Neuroendocrine effects of buspirone in patients with generalized anxiety disorder.

This study investigated a therapeutic regimen of buspirone, a new anxioselective drug, in patients with generalized anxiety disorder. The single-blind study, conducted in 23 outpatients, consisted of 28 days of buspirone treatment followed by four days of placebo treatment. Patients received a single 10-mg dose of buspirone on study day one, which was titrated to 10 mg three times daily by study day seven and which remained at 10 mg three times daily through study day 28. Blood samples were drawn on days one, 14, 28, and 32 for determination of plasma levels of prolactin, growth hormone, and cortisol. The therapeutic effect of buspirone was assessed by standard psychometric rating scales. When titrated to a total daily dose of 30 mg per day (10 mg three times daily), buspirone provided effective antianxiety therapy and had no significant effect on plasma levels of prolactin, growth hormone, or cortisol.

Double-blind comparison of buspirone and clorazepate in anxious outpatients.

Buspirone, a new nonbenzodiazepine anxiolytic agent, was compared with clorazepate in a double-blind, multicenter trial conducted with 336 outpatients who had moderate to severe anxiety. The two treatments were equally effective for relief of symptoms, including anxiety with associated depression. Although both agents were generally well tolerated, the profile of side effects was dissimilar. Drowsiness and depression occurred significantly (p less than 0.055) more frequently with clorazepate, whereas nausea and headache occurred significantly (p less than 0.055) more frequently with buspirone. Clorazepate-treated patients were significantly (p less than 0.055) more likely to have had an adverse experience that was considered drug related or that interfered with the therapeutic effect. In this study, buspirone was shown to be an effective antianxiety agent, causing significantly less sedation than clorazepate.

Triazolam treatment of insomnia in depressed patients taking tricyclics.

A double-blind crossover study in 53 psychiatric outpatients compared the safety and efficacy of triazolam and placebo in relieving insomnia refractory to treatment with a tricyclic antidepressant. Patients with a depressive disorder who had been taking a TCA for at least 6 weeks received triazolam or placebo for 4 days, neither medication for 1 day, and the alternative treatment for 4 days. The antidepressant regimen was maintained throughout the study. Sleep measurements showed triazolam to be consistently more effective than placebo in promoting and maintaining sleep and enabling the patient to awaken feeling rested. No worsening in depression or anxiety was seen with either triazolam or placebo; some measures indicated improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on triazolam. One patient on triazolam dropped out because of side effects. The most common side effect was mild to moderate drowsiness.

Multicenter double-blind efficacy and safety study comparing alprazolam, diazepam and placebo in clinically anxious patients.

Both alprazolam and diazepam were superior to placebo for the treatment of the clinical anxiety syndrome throughout a four-week double-blind multiclinic trial in 976 outpatients. At the fourth-week evaluation of the 845 patients completing the study, the 326 patients receiving alprazolam showed significantly more improvement than the 344 patients receiving diazepam on all 4 anxiety rating scales utilized (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Physician's Global Assessment, Patient's Global Assessment, and Target Symptoms).

Double-blind crossover comparison of triazolam and lorazepam in the posthypnotic state.

A double-blind crossover study compared the hypnotic effect, daytime carryover, and safety of triazolam 0.5 mg, lorazepam 2 mg, and placebo. The two active drugs were similar in hypnotic effect and superior to placebo. Patients reported more drowsiness upon awakening and more sleepiness in mid-morning and mid-afternoon after nights on lorazepam than nights on triazolam or placebo. The most common side effects--drowsiness, lightheadedness, restlessness, impaired coordination, dizziness, and nausea--were reported three times as often with lorazepam than with triazolam or placebo.

Low-sedation potential of buspirone compared with alprazolam and lorazepam in the treatment of anxious patients: a double-blind study.

Buspirone was compared to alprazolam and lorazepam in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder in a 4-week, double-blind study of 60 patients. All three medications were effective and similar in producing significant reductions in anxiety as assessed by standardized anxiety rating scales and by global evaluations of patients by physicians. There were significant differences in drowsiness, lethargy, and/or fatigue: fewer patients in the buspirone group than in the alprazolam group (16% vs. 60%, respectively; p less than .01) or the lorazepam group (16% vs. 65%, respectively; p less than .0003) experienced these undesirable side effects. This demonstration of similar effectiveness and superior safety would favor buspirone in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

Double-blind comparative trials of fluoxetine and doxepin in geriatric patients with major depressive disorder.

Fluoxetine was compared to doxepin in geriatric out-patients with major depressive illness. At the end of the 6-week double-blind study, the mean endpoint scores for all rating scales were significantly improved over base-line in both treatment groups. A subsequent 48-week open-label study supported the finding that both drugs are efficacious for maintenance therapy in elderly depressed patients. Fluoxetine, which lacks anticholinergic effects and is nonsedating, was well-tolerated by most patients and had fewer total side effects than doxepin. Common drug-related side effects for fluoxetine included nervousness/anxiety and nausea. Common side effects of doxepin were dry mouth, drowsiness/sedation, constipation, and dizziness/lightheadedness.

A comparison of fluoxetine, imipramine, and placebo in patients with major depressive disorder.

The efficacy and safety of fluoxetine were compared with those of imipramine and of placebo in a 6-week randomized double-blind parallel study of patients with major depressive illness. Mean values for all efficacy measurements were improved over baseline with fluoxetine and imipramine treatment (p less than .001). More fluoxetine patients completed the study than did imipramine or placebo patients. Predominant adverse experiences reported by imipramine patients were dry mouth and dizziness/lightheadedness. Predominant adverse experiences reported by fluoxetine patients were drowsiness/sedation and excessive sweating. In a subsequent 48-week open-label study, the predominant adverse experience in the fluoxetine group was excessive sweating and in the imipramine group was still dry mouth. In this study, fluoxetine relieved the symptoms of major depressive illness effectively and significantly better than placebo and was better tolerated than imipramine.

Paroxetine in major depression: a double-blind trial with imipramine and placebo.

Paroxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor which is being developed as an antidepressant. Previous studies suggest it is effective in the treatment of depression and has a low incidence of side effects. The authors report on a 6-week, randomized, prospective trial of paroxetine, imipramine, and placebo in 120 outpatients with major depression. The results showed that paroxetine was significantly superior to placebo in relieving depression. There were no significant differences in antidepressant efficacy between paroxetine and imipramine. However, paroxetine was also significantly superior to placebo on several measures of anxiety. Imipramine either was not superior on these measures or took longer to show a significant difference. Paroxetine lacked the typical anticholinergic side effects that accompanied imipramine therapy. The results show that paroxetine is an effective antidepressant that may have value especially when depression is accompanied by significant anxiety.

Comparison of the effects of bupropion and amitriptyline on cardiac conduction in depressed patients.

Tricyclic antidepressants may prolong cardiac conduction as a result of their direct cellular membrane depressant effects. These effects can be evaluated by careful quantitative assessment of the electrocardiogram (ECG). This study compared the ECG effects of bupropion and amitriptyline at therapeutically comparable doses. No significant changes were seen with bupropion in any of the ECG parameters measured (PR interval, QRS duration, QTc interval, and QRS height). Amitriptyline, however, caused a significant prolongation in PR interval (p less than .01) and QRS duration (p less than .05), as well as a decrease in QRS height (p less than .001). These results suggest that bupropion is less likely to cause cardiac conduction abnormalities in patients prone to such problems, or in those patients who overdose.

A two-center double-blind study of nomifensine, imipramine, and placebo in depressed geriatric outpatients.

Both nomifensine and imipramine were superior to placebo in a 4-week double-blind study involving 63 geriatric patients (greater than 60 years) with primary affective disorder-depression. Significant improvement in the active drug groups was demonstrated on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and Hopkins Symptom Check List. Analysis of laboratory and physical examination data, including ECGs, revealed no clinically significant changes associated with either drug. Compared to the imipramine group, nomifensine-treated patients showed a more rapid rate of improvement and a lower incidence of discomforting side effects.

Adinazolam mesylate and placebo in depressed outpatients: a 6-week, double-blind comparison.

In 72 outpatients with DSM-III major depressive episode, adinazolam was superior to placebo in all measurements. Significantly more adinazolam-treated subjects (N = 36) than placebo subjects (N = 36) completed the study (67% vs. 19%), were rated "much" or "very much" improved (78% vs. 19%), and had a "moderate" or "marked" therapeutic effect of the drug (67% vs. 19%). The total Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score decreased by 50% or more in 61% of the adinazolam group and in 17% of the placebo group; 72% of the adinazolam group reported that they felt "moderately," "much," or "very much" improved compared with 17% of the placebo group. The adinazolam group reported significantly more drowsiness and lightheadedness, dizziness, or faintness; the severity of these side effects decreased with time. No significant anticholinergic effects were observed.

Double-blind, multicenter comparison of sertraline and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients.

Two hundred forty-one elderly depressed patients entered the 8-week, double-blind phase of this parallel-group, multicenter study; 161 patients were randomized to receive sertraline (50-200 mg/day) and 80 were randomized to receive amitriptyline (50-150 mg/day). Among evaluable patients, there were no statistically significant differences between treatments in any of the primary efficacy variables: change in total Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score (17 items), percentage change in HAM-D score, change in HAM-D Item 1, change in Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Severity score, change in the Depression Factor of the 56-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist, and the CGI Improvement score at the last visit. Similar results were obtained using data from all patients (intention-to-treat analysis), except that amitriptyline was superior in HAM-D Total score (p = .044). The two drugs produced a similar degree of response: on the basis of the HAM-D criterion, 69.4% of sertraline patients and 62.5% of amitriptyline patients responded, and, on the basis of CGI criterion, 79.5% of sertraline and 73.4% of amitriptyline patients responded. Twenty-eight percent of the sertraline patients withdrew from the study because of a treatment-related side effect and 2.5% (4) because of a laboratory abnormality. In comparison, 35% of the amitriptyline patients withdrew because of treatment-related side effects. Sertraline was associated with a statistically lower frequency of somnolence, dry mouth, constipation, ataxia, and pain and a higher frequency of nausea, anorexia, diarrhea/loose stools, and insomnia; thus, anticholinergic effects were less common and gastrointestinal effects were more common with sertraline than with amitriptyline.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Two combined, multicenter double-blind studies of paroxetine and doxepin in geriatric patients with major depression.

Depressive illness among the elderly is an important public health concern. However, treatment of the elderly may be complicated by age-related changes in physiology, general medical status, and susceptibility to side effects. There is therefore a need for improved treatment modalities for depressed elderly patients. Paroxetine is an antidepressant that acts through selective inhibition of serotonin reuptake. It lacks the anticholinergic and cardiovascular side effects of most first- and second-generation antidepressants. The authors present the combined data from two similarly designed comparisons of paroxetine and doxepin in outpatients over 60 years of age with major depression. The results show that paroxetine was an effective as doxepin in alleviating depression as measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) total score, the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL) depression factor score. Paroxetine was significantly superior to doxepin on the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale for severity of illness, the HAM-D retardation factor, and the HAM-D depressed mood item. Doxepin produced significantly more anticholinergic effects, sedation, and confusion. Paroxetine was associated with more reports of nausea and headache. These results suggest that paroxetine may be a valuable tool for the treatment of major depression in the elderly.

Hypnotic efficacy of estazolam compared with flurazepam in outpatients with insomnia.

Estazolam is a new benzodiazepine hypnotic agent with an intermediate half-life of 12 to 15 hours. The authors designed an investigation to compare its hypnotic efficacy to that of flurazepam, generally considered the reference standard. The hypnotic efficacy of estazolam at two doses (1 mg and 2 mg) was compared with that of flurazepam (30 mg) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, 7-night study that involved 223 outpatients with insomnia. On subjective assessments of the patients, no differences were noted between estazolam 2 mg and flurazepam 30 mg on any of six sleep parameters. Patients who were receiving estazolam 1 mg rated their sleep significantly better than did patients who were receiving placebo on all parameters except sleep latency. Global evaluation of the physicians indicated significant improvement in quality of sleep, sleep depth, sleep duration, and nocturnal awakenings in all three active treatment groups; estazolam 2 mg and flurazepam also decreased sleep latency significantly. The percentage of patients who reported any adverse experience was 68% for flurazepam, 58% for estazolam 2 mg, and 54% for estazolam 1 mg; the incidence of adverse events in the placebo group was 43%. In conclusion, estazolam 2 mg was found to be as effective a hypnotic as flurazepam 30 mg. Estazolam 1 mg is also effective in the treatment of outpatients with insomnia, but to a lesser degree.

Antidepressant efficacy and cardiac safety of trimipramine in patients with mild heart disease.

The antidepressant efficacy and cardiac safety of trimipramine were evaluated in 22 depressed patients with mild heart disease (New York Heart Association class I, II, or III) who received doses of 50 to 200 mg/day for 28 days. Efficacy was evidenced by a significant decrease from baseline in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores. The only significant change from baseline in electrocardiographic, Holter monitor, myocardial function, or vital sign evaluations was a transient prolongation of the mean QRS interval. None of the adverse reactions involved the cardiovascular system. The results demonstrate that trimipramine is effective in the treatment of depression and is not likely to produce serious or harmful cardiovascular side effects in patients with mild heart disease.

Development of an "early" detection battery for dementia of the Alzheimer type.

1. To develop a diagnostic battery sensitive to and specific for the early detection of Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia, the authors reviewed over 400 journal articles dealing with the diagnosis of A.D. or senile dementia and cognitive assessment in organic brain dysfunction and closed head injury. 2. We culled those studies that met our criteria for solid, reliable and statistically significant results and recommend the testing paradigms that most often produced good discrimination of mild AD dementia from normal senescence. 3. These include tests of language, verbal and non-verbal memory, perception, praxis, attention and reasoning. 4. The battery we assembled takes less than 1 hour to administer, requires no special equipment, and was designed as an early screen for use by psychologists, psychiatrists and other trained health care professionals; it is not intended for repeated administration, as in pharmacological or longitudinal studies.

A fixed-dose study of adinazolam-SR tablets in generalized anxiety disorder.

1. This four-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of adinazolam-SR, at three dosage levels, with placebo. Forty (40) patients were randomized at our site: 10 to adinazolam 30 mg/day, 10 to 60 mg/day, 10 to 90 mg/day, and 10 to placebo. All patients were moderately anxious with Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) scores of > or = 21 at baseline. 2. The data were analyzed by pooling the three adinazolam groups and comparing them with the placebo group using t-tests. HAM-A scores decreased significantly more in the pooled adinazolam-SR treatment group than in the placebo group at both Week one (p < .02) and at Week two (p < .01), as well as at endpoint (p < .03). 3. At endpoint the adinazolam-treated group included 8 "responders" (> or = 50% reduction on the baseline HAM-A score) while none of the placebo patients were responders (p < .05). Dose-response effects were evaluated and relationships were not statistically significant. 4. The results indicate that adinazolam-SR was clearly superior to placebo for the treatment of patients suffering from Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

A pooled, double-blind comparison of the effects of buspirone, diazepam and placebo in women with chronic anxiety.

Pooled data were analyzed for 367 female patients enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre trial comparing buspirone, a non-benzodiazepine anxiolytic, and diazepam in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. After a 4 to 7-day wash-out period, patients were allocated at random to receive one or other of the trial medications or placebo over a 4-week period. Mean daily dosages were 24.5 mg for buspirone and 20.8 mg for diazepam (range 10 mg to 60 mg for both drugs). Patients were assessed on entry and at weekly intervals using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, and at the end of treatment both patients and physicians gave an overall opinion of response to treatment. Details of adverse events were also recorded. The results showed that both buspirone and diazepam were approximately equal in efficacy and superior to placebo. Menstruation and the occurrence of premenstrual tension did not alter the anxiolytic activity of either drug. Patients taking diazepam had significantly more adverse effects, i.e. drowsiness, weakness, fatigue, inco-ordination and depression, than did those in the buspirone group. In a separate commentary, the anxiety disorder and the data from the study are reviewed to place them in the overall perspective of gynaecological care.

Long-term comparison of alprazolam, lorazepam and placebo in patients with an anxiety disorder.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 200 patients with moderate to moderately severe anxiety we compared the anxiolytic efficacy and safety of alprazolam and lorazepam. Dosing was flexible and ranged from 1 to 4.5 mg/day of alprazolam and from 2 to 9 mg/day of lorazepam. The mean daily dose at the end of the 16 week study was alprazolam 3.3 mg and lorazepam 5.1 mg. Both active drugs were significantly more effective than placebo in relieving the symptoms of anxiety on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, with a trend toward more improvement in the alprazolam group in the later weeks of the study. Target Symptoms, Physician's and Patient's Global Impressions and the Self Rating Symptom Scale indicate that alprazolam and lorazepam were superior to placebo. The major side effects were sedation and drowsiness; the frequency was similar for alprazolam and lorazepam and twice as high for active drug as placebo. An overall rating of side effect severity was not significantly different among the three groups.