, P450 genotypes do not explain differences between patients in side effects with antidepressants. Serum drug concentrations appear to only explain variability in the occurrence of a minority of specific side effects.

Combination of morphine with nortriptyline for neuropathic pain.

First-line neuropathic pain drugs, including tricyclic antidepressants, are not always effective, and opioids have been recommended as second line. This trial evaluates a nortriptyline-morphine combination, compared with each monotherapy. In this randomized, double-blind crossover trial, patients with neuropathic pain were enrolled at 1 site between January 25, 2010, and May 22, 2014, and randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio using a balanced Latin square design to receive oral nortriptyline, morphine, and their combination. During each of three 6-week periods, doses were titrated toward maximal tolerated dose (MTD). The primary outcome was average daily pain at MTD, and secondary outcomes included other pain, mood and quality of life measures, and adverse effects. Sixty-two patients were screened, 52 enrolled, and 39 completed at least 2 treatment periods. Average daily pain (0-10) at baseline was 5.3 and at MTD was 2.6 for combination vs 3.1 for nortriptyline (P = 0.046) and 3.4 for morphine (P = 0.002). Brief Pain Inventory scores for average and present pain were also significantly lower for combination vs each monotherapy. Combination treatment resulted in moderate-severe constipation in 43% vs 46% with morphine (P = 0.82) and 5% with nortriptyline (P < 0.0001). Combination treatment resulted in moderate-severe dry mouth in 58% vs 49% with nortriptyline (P = 0.84) and 13% with morphine (P < 0.0001). This trial suggests superior efficacy of a nortriptyline-morphine combination over either monotherapy with constipation, dry mouth, and somnolence as the most frequent adverse effects.

Phase III evaluation of nortriptyline for alleviation of symptoms of cis-platinum-induced peripheral neuropathy.

Tricyclic antidepressants have been reported to relieve the paresthesiae associated with peripheral neuropathies of many etiologies. We designed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial to establish the efficacy of nortriptyline in the treatment of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum (CDDP)-induced paresthesiae. The study included 51 evaluable patients with CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy and painful paresthesiae. The study consisted of two 4 week phases, separated by a 1 week 'wash-out' period, in which patients received escalating dosages of either placebo or nortriptyline. The target maximum dose of nortriptyline was 100 mg/day. Each patient filled out pre-randomization and then weekly questionnaires assessing paresthesiae severity, hours of sleep, quality of life, and adverse effects over the 9 week study. No significant differences in paresthesia were observed in the first treatment period between nortriptyline and placebo (means of 49 and 55 respectively on a 0-100 point scale, P=0.78). Although some evidence of a modest effect in favor of nortriptyline was observed during the second treatment period (about one patient in five got a 10-point reduction in pain from drug above placebo effect), this occurred in the presence of a strong carryover effect. Linear models analysis and Bayes methods confirmed that the effect of nortriptyline on paresthesia was modest at best. Hours of sleep increased in the nortriptyline phase (P=0.02). There was no significant difference in measures of quality of life and the effect of paresthesiae on patients' daily activities between nortriptyline and placebo. There was no major toxicity associated with nortriptyline, but dry mouth, dizziness, and constipation were more common with nortriptyline. In summary, nortriptyline failed to demonstrate strong evidence of any effect on paresthesia or pain. The presence of a potential effect which appeared in the second period of the crossover design is questionable due to the observed carryover effect. Cross-validation sensitivity analysis of results support the conclusion that nortriptyline provides modest improvement at best over placebo in terms of chemotherapy-related neuropathy.

Rampant dental caries in the treatment of depression.

Dental Caries are an uncommon, but significant side effect of the tricyclic antidepressants and other anticholinergic psychoactive drugs. The authors trace the etiological aspects of this syndrome including the effects of depression and antidepressant medication on salivary properties. A typical clinical presentation of the syndrome is described and the side effect profiles of the various tricyclic antidepressants are compared. With this clinical background guidelines for the management of dry mouth are presented, emphasizing the importance of technical skill, safety and continuity of care.

Clinical efficacy of reboxetine in major depression.

The past decade has witnessed the advent of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as first-line treatments for major depression. Still, there is considerable debate as to whether these agents are as effective or as potent as the first-generation tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) or the mixed reuptake inhibitor, venlafaxine, all of which exert considerable effect on norepinephrine (NE) reuptake. Recently, reboxetine, a selective NE reuptake inhibitor (selective NRI), has been introduced in Europe. This drug has only a minimal affinity for muscarinic acetylcholine receptors and therefore causes less dry mouth, constipation, or other such effects than do the TCAs. Reboxetine does not block serotonin reuptake or alpha1 receptors and, thus, does not appear to produce significant nausea, diarrhea, or hypotension. Unlike other antidepressants, reboxetine appears to be nonsedating. Data on acute and long-term clinical efficacy and safety from double-blind, placebo-controlled, and active comparator studies with reboxetine are reviewed. These studies indicate that reboxetine is significantly more effective than placebo and as effective as fluoxetine in reducing depressive symptoms. Improvements in social adjustments were reported to be more favorable with reboxetine than with fluoxetine. Further, data from controlled clinical trials have shown that the side effect profile for reboxetine is relatively benign. The clinical implications of studies on reboxetine are discussed with an eye toward understanding the potential role NE reuptake blockers may play in the treatment of patients with major depression.

A double-blind comparison of Org 3770, amitriptyline, and placebo in major depression.

BACKGROUND: A 6-week, double-blind, dose titration study was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety of the new antidepressant Org 3770 in comparison with amitriptyline and placebo. METHOD: One hundred fifty outpatients of both sexes, 18 years and older, with a DSM-III diagnosis of major depressive episode, were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of treatment with Org 3770, amitriptyline, or placebo. RESULTS: At baseline, mean 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) scores of all treatment groups were higher than 25, thus indicating that a large proportion of severely depressed patients entered the study. The overall mean daily doses were 22 mg/day for Org 3770, 133 mg/day for amitriptyline, and 4.9 capsules/day for placebo. The majority of times assessments were made, both active drugs produced significantly greater improvements than placebo on all efficacy variables (17-item HAM-D, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions, and Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale). After 6 weeks of treatment, significantly greater (p < or = .05) proportions of patients in both active treatment groups (70% in the Org 3770- and 58% in the amitriptyline-treatment groups) than in the placebo-treatment group (33%) were HAM-D responders. Org 3770 was well tolerated in this study; dry mouth and somnolence were the only adverse experiences that occurred significantly more frequently with Org 3770- than with placebo-treated patients. By contrast, treatment with amitriptyline was related to significantly higher rates of dry mouth, constipation, and dyspepsia as compared with both Org 3770 and placebo, and significantly higher rates of somnolence as compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: In this study, Org 3770 was as effective as amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression, with advantages regarding improvements of depressed mood (HAM-D Item 1), responder rates, and safety.