No abstract

A multicenter study compared the antidepressant efficacy and the tolerance of two doses of milnacipran (50 mg and 100 mg/day) and amitriptyline (150 mg/day) in three parallel groups of 45 major depressive inpatients defined by Research Diagnostic Criteria. After a wash-out period of 4-7 days on placebo with lorazepam and/or nitrazepam if necessary, patients were randomly assigned to a daily dose of milnacipran 50 mg, milnacipran 100 mg or amitriptyline 150 mg reached on the 5th day and then stable over a 4-week period, with weekly assessments by means of the Montgomery and Asberg depression scale, the Hamilton depression scale, the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) and the Target Emergent Signs and Symptoms. Results showed significant superiority of both milnacipran 100 mg/day and amitriptyline over milnacipran 50 mg/day at the end of the treatment period. However, amitriptyline induced a nonsignificant trend toward more rapid improvement after 2 weeks of treatment, mainly based on items related to insomnia, supporting more sedative properties of amitriptyline as compared to milnacipran. Anticholinergic side-effects were significantly lower with milnacipran than with amitriptyline, explaining why milnacipran 100 mg exhibited at the end of the treatment period, a nonsignificantly better efficacy index on the CGI. Moreover, in contrast to milnacipran, amitriptyline was responsible for a significant decrease in blood pressure and a significant weight gain.

The efficacy and the tolerance of milnacipran (100 mg/day), a second generation antidepressant which equipotently inhibits both noradrenaline and serotonin reuptake, was compared to fluoxetine (20 mg/day), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, in two parallel groups of, respectively, 97 and 93 major depressive outpatients. The duration of the study was 6 weeks, with assessments every 2 weeks by means of the Montgomery and Asberg depression scale (MADRS), the Hamilton depression scale, the clinical global impressions (CGI), and a checklist of symptoms and side-effects. Results showed significant superiority of fluoxetine over milnacipran on most rating instruments: MADRS (P = 0.01) including five individual items, Hamilton depression scale (P = 0.002) including ten individual items, CGI of severity (P = 0.01) and therapeutical index (P = 0.002). On visual analogue scales assessing the clinical profile of the compounds, fluoxetine was rated as exhibiting more psychostimulating activity than milnacipran (P = 0.0008). The tolerance of the two antidepressants was very similar, with the exception of symptoms of dizziness which were more frequently reported with milnacipran (P = 0.01). These differences in efficacy favoring fluoxetine could result from the selection of a dose of milnacipran below the optimal therapeutic dose for this type of psychiatric patients or to the administration of the compounds in single daily intakes, whereas milnacipran possesses a plasma elimination half-life of only 7 h.

A multicentre study compared the antidepressant efficacy and the tolerance of milnacipran (200 mg/d) and amitriptyline (1 50 mg/d) in two parallel groups of 43 major depressive inpatients, endogenous subtype, as defined by Research Diagnostic Criteria. The duration of the study was 4 weeks, with weekly assessments by means of the Montgomery and Asberg depression scale (MADS), the Hamilton depression scale, the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) and a checklist of symptoms and side-effects. Results showed similar improvement in both groups but better tolerance with milnacipran (less drowsiness and anticholinergic side-effects), reflected in the better scores on the therapeutic index of the CGI. The clinical profile of the two drugs was somewhat different with more transitory sedation with amitriptyline and more improvement in concentration difficulties with milnacipran during the first weeks of the study associated with more effect on retardation with milnacipran at the end of the study.

Nefazodone, a phenylpiperazine antidepressant, exhibits novel dual activity on serotonin (5-HT) neurons; it binds to 5-HT2 receptors and inhibits 5-HT reuptake. Flexible doses of nefazodone (100-400 mg/day) and amitriptyline (50-200 mg/day) were compared in 106 major depressive inpatients in a 6-week double-blind study. Results showed significant superiority of amitriptyline over nefazodone on all rating instruments: Montgomery and Asberg depression rating scale (P < 0.0001), Hamilton depression scale (P < 0.0006), Clinical Global Impressions (P < 0.0001) and Patient Global Assessment (P < 0.01). A total of 65% of patients under amitriptyline and 56% of patients under nefazodone reported adverse events during the study, with significantly more dry mouth in the amitriptyline group (39% versus 11%, P = 0.001). Modal daily doses within the last treatment week reached 242 mg with nefazodone and 124 mg with amitriptyline. The lower efficacy of nefazodone, which contradicts comparative trials with imipramine in US patients, is discussed with regard to the dose of nefazodone, probably below the optimal therapeutic range for melancholic patients, and to the clinical differences between the patient samples.