Mirtazapine versus amitriptyline in the long-term treatment of depression: a double-blind placebo-controlled study.

Of 580 patients randomly assigned to short-term, double-blind treatment with either mirtazapine, amitriptyline or placebo, a total of 217 patients clinically judged to be responders subsequently continued on the same medication for up to 2 years in the long-term treatment study (mirtazapine, n = 74; amitriptyline, n = 86 and placebo, n = 57). The efficacy of mirtazapine in relapse prevention was seen in an analysis of the first 20 weeks data. Significantly fewer patients relapsed during treatment with mirtazapine compared with placebo (p < 0.05), and a significantly longer time to relapse was shown on the survival analysis. There was a significant advantage for amitriptyline compared with placebo in the first 20 weeks, with fewer patients relapsing. There was a significant advantage for mirtazapine compared with amitriptyline at 20 weeks seen on the survival analysis (p < 0.05). The significant advantage for mirtazapine compared with placebo was also seen in the prophylactic phase of treatment after 20 weeks. At the endpoint there were significantly more patients in the placebo group with a return of symptoms and significantly fewer showing sustained response. Amitriptyline was better than placebo with fewer patients suffering a recurrence of symptoms, but there was no difference from placebo in the proportion of patients with sustained response. Mirtazapine was well tolerated with a side-effect profile similar to that of placebo. The only adverse event reported significantly more frequently on mirtazapine than on placebo was weight gain. Objectively measured weight gain was more frequent with amitriptyline (22% of patients) compared with mirtazapine (13% of patients). Amitriptyline was associated with significantly more adverse events than either mirtazapine or placebo, in particular sedative and anticholinergic side effects. The efficacy of mirtazapine in reducing the risk of relapse and the recurrence of depression, which on some measures showed an advantage compared with amitriptyline, coupled with its improved side-effect profile, commends this antidepressant for the long-term treatment of depression.

Pharmacological treatment of severely depressed patients: a meta-analysis comparing efficacy of mirtazapine and amitriptyline.

Efficacy data were available from 405 severely depressed patients (baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-HAMD scores > or = 25) participating in randomized, double-blind, amitriptyline-controlled studies of mirtazapine. Main efficacy variable were changes from baseline in the group mean 17-item HAMD scores and responder rates. Secondary efficacy variables were changes in depressed mood item on the HAMD and in factors derived from the 17-item HAMD scale. Treatment with either mirtazapine or amitriptyline resulted in robust reductions of baseline HAMD scores and in similar and high percentages of responders. Both drugs produced favourable effects on depressed mood and on symptoms commonly associated with depression, such as anxiety, sleep and vegetative disturbances. There were neither statistically significant nor clinically relevant differences between mirtazapine and amitriptyline at any assessment point nor at endpoint. The results demonstrate that the new antidepressant mirtazapine and the tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline are equally effective in the treatment of severely depressed patients.

Meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, efficacy and safety studies of mirtazapine versus amitriptyline in major depression.

A meta-analysis was performed on efficacy and safety data from 4 randomized, double-blind, 6-week, single-center studies comparing mirtazapine (n = 194; 5-35 mg/day) with amitriptyline (n = 193, 40-280 mg/day) and placebo (n = 193) in outpatients with a DSM-III diagnosis of major depressive episode. On all the main efficacy variables both active drugs consistently produced significantly greater improvements and significantly greater percentages of responders or remitters than placebo. The meta-analysis of adverse events shows that mirtazapine was better tolerated than amitriptyline, particularly with respect to anticholinergic and cardiac adverse events. There were no differences between mirtazapine and placebo regarding the incidence of serotonergic adverse events. In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that mirtazapine is as effective as amitriptyline but has a better tolerability profile.

Pharmacological treatment of depression in cancer patients. A placebo-controlled study of mianserin.

BACKGROUND: Depression has a reported mean prevalence of 24% in patients diagnosed with cancer. However, little systematic research on the efficacy of antidepressants in patients with cancer has been performed. METHOD: The efficacy and safety of mianserin were studied in 55 depressed women with breast cancer (stage I or II and without known metastases), in a randomised, double-blind, six-week, placebo-controlled study. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in the decrease in score from baseline on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the number of responders, favouring mianserin, were present after 28 and 42 days of treatment. Significantly more placebo-treated patients prematurely terminated the study due to lack of efficacy while the safety profile of mianserin was similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with mianserin resulted in a significant improvement in depressive symptoms in cancer patients, and was well tolerated.

A double-blind study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and doxepin in patients with major depression.

One hundred and sixty-three patients with major depression were randomly assigned to treatment with mirtazapine or doxepin for 6 weeks in a double-blind clinical trial. Initially, patients received mirtazapine 20 mg/day or doxepin 75 mg/day; dosages were then titrated up to a maximum of 60 mg/day and 300 mg/day, respectively. Both drugs produced considerable improvement in depressive symptoms with no statistically significant differences between the two patient groups. In the mirtazapine group only two patients prematurely terminated the study due to adverse drug experiences, as compared to six in the doxepin-treated group. Moreover, doxepin-treated patients complained more frequently of dry mouth and movement disorders. In conclusion, mirtazapine is an effective treatment for major depression and appears to offer advantages in tolerability over doxepin.